Getting rid of the salary cap in the NBA

[jontaejones]

If we're really gonna do this super team thing, why have a farce of a salary cap, right?

Thoughts?

 

[jontaejones]

Should the NBA have a salary cap?

 

[Shanemansj13]

This could either be a great idea or be a terrible idea. I dont know what I think of it honestly

 

[LogicMan]

if your in Boston, New York, Chicago or LA you love this idea. If your not, then this idea leaves second level teams in purgatory.

 

[trojanfan12]

I've always been against a cap, or at least a cap the way the NBA does it.

Under the current system, there are far too many loopholes.

Either go uncapped and let the market bear what the market will bear.

Or, go with a hardcap where there are no loopholes.

I lean towards no cap. There is no cap on how much profit the owners can make, so why should there be a cap on how much a player gets paid?

 

[shopson67]

I've always been against a cap, or at least a cap the way the NBA does it.

Under the current system, there are far too many loopholes.

Either go uncapped and let the market bear what the market will bear.

Or, go with a hardcap where there are no loopholes.

I lean towards no cap. There is no cap on how much profit the owners can make, so why should there be a cap on how much a player gets paid?

Revenue is essentially a 50/50 split. The cap goes up accordingly with any TV money increases. I think the cap is probably in a good spot now, if a bit too high. Most teams aren't accumulating talent with this cap space, just overpaying less worthy players.

I think James' statement is ridiculous, especially coming from the vice president of the PA that negotiated the current rules. No player has ever made what Curry is now making, but it's only half of what he's worth? If he were to be actually paid $80M per, he wouldn't be worth it because you wouldn't be able to build a championship team around that contract under the cap rules. If Curry took $80M from a smaller market team and they could only build a borderline playoff team around him with the remaining $20M, is that worth the investment? How much money is enough to play a sport?

Some sort of cap HAS to exist, unless you want to turn this into a 10 team league with everyone else going out of business (or becoming content to be the NBA equivalent of the Washington Generals).

 

[msgkings322]

I've always been against a cap, or at least a cap the way the NBA does it.

Under the current system, there are far too many loopholes.

Either go uncapped and let the market bear what the market will bear.

Or, go with a hardcap where there are no loopholes.

I lean towards no cap. There is no cap on how much profit the owners can make, so why should there be a cap on how much a player gets paid?

The why is competitive balance. Because so few players are needed to be great, without a cap the same 5 teams would have superteams forever

 

[tlance]

I would like to see a couple tweaks to the current system.

First thing, there should be no max contracts for players once they reach unrestricted free agency. Max contracts should remain in place for players who hit RFA after their rookie deal expires.

Second, I like the luxury tax system as it currently stands with the escalating penalties. What I would like to see is the eliminating of the "cap". That number should not prevent teams from sigining additional players, but the further they go over their number, the more they have to pay.

These two systems would make superteams possible, but much more expensive. Would the Warriors be able to afford KD and Curry if they both commanded 80-100 million per year? Eliminating max deals would likely force teams to build around 1 superstar rather than combining multiples. KD was willing to take a few million less from GS, but would he take a $50 million a year deal from GS if another suitor was offering twice that?

If a team were willing and able to spend $600 million on salary + tax, then let them do it. But, I don't think many would. At least not for long.

 

[broncosmitty]

if your in Boston, New York, Chicago or LA you love this idea. If your not, then this idea leaves second level teams in purgatory.

Second level teams are what makes up most of the league now. And most have been in purgatory the entire time anyway.


Over a third of the franchises have never won a title as it is. Their odds wouldn't go down because of a switch. The only way they have a chance now is hitting the lotto in a year with a with a transcendent talent. And you have to be in the bottom chunk of mediocre for that to happen anyway.

But too many teams would lose money on account of their own lack of control. That's really the only drawback imo. There is no competitive balance in the NBA. One player, or several players, have too much impact for that to happen.

 

[trojanfan12]

I think James' statement is ridiculous, especially coming from the vice president of the PA that negotiated the current rules. No player has ever made what Curry is now making, but it's only half of what he's worth? If he were to be actually paid $80M per, he wouldn't be worth it because you wouldn't be able to build a championship team around that contract under the cap rules. If Curry took $80M from a smaller market team and they could only build a borderline playoff team around him with the remaining $20M, is that worth the investment? How much money is enough to play a sport?

It's actually one of the few things Lebron has ever said that I agree with. The mega star players are underpaid while the average players are overpaid.

How much money is enough to play a sport? The same amount that is enough to do anything...as much as you can get for it.

Some sort of cap HAS to exist, unless you want to turn this into a 10 team league with everyone else going out of business (or becoming content to be the NBA equivalent of the Washington Generals).

It won;t become a 10 team league. However, it may become a league with teams almost exclusively in larger cities. I'd rather have that than a bunch of teams that have to be kept afloat by welfare payments from the more financially successful teams.

 

[thunderc]

The best performers will never do as well in a union as they would in a free market, just the way it is. Unions cause half ass workers to get more than they should, as we are seeing with these signings ever single day.

 

[trojanfan12]

The why is competitive balance. Because so few players are needed to be great, without a cap the same 5 teams would have superteams forever

The same 5 teams already always have. The NBA has never had parity or competitive balance. Something like half (or close to it) of all of the titles have been won by 2 teams.

Even now, with more traditionally small market teams on top, there are only 3-4 teams with any shot at a title.

As to the bold, so players staying with their teams for then entire careers is a bad thing now?

 

[PhoenixEagles1]

No cap equals...

Lakers Embiid C, LeBron George F, Curry, Kyrie Irving

Milwaukee Manure Bol, George Miresan, Mitch Kupchak, and me running the point.

 

[trojanfan12]

No cap equals...

Lakers Embiid C, LeBron George F, Curry, Kyrie Irving

Milwaukee Manure Bol, George Miresan, Mitch Kupchak, and me running the point.

Not seeing the problem here.

 

[msgkings322]

The same 5 teams already always have. The NBA has never had parity or competitive balance. Something like half (or close to it) of all of the titles have been won by 2 teams.

Even now, with more traditionally small market teams on top, there are only 3-4 teams with any shot at a title.

As to the bold, so players staying with their teams for then entire careers is a bad thing now?

I meant that the same 5 teams would draft some guys that stay forever and sign away all the good players on the other teams. But it would be the exact same 5. No turnover.

 

[PhoenixEagles1]

if your in Boston, New York, Chicago or LA you love this idea. If your not, then this idea leaves second level teams in purgatory.

Scratch Boston from that list. The 3 mega markets would be NY, Chicago and LA. Then a distant next would be Philly, Boston and Dallas. No cap would mean 25 straight years of LA vs NY

 

[RobToxin]

I don't think any sports should have a salary cap.

#Capitalism

 

[tducey]

To me, they have to do a hard cap. No more of these super teams. That could generate more interest in the NBA and lessen the predictability.

 

[The Q]

The why is competitive balance. Because so few players are needed to be great, without a cap the same 5 teams would have superteams forever

LOL, dude, no.

It's simply a way to artificially deflate labor costs.

Don't be part of the uneducated masses.

The owners use it cause fans aren't smart enough to realize it.

It's the same reason you have an NBA draft rather than letting players pick their own employer like every other profession in america.

 

[The Q]

Fun fact.

Baseball has FAR more parity than any other sport, yet has no salary cap.