Interesting Cap Idea

[shopson67]

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.

They shouldn't have to spend beyond their franchise's ability to earn. If a franchise can't compete within it's earnings over the long haul, it should be contracted/moved.

 

[trojanfan12]

They shouldn't have to spend beyond their franchise's ability to earn. If a franchise can't compete within it's earnings over the long haul, it should be contracted/moved.

Yes and no. Generally speaking, teams that win, make money. Business folks know that often times "you have to spend money to make money".

My bet would be that an owner may have to spend beyond his teams ability to earn, initially. But, when they show they are spending to produce a winning product, then the revenue will follow as more fans show up to games and buy merchandise.

If there is a case where that doesn't happen, then I agree that the franchise should be moved to a market that can/will support it or be contracted.

So, while I agree that owners shouldn't have to spend beyond their teams ability to earn, they may have to initially in order to get the fans on board.

 

[Sparhawk]

I agree that this cannot be about who has the most money to spend.

An idea I've been thinking about is that they should account for how much teams are over the cap.
That value should then extend the cap for teams under the cap.

Let's say 5 team are over for a total of $100M.
That $100M should be distributed evenly to the remaining teams as money left to spend without going over the cap.

Teams over the cap pay a luxury tax.
Team under the cap can spend to the cap + luxury distribution.

The luxury tax rises and falls each year, so a team has to really make an informed decision by how much they are willing to pay, as the numbers could start helping teams under the cap to improve their rosters.

Just introduces another dynamic, but I'm not sure if the numbers change constantly or if there needs to be a set date for when luxury cap space is determined such that there would be strategery in how teams spend.

In hindsight, the value could be provided each day after all deals have been made. On one day, the value might be an extra $3M for 28 teams to spend. If someone signs a FA and re-ups one of their existing players to go over the cap, the next day that value rises with the extra luxury tax. Conversely, if a team trades a player and lowers their luxury tax, then the value decreases and teams now have less money to spend. Any acquisition would be made with the daily luxury cap value, which could change at any moment, creating more tension for teams to sign/trade players.

Thoughts?

 

[Sparhawk]

NBA 2018-2019 Cap Tracker

By my count, there are 10 teams with negative luxury cap space, which totals to roughly $100M.
That means the remaining 20 teams would get an extra $5M added to their cap.