Interesting Cap Idea

[trojanfan12]

Was watching Dan Patrick this morning and he presented an interesting salary cap idea. He was talking about the NFL, but it is something that other professional sports could use.

The idea was that teams would be allowed to designate 1 player that they can pay any amount they want that doesn't count against the cap.

Then the rest of the roster is built within the cap.

I like the idea to a point. Guys like Lebron, etc. never get paid what they are truly worth to a franchise. This would be a way to at least get close.

The one thing I would add is that the cap for the rest of the team is a hard cap.

 

[CitySushi]

Was watching Dan Patrick this morning and he presented an interesting salary cap idea. He was talking about the NFL, but it is something that other professional sports could use.

The idea was that teams would be allowed to designate 1 player that they can pay any amount they want that doesn't count against the cap.

Then the rest of the roster is built within the cap.

I like the idea to a point. Guys like Lebron, etc. never get paid what they are truly worth to a franchise. This would be a way to at least get close.

The one thing I would add is that the cap for the rest of the team is a hard cap.

I like the idea too. The only problem with this is how it affects the CBA and revenue sharing with the players.

 

[shopson67]

Was watching Dan Patrick this morning and he presented an interesting salary cap idea. He was talking about the NFL, but it is something that other professional sports could use.

The idea was that teams would be allowed to designate 1 player that they can pay any amount they want that doesn't count against the cap.

Then the rest of the roster is built within the cap.

I like the idea to a point. Guys like Lebron, etc. never get paid what they are truly worth to a franchise. This would be a way to at least get close.

The one thing I would add is that the cap for the rest of the team is a hard cap.

Would never get by the players association in the NBA. That would mean only a max of 30 players can get that true maximum worth, and likely far less as the small market teams will not be willing to spend that much. Whether there are 30 players or more that deserve that doesn't matter; they all think they do (or think they will someday).

 

[trojanfan12]

Would never get by the players association in the NBA. That would mean only a max of 30 players can get that true maximum worth, and likely far less as the small market teams will not be willing to spend that much. Whether there are 30 players or more that deserve that doesn't matter; they all think they do (or think they will someday).

I think the small market owners would have more of an issue with it than the players.

Although, I don't think it would change the small market owners situation all that much. They would still have to take a mainly build through the draft/develop your own stars approach. The main difference might be that they could stand a better chance of keeping a star player that they developed by designating him as their "uncapped guy".

As it is now, there are only a handful of max/supermax level players under the current cap. So, I'm not sure their situation would change all that much either. They'd know that if they play well enough, they can earn their way to being the "uncapped guy" just like they know they can play their way to being the max/supermax guy now.

 

[HurricaneDij39]

An excellent way to suck up to LeBron and Durant, as if these two aren't spoiled enough as it is. Good job @trojanfan12 .

 

[WiggyRuss]

I like the idea too. The only problem with this is how it affects the CBA and revenue sharing with the players.

yah it would destroy the NBA's middle class that is helped so much by the max-contract.

 

[trojanfan12]

An excellent way to suck up to LeBron and Durant, as if these two aren't spoiled enough as it is. Good job @trojanfan12 .

Hey, wasn't my idea. Take it up with Dan Patrick. lol

 

[shopson67]

I think the small market owners would have more of an issue with it than the players.

Although, I don't think it would change the small market owners situation all that much. They would still have to take a mainly build through the draft/develop your own stars approach. The main difference might be that they could stand a better chance of keeping a star player that they developed by designating him as their "uncapped guy".

As it is now, there are only a handful of max/supermax level players under the current cap. So, I'm not sure their situation would change all that much either. They'd know that if they play well enough, they can earn their way to being the "uncapped guy" just like they know they can play their way to being the max/supermax guy now.

First, we're not talking supermax level (we already have that). We're talking above and beyond. You're capping the number of these "megamaxes" at 1 per team, and actually far less than that, as the small market teams can't and won't pay those salaries above the salary cap. Of course that shouldn't be an issue, as there would never be even 10 players worthy of that pay scale, but you can't "legislate" that, as the players (and people in general) always think they deserve far more than they are getting. It will never be fair to small market teams, so why not collapse the league to 8-12 teams with no salary caps whatsoever?

I would keep things as-is, with the annual tweaking of the numbers as the league gets more profitable.

 

[WiggyRuss]

First, we're not talking supermax level (we already have that). We're talking above and beyond. You're capping the number of these "megamaxes" at 1 per team, and actually far less than that, as the small market teams can't and won't pay those salaries above the salary cap. Of course that shouldn't be an issue, as there would never be even 10 players worthy of that pay scale, but you can't "legislate" that, as the players (and people in general) always think they deserve far more than they are getting. It will never be fair to small market teams, so why not collapse the league to 8-12 teams with no salary caps whatsoever?

