Should NBA eliminate max contracts?

[SJ76]

Please do this. This plus the 1 and done is screwing up bball IMO. Players that have no business getting a max contract are doing it. They've created this crazy demand now in the NBA - if you have money, you can outspend the other team just to get a need.

Eliminate max contracts
Make players stay 2 years in college

 

[The Q]

The players in the league DO decide where they want to play. No franchise tag in the NBA. If you mean let HS and college players decide where they want to play, it sounds like you should be a soccer fan b/c the real American sports have drafts. It's the price of admission into a closed shop. Once that first contract expires, then you're free to play where you want to play.

Irrelevant and incorrect.

And it's a shocking ignorance of the subject matter that makes you think that.

I disagree. I've studied this extensively.

And no it's not irrevleant or incorrect. Many of these players could easily get more. But they're forced to fit into this box in the cap. The cap and the restrictions on S&T deals also means players can't go where they want to go. So you are simply flat out wrong here.

And you are also being short sighted. You don't think OKC would be better off being able to get Harrison barnes, Anderson and a pick back in a KD S&T rather than lose him for nothing? Seriously?

 

[Niner Outlaw]

And no it's not irrevleant or incorrect. Many of these players could easily get more. But they're forced to fit into this box in the cap.

You claimed that the draftees were getting their incomes deflated without a reason. That isn't true. While a few draftees could make more than their slotted contract, that is the price of entry into a closed shop industry like the NBA. There is a reason--and that is just one reason. There are others. That is why you're incorrect. And you'll have to explain how it's relevant to the discussion in this thread.

The cap and the restrictions on S&T deals also means players can't go where they want to go. So you are simply flat out wrong here.

As usual, you're conflating two issues, pretending they're the same thing. For example, Durant, a free agent, could have signed to play for ANY team in the NBA. Any team. That fact does not depend upon the existence of sign and trade or a salary cap.

And you are also being short sighted. You don't think OKC would be better off being able to get Harrison barnes, Anderson and a pick back in a KD S&T rather than lose him for nothing? Seriously?

I didn't say that, so do not put words in my mouth. KC would've been better off with a much higher available max contract--like 40-50% of the cap. Sign and trade only matters b/c of where and how the max contract is set.

 

[The Q]

You claimed that the draftees were getting their incomes deflated without a reason. That isn't true. While a few draftees could make more than their slotted contract, that is the price of entry into a closed shop industry like the NBA. There is a reason--and that is just one reason. There are others. That is why you're incorrect. And you'll have to explain how it's relevant to the discussion in this thread.

As usual, you're conflating two issues, pretending they're the same thing. For example, Durant, a free agent, could have signed to play for ANY team in the NBA. Any team. That fact does not depend upon the existence of sign and trade or a salary cap.

I didn't say that, so do not put words in my mouth. KC would've been better off with a much higher available max contract--like 40-50% of the cap. Sign and trade only matters b/c of where and how the max contract is set.

Actually all of those are very much related. Because of the cap the only way you can sign with some places is with a S&T. But they've taken that away.

 

[The Q]

You claimed that the draftees were getting their incomes deflated without a reason. That isn't true. While a few draftees could make more than their slotted contract, that is the price of entry into a closed shop industry like the NBA. There is a reason--and that is just one reason. There are others. That is why you're incorrect. And you'll have to explain how it's relevant to the discussion in this thread.

As usual, you're conflating two issues, pretending they're the same thing. For example, Durant, a free agent, could have signed to play for ANY team in the NBA. Any team. That fact does not depend upon the existence of sign and trade or a salary cap.

I didn't say that, so do not put words in my mouth. KC would've been better off with a much higher available max contract--like 40-50% of the cap. Sign and trade only matters b/c of where and how the max contract is set.

The last part is also short sighted. It's over reactionary very small isolated episodes by guys like Durant and James.

No one said anything about how broken the system was when TMac and Grant Hill went to Orlando.

Heck the biggest uproar about Dwight howard to LAL was the Chris Paul trade that got blown up in front of it.

 

[Niner Outlaw]

Because of the cap the only way you can sign with some places is with a S&T.

Not true. Durant, and really any FA, could've signed with any team in the NBA, whether S&T existed or not. He can't get a max deal on every team b/c of the cap, but the cap isn't going anywhere. That's just spitting against the wind and adding in the complications of S&T would be more difficult imo than a drastic increase in the max salaries.

Making the available max salary much larger %s of the cap would ensure that only the superstars get it and a team would have great difficulty signing 2 players to it, let alone 3. A smaller team like OKC would be able to budget in advance and be secure in the knowledge that absent fire sales, only a handful of teams in the league would be able to afford to compete with them. I think it's an easy fix that the league's stars would love. Hell, the wannabe's that think they're elite would love it too b/c they'd think some team would max them out.

