- Thread starter
- #1
jontaejones
Well-Known Member
If we're really gonna do this super team thing, why have a farce of a salary cap, right?
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
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?
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?
Second level teams are what makes up most of the league now. And most have been in purgatory the entire time anyway.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.
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).
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
No cap equals...
Lakers Embiid C, LeBron George F, Curry, Kyrie Irving
Milwaukee Manure Bol, George Miresan, Mitch Kupchak, and me running the point.
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?
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.
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