I would keep things as-is, with the annual tweaking of the numbers as the league gets more profitable.

market size does matter to a certain extent- but owner wealth is even more important if you ask me. Cleveland is not a big market but has been BY FAR the biggest tax paying team the last few years. A team like the Bulls in a big market like Chicago almost never pay the luxury tax because ownership is adverse to it. While market size does come into it- i think a bigger component is owner wealth/motivation to spend. OKC has the highest payroll in the sport right now and that is prob. the smallest market in the league.

 

[ducky]

No reason for it in the NFL.

The cap is almost completely irrelevant now. Has been for years. If your team is worried about the cap, that is code for the owner is being cheap and nothing more.

Anyone right now saying "this guy was an overpay" or "now that they have to pay their QB, they are screwed cap wise" is 5-10 years behind the times.

The cap explosion combined with the fact that the rookie pools are a SIGNIFICANTLY smaller than they used to be has NFL teams spending what they want not what they can.

If your team doesn't have 10+ players signed to near or above $10M AAV contract right now there are only a couple of reasons:
1) Your team is cheap.
2) Your team is prepping to hand out a huge number of extensions next year to their rookie classes coming due.
3) Your team is stupid.

....and the combo of 1 & 3 is usually the most likely.

 

[ducky]

....shit. I thought this was in the NFL forum not the NBA.

 

[tlance]

yah it would destroy the NBA's middle class that is helped so much by the max-contract.

That would be a positive IMO.

 

[tlance]

First, we're not talking supermax level (we already have that). We're talking above and beyond. You're capping the number of these "megamaxes" at 1 per team, and actually far less than that, as the small market teams can't and won't pay those salaries above the salary cap. Of course that shouldn't be an issue, as there would never be even 10 players worthy of that pay scale, but you can't "legislate" that, as the players (and people in general) always think they deserve far more than they are getting. It will never be fair to small market teams, so why not collapse the league to 8-12 teams with no salary caps whatsoever?

I would keep things as-is, with the annual tweaking of the numbers as the league gets more profitable.

That is precisely why small markets won't want it. It almost insures the mega stars end up in a larger market city.

I like the idea, but it won't ever happen.

 

[tducey]

I've mentioned it as well. To me it's an idea that has merit.

 

[trojanfan12]

market size does matter to a certain extent- but owner wealth is even more important if you ask me.

@shopson67 (tagging you because it's basically the same answer to your post).

See, I tend to agree with this to a point. With the idea that Dan Patrick had, owner wealth could become more important than market size.

Under the current cap, owner wealth doesn't mean a whole lot because there is a set amount that a team can pay it's top player and they can't go over it. The owners wealth only comes into play when determining how far over the cap a team will go and for how long.

But, if a team can have one uncapped player, the owners wealth suddenly becomes much more important.

If, for example, this was in place now, and Gilbert is actually able to simply outbid the bigger market teams by enough, maybe Lebron is still in Cleveland?

One thing that would be really interesting with this would be to see who the Warriors uncapped player was. lol

 

[GhostOfPoverty]

I like the idea to a point. Guys like Lebron, etc. never get paid what they are truly worth to a franchise. This would be a way to at least get close.

I get what you're saying, but... let's compare some 2018 salaries between LeBron and the top paid NFL players:

LeBron, NBA - $35.65 million - Net worth $440 million

#1 - Aaron Rodgers, QB NFL - $33.5 million
#2 - Matt Ryan, QB NFL - $30 million
#3 - Kirk Cousins, QB NFL - $28 million
#4 - Jimmy Garoppolo, QB NFL - $27.5 million

Further down the list in the NFL - #7 Drew Brees QB NFL at $25 million, #12 Ben Roethlisberger at $21.85 million, #16 Tom Brady at $20.5 million.


So, let's analyze those numbers a bit. On one hand, LeBron plays a sport in which there are just 5 players per team on the court at any given time, making each position more important than in football (11 per team on the field) on an average individual level. On the other hand, the NFL is the more popular league and generates more revenue than the NBA, and the QB position is almost unquestionably the single most important position in all of team sports. All that being said, LeBron will be making more money than the top paid overall player and QB of the NFL in Aaron Rodgers by over $2 million in 2018, and will be making a whopping $13 million more than TOM BRADY.

Now I get that considering just the NBA on it's own, mega stars like LeBron are underpaid compared to "good", or outlier star players. But you could say that about a lot of sports, if you think about it. Then consider all of the endorsement deals money a guy like LeBron makes, and I really have zero interest in hearing about how these guys who get paid to throw basketballs into a hoop/throw and catch footballs "don't get paid enough money". There's an endless plethora of people who do more quantifiable good in this world, who will never even sniff making more than a few million bucks over the course of their entire lifetimes. Meanwhile, people are actually debating about how a guy like LeBron is getting the shaft for not making $40 million/year instead of $35 million/year to play basketball, lol.

 

[trojanfan12]

There's an endless plethora of people who do more quantifiable good in this world, who will never even sniff making more than a few million bucks over the course of their entire lifetimes. Meanwhile, people are actually debating about how a guy like LeBron is getting the shaft for not making $40 million/year instead of $35 million/year to play basketball, lol.

Really don't care about an "endless plethora of people doing quantifiable good in this world" as it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

My Dad was a police officer, retired from that and became a bilingual schoolteacher. The "quantifiable good" he did is immeasurable compared to an NBA player or any professional athlete. But 20,000 to 80,000 people weren't showing up to watch him make an arrest or teach a classroom full of limited English speakers.

From a purely capitalistic perspective, players like Lebron are grossly underpaid relative to what the teams they play on make because of that player being on their team.

This idea, while I don't think it will ever happen, would actually allow them to be paid closer to what they are actually worth to their team.

 

[tlance]

I get what you're saying, but... let's compare some 2018 salaries between LeBron and the top paid NFL players:

LeBron, NBA - $35.65 million - Net worth $440 million

#1 - Aaron Rodgers, QB NFL - $33.5 million
#2 - Matt Ryan, QB NFL - $30 million
#3 - Kirk Cousins, QB NFL - $28 million
#4 - Jimmy Garoppolo, QB NFL - $27.5 million

Further down the list in the NFL - #7 Drew Brees QB NFL at $25 million, #12 Ben Roethlisberger at $21.85 million, #16 Tom Brady at $20.5 million.


So, let's analyze those numbers a bit. On one hand, LeBron plays a sport in which there are just 5 players per team on the court at any given time, making each position more important than in football (11 per team on the field) on an average individual level. On the other hand, the NFL is the more popular league and generates more revenue than the NBA, and the QB position is almost unquestionably the single most important position in all of team sports. All that being said, LeBron will be making more money than the top paid overall player and QB of the NFL in Aaron Rodgers by over $2 million in 2018, and will be making a whopping $13 million more than TOM BRADY.

Now I get that considering just the NBA on it's own, mega stars like LeBron are underpaid compared to "good", or outlier star players. But you could say that about a lot of sports, if you think about it. Then consider all of the endorsement deals money a guy like LeBron makes, and I really have zero interest in hearing about how these guys who get paid to throw basketballs into a hoop/throw and catch footballs "don't get paid enough money". There's an endless plethora of people who do more quantifiable good in this world, who will never even sniff making more than a few million bucks over the course of their entire lifetimes. Meanwhile, people are actually debating about how a guy like LeBron is getting the shaft for not making $40 million/year instead of $35 million/year to play basketball, lol.

Like @trojanfan12 said, it is all about capitalism.

And while QB is the most important position in the most popular sport, there is no QB that has as much impact as a player like LeBron or MJ can on a basketball game. Every athlete is dependent on teammates for their teams to win, but a QB has no ability to prevent the other team from scoring, and is only on the field about half the game. That limits his impact on the game.

 

[shopson67]

@shopson67 (tagging you because it's basically the same answer to your post).

See, I tend to agree with this to a point. With the idea that Dan Patrick had, owner wealth could become more important than market size.

Under the current cap, owner wealth doesn't mean a whole lot because there is a set amount that a team can pay it's top player and they can't go over it. The owners wealth only comes into play when determining how far over the cap a team will go and for how long.

But, if a team can have one uncapped player, the owners wealth suddenly becomes much more important.

If, for example, this was in place now, and Gilbert is actually able to simply outbid the bigger market teams by enough, maybe Lebron is still in Cleveland?

One thing that would be really interesting with this would be to see who the Warriors uncapped player was. lol

It's not a factor of owner wealth, but the owner's willingness to spend that wealth. Many of the extremely wealthy aren't willing to throw their own money at players that can't be recouped or offset from team business. Self-made businessmen aren't typically prone to throwing money away.

 

[trojanfan12]

It's not a factor of owner wealth, but the owner's willingness to spend that wealth. Many of the extremely wealthy aren't willing to throw their own money at players that can't be recouped or offset from team business. Self-made businessmen aren't typically prone to throwing money away.

I agree. However, imo, willingness to spend is part of owner wealth. This is part of why I like the "1 uncapped player" idea even though I don't think it'll happen. It would remove excuses and expose some of the owners who are unwilling to spend.