 

[Xulu Bak]

The first part I agree with.

The second part I don't.

Teams should all be able to offer the same max dollars. The rest of this is silly.

And don't even get me started on a franchise tag. The most unamerican thing ever invented. The NFLPA should be ashamed for allowing that thing to exist.

I dunno (or care) about "unamerican," but the NFLPA allowing the franchise tag to exist should be considered gross incompetence. There's no legitimate reason for it to exist. It solely benefits the owners/franchises, while screwing the players. As if it's very existence isn't bad enough, it can be used repeatedly. Given the risk of injury that's completely inexcusable.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Not true. Durant, and really any FA, could've signed with any team in the NBA, whether S&T existed or not. He can't get a max deal on every team b/c of the cap, but the cap isn't going anywhere. That's just spitting against the wind and adding in the complications of S&T would be more difficult imo than a drastic increase in the max salaries.

Making the available max salary much larger %s of the cap would ensure that only the superstars get it and a team would have great difficulty signing 2 players to it, let alone 3. A smaller team like OKC would be able to budget in advance and be secure in the knowledge that absent fire sales, only a handful of teams in the league would be able to afford to compete with them. I think it's an easy fix that the league's stars would love. Hell, the wannabe's that think they're elite would love it too b/c they'd think some team would max them out.

its not the owners that like the max contracts though- its the rank and file NBA players that make up the vast majority of the league.

those guys dont want the combination of Curry, LeBron, Durant, RW, Davis going from making like a combined 120 million a year to making a combined 250 million a year.

 

[The Q]

Not true. Durant, and really any FA, could've signed with any team in the NBA, whether S&T existed or not. He can't get a max deal on every team b/c of the cap, but the cap isn't going anywhere. That's just spitting against the wind and adding in the complications of S&T would be more difficult imo than a drastic increase in the max salaries.

Making the available max salary much larger %s of the cap would ensure that only the superstars get it and a team would have great difficulty signing 2 players to it, let alone 3. A smaller team like OKC would be able to budget in advance and be secure in the knowledge that absent fire sales, only a handful of teams in the league would be able to afford to compete with them. I think it's an easy fix that the league's stars would love. Hell, the wannabe's that think they're elite would love it too b/c they'd think some team would max them out.

Taht's that short sighted thing again.

OKC is a terrible example. They wouldn't be able to keep Westbrook and Durant together.

This is what I'm talking about. Everyone overreacting to one or two moves and thinking the whole system needs to be overhauled.

 

[Win TWINS!!!]

I'd rather just have Cleveland get Anthony-Towns and Chris Paul, GS can have Anthony Davis, and then just do a 15 game series and skip the regular season.

Or just go down to 12 teams like the WNBA and call it a day.

You leave Towns alone!

 

[WiggyRuss]

Taht's that short sighted thing again.

OKC is a terrible example. They wouldn't be able to keep Westbrook and Durant together.

This is what I'm talking about. Everyone overreacting to one or two moves and thinking the whole system needs to be overhauled.

id keep everything relatively the same- but i would say that each team gets 1 designated player.....that player will count against the cap- as the highest level max contract---- but the team paying him could go well over that too to entice him to come.

So---- lets say for the CAvs- they say LeBron is their designated player....he counts against the cap- as a "max"- like 33% of the cap or whatever- lets for ease lets just say the cap is 100M, so he would count 33M against the cap----- but lets say that you can go up to DOUBLE the cap number in actual salary.....

so the CAvs could offer LeBron 66M a year....but only 33M counts against the cap- and each team can only do this with one player.

This would go a long way to making sure the top players are more evenly distributed- unless tehy really wanted to give up a ton of money....it guarantees that guys that dont deserve these huge contracts wont get them- and if guys still want to team up they can do it- they would just potentially be giving up tons of cash.

possibly in order not to harm teams that draft well- if you have a guys Bird Rights- like a Kyrie---and you already have LeBron as your designated player- for one 2nd guy- you can offer him a top level max, but pay him 50% over that.....so Kyrie would get 33 + half of that again--- about 49M a year. That way we can at least not totally harm teams that drafted well or planned well like an OKC, CLEV, GSW, SAS, etc.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Taht's that short sighted thing again.

OKC is a terrible example. They wouldn't be able to keep Westbrook and Durant together.

This is what I'm talking about. Everyone overreacting to one or two moves and thinking the whole system needs to be overhauled.

yah just elminating the max contracts would ruin the league because you would never again be able to keep your team together if u drafted well...unless you extend the length of time drafted players are under control from 3-4 years to 5-6 years.

 

[The Q]

yah just elminating the max contracts would ruin the league because you would never again be able to keep your team together if u drafted well...unless you extend the length of time drafted players are under control from 3-4 years to 5-6 years.

Exactly.

They never could've signed Durant and Westbrook both to max deals and kept literally anyone else on the team. hell the cap still isnt' 100m yet and OCK would've been there basically with those 2 guys with what these posters want to have in place.

 

[The Q]

id keep everything relatively the same- but i would say that each team gets 1 designated player.....that player will count against the cap- as the highest level max contract---- but the team paying him could go well over that too to entice him to come.

So---- lets say for the CAvs- they say LeBron is their designated player....he counts against the cap- as a "max"- like 33% of the cap or whatever- lets for ease lets just say the cap is 100M, so he would count 33M against the cap----- but lets say that you can go up to DOUBLE the cap number in actual salary.....

so the CAvs could offer LeBron 66M a year....but only 33M counts against the cap- and each team can only do this with one player.

This would go a long way to making sure the top players are more evenly distributed- unless tehy really wanted to give up a ton of money....it guarantees that guys that dont deserve these huge contracts wont get them- and if guys still want to team up they can do it- they would just potentially be giving up tons of cash.

possibly in order not to harm teams that draft well- if you have a guys Bird Rights- like a Kyrie---and you already have LeBron as your designated player- for one 2nd guy- you can offer him a top level max, but pay him 50% over that.....so Kyrie would get 33 + half of that again--- about 49M a year. That way we can at least not totally harm teams that drafted well or planned well like an OKC, CLEV, GSW, SAS, etc.

This really isn't a bad idea. Although I highly unlikely the owners would go for it. But it's a better idea in the spirit of what these posters want.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Please do this. This plus the 1 and done is screwing up bball IMO. Players that have no business getting a max contract are doing it. They've created this crazy demand now in the NBA - if you have money, you can outspend the other team just to get a need.

Eliminate max contracts
Make players stay 2 years in college

They could eliminate the term max contract, but CBA guarantees the players X amount of the revenue. The new TV money kicking in this year has really ramped up the cap so you're going to have plenty of plays making upwards of $15-16 mil per that are not what we would term max deal talent....no way around that now.

Forcing draftees to wait until their graduating class has completed 2 years of college at a minimum...I support that...too many lottery picks coming into the league with zero chance to make an impact for 2 yrs or longer.

 

[RobBase]

Just have a salary cap and have owners pay whatever they want for players. It is the only way to really stop super teams.

I do to buy Golden State as a super team. They signed one elite FA. Fans need to deal with it. Especially Cavs fans.
The NBA does desperately need compensation draft picks tho.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

id keep everything relatively the same- but i would say that each team gets 1 designated player.....that player will count against the cap- as the highest level max contract---- but the team paying him could go well over that too to entice him to come.

So---- lets say for the CAvs- they say LeBron is their designated player....he counts against the cap- as a "max"- like 33% of the cap or whatever- lets for ease lets just say the cap is 100M, so he would count 33M against the cap----- but lets say that you can go up to DOUBLE the cap number in actual salary.....

so the CAvs could offer LeBron 66M a year....but only 33M counts against the cap- and each team can only do this with one player.

This would go a long way to making sure the top players are more evenly distributed- unless tehy really wanted to give up a ton of money....it guarantees that guys that dont deserve these huge contracts wont get them- and if guys still want to team up they can do it- they would just potentially be giving up tons of cash.

possibly in order not to harm teams that draft well- if you have a guys Bird Rights- like a Kyrie---and you already have LeBron as your designated player- for one 2nd guy- you can offer him a top level max, but pay him 50% over that.....so Kyrie would get 33 + half of that again--- about 49M a year. That way we can at least not totally harm teams that drafted well or planned well like an OKC, CLEV, GSW, SAS, etc.

Interesting, but how would that work with the revenue splits? Would owners be giving away more revenue for this? Or would you drop the cap to compensate for this new addition...

As for 1 and dones. What about if the only way to get a player after his freshman year is in the top 7 picks? Player doesn't go there, he can go back for his sophomore year. No idea how this would effect things, but it might be fun...

 

[Rockinkuwait]

I do to buy Golden State as a super team. They signed one elite FA. Fans need to deal with it. Especially Cavs fans.
The NBA does desperately need compensation draft picks tho.

Would those be at the end of the first round? It's tough to value them because at the NFL level for those, losing a guy like durant would be a clear 3rd round comp pick equivalent. You are still hoping to get a starter there