Is it time to Hard Cap NBA Teams?

[tykendo]

Would a hard cap make the NBA more competitive like the NFL. Where teams in Green Bay, Kansas City, Denver, & Tampa Bay thrive . The Lakers & Nets are treating the cap, & Ooooh, so scary, Luxary Tax like a joke. If the Hard Cap was 140 mil., Both teams would have to cut major talent to fit within the cap. Teams like Portland & Denver would still have about 6 mil. to burn to reach that hard cap . Just saying. Really hard to compete at an even playing field when big markets can just laugh at the tax bill.

 

[Fairly-Hard]

Yep!
MLB also.

 

[illmatic99]

No, i'm of the exact opposite mindset. I think they need to get rid of both the draft and the salary cap altogether.

 

[tykendo]

Yep!
MLB also.

Baseball does have an advantage from it's Minor League systems. So Teams like the A's , Royal', & Rays can stock pile so many draft picks in their systems, they're bound to hit some home runs on occasion. And be competitive. Only to become the talent resource of Big Market Teams like the Yankees & Dodgers. But agree on Hard Capping MLB as well. IT would be much more fun to see all the teams at say 160 mil. No More Yankees & Dodgers over 200.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I'd rather knee cap teams like the Lakers and Nets. Anyone have Tonya Harding's number?

 

[tykendo]

No, i'm of the exact opposite mindset. I think they need to get rid of both the draft and the salary cap altogether.

How would small market teams thrive with that?

 

[tykendo]

I'd rather knee cap teams like the Lakers and Nets. Anyone have Tonya Harding

 

[illmatic99]

How would small market teams thrive with that?

If you want to win, you spend. If someone like Paul Allen wanted to pay Lebron 100 mil to play, he should be allowed to. It's no worse than having all the teams in different markets play by the same rules like it is now.

What about if a rich owner in any market wanted to throw 50 mil/yr for the number 1 prospect? Let them do it.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

No.
Just make it a rule that renounced vets can't sign teams for less than $10 mil/year. This way, team can't sign countless vets for vet min.

This would cause a lot less buyouts, and a lot less superteams.

 

[THE HCP]

If you want to win, you spend. If someone like Paul Allen wanted to pay Lebron 100 mil to play, he should be allowed to. It's no worse than having all the teams in different markets play by the same rules like it is now.

What about if a rich owner in any market wanted to throw 50 mil/yr for the number 1 prospect? Let them do it.

The league would fold within 5 years if this happened.

 

[tykendo]

No.
Just make it a rule that renounced vets can't sign teams for less than $10 mil/year. This way, team can't sign countless vets for vet min.

This would cause a lot less buyouts, and a lot less superteams.

But some of those vets aren't worth 10 mil. And that rule would prevent some of them from getting a new team at all.

 

[THE HCP]

Would a hard cap make the NBA more competitive like the NFL. Where teams in Green Bay, Kansas City, Denver, & Tampa Bay thrive . The Lakers & Nets are treating the cap, & Ooooh, so scary, Luxary Tax like a joke. If the Hard Cap was 140 mil., Both teams would have to cut major talent to fit within the cap. Teams like Portland & Denver would still have about 6 mil. to burn to reach that hard cap . Just saying. Really hard to compete at an even playing field when big markets can just laugh at the tax bill.

I know the basics, but I have no clue how the cap works, even having it broken down by team guys multiple times…… curious why there ISN’T a cap.

 

[Minstrel]

No.
Just make it a rule that renounced vets can't sign teams for less than $10 mil/year. This way, team can't sign countless vets for vet min.

This would cause a lot less buyouts, and a lot less superteams.

That would fuck over players who deserve to be in the NBA, but can't necessarily command $10M+ per year.

I agree that salary caps, maximum contracts and luxury taxes should just be removed. Yes, you could argue that that makes it harder for smaller markets, but that's not entirely clear--a small market with a wealthy and passionate owner (like Paul Allen) might actually do better if they can offer more than a "max" or can go over some spending limits. When everyone is capped and can't realistically go over a certain amount for a player, the players choose by other factors, like market size, night life, weather, etc. That's going to favor the LAs, Miamis, New Yorks, etc.

 

[illmatic99]

The league would fold within 5 years if this happened.

Why? If your owner doesn't want to pay, your team will lose. So naturally, spending would increase and the market would eventually land on the right valuation and naturally adjust to market differences, etc. It would be a lot more organic than the artificial cap in place now.

There is a reason why inherently... free market economics works. Obviously, this isn't 100% parallel to a scenario like the NBA, but the merits are there.

(ugh, as a staunch believer in leftist thinking, I can't believe even I think like this)

 

[SharpesTriumph]

The current soft cap and luxury has turned into a system where a couple teams have a chance at a title with enormous spending. Its stupid and I agree should be changed.

One solution would be a hard cap, I'd prefer that to what teams currently have. Change max contracts to 45% of the cap; so there is no more "big 3"... even a "big 2" means the rest of the roster is basically vet minimums.

Raise the vet minimum and don't count any minimums on the cap. Its stupid when teams currently become hard capped and cant even sign minimum guys.


Another solution is go back to having a salary cap with a simple "larry bird exception" that only allows teams to exceed the cap to resign their own players. Classify "own players" as having played 5 seasons with the team, that benefit doesn't carry over in trades. That way teams won't lose an all star player such as Larry Bird. But teams over the cap cant add salary in a trade nor sign MLE guys nor do sign and trades, etc.

Then players can sign a fat contract with their current team or go to another team that has salary cap space (and thus not stacked roster).

 

[Minstrel]

The league would fold within 5 years if this happened.

Somehow, every other industry manages to survive without salary caps.

What you mean to say is that owners would make less money and they'd be upset, though still profitable.

 

[tykendo]

Why? If your owner doesn't want to pay, your team will lose. So naturally, spending would increase and the market would eventually land on the right valuation and naturally adjust to market differences, etc. It would be a lot more organic than the artificial cap in place now.

There is a reason why inherently... free market economics works. Obviously, this isn't 100% parallel to a scenario like the NBA, but the merits are there.

(ugh, as a staunch believe in leftist thinking, I can't believe even I think like this)

And in free markets, people get priced out. Small markets like Portland would get priced out. Not every team has the ability to spend recklessly.

 

[illmatic99]

And in free markets, people get priced out. Small markets like Portland would get priced out. Not every team has the ability to spend recklessly.

They wouldn't get priced out, they would simply make lesser profits. Which should be price of winning.

 

[tykendo]

Somehow, every other industry manages to survive without salary caps.

What you mean to say is that owners would make less money and they'd be upset, though still profitable.

You can't compare most industries with the Entertainment World ( Movies, Music, Sports).

 

[Tince]

I believe max deals for players and salary caps are hurting the smaller market teams (in general), which is the opposite of the stated goal.

You have a ton of "max players" that are not of equal skill and value. If a team had to pay LBJ or KD what they were truly worth, that would make it much harder for them to fill out a roster.

Also, under the current setup, once the teams with cap space spend their money, again, you're left with the better teams usually getting the best MLE and TPMLE guys, only widening the inbalance, not leveling the playing field.

 

[Minstrel]

You can't compare most industries with the Entertainment World ( Movies, Music, Sports).

Why not? You think movie studios aren't profitable, since they don't have salary caps or max contracts?

 

[tykendo]

They wouldn't get priced out, they would simply make lesser profits. Which should be price of winning.

A hard cap forces the teams to make better personnel decisions. You can't just throw money at it to fix the problem.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I think a hard cap would work if the split of revenue between players and owners was 60/40.

Players get the 60.

 

[tykendo]

Why not? You think movie studios aren't profitable, since they don't have salary caps or max contracts?

Industry does cap itself internally. They will say, hey this position is only worth 17 per. hour. Take it or leave it. Entertainment allows for negotiations. Because the talent is rare.

 

[illmatic99]

A hard cap forces the teams to make better personnel decisions. You can't just throw money at it to fix the problem.

You mean like all the slick maneuvering LA just did to land 5 rotation guys on the minimum because they wanted to be in.... LA? I think this notion is just flawed.

Just put yourself in the shoes of someone like Malik Monk and Kendrick Nunn, who are in reality worth around 15 mil/yr. Capspace had dried up in the league and the only $ available was the TP MLE which is around 5-6 mil/yr. So their thinking is that they can take the minimum for a year in LA (~2 mil/yr) and then with the exposure they get because they play in LA, they can land a larger deal later (didn't work out great for Harrell/Schroeder, but regardless).

Now imagine if a cap didn't exist and another team desperate for a guard threw 15 mil at one of these guys. The difference would be much greater for these guys to dismiss and take less. And would LA outbid that number to sign an 8th man? The market would naturally adjust itself.

 

[Minstrel]

Industry does cap itself internally. They will say, hey this position is only worth 17 per. hour. Take it or leave it.

Every industry does that. Some just at higher rates than $17/hour.

Entertainment allows for negotiations. Because the talent is rare.

Yes, but they still cap it at what they believe the actor is worth. Just like they "cap" the $17/hour worker. In a capitalistic society, every worker is capped at what their employer believes their value is to making them money. Sports didn't always have salary caps (even in the free agency period) and the sport didn't go under. Salary caps were just inventions by owners to earn them more money at the expense of players.

 

[Tince]

A hard cap forces the teams to make better personnel decisions. You can't just throw money at it to fix the problem.

How close do you think this will be to the final NBA standings?

https://www.spotrac.com/nba/cap/

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Eliminate the cap, but also mandate 100% revenue sharing. Give the small-market teams the ability to benefit from the large-market media deals.

 

[tykendo]

The Lakers & Nets are Wayyyy over the line. A hard cap wouldn't have allowed them to sign those guys, even at those ridiculous low prices those ring chasers settled for. Because they wouldn't be allowed to go over like they did. The Lakers have spent 20 mil, more, and the Nets 40 Mil. more than the Blazers as currently constituted.

 

[tykendo]

Eliminate the cap, but also mandate 100% revenue sharing. Give the small-market teams the ability to benefit from the large-market media deals.

Baseball already does that. The only reason Small Markets contend is each team's Minor League System has so many player that were drafted and signed under their control, they have Wayyy more room for error in judging talent than NBA teams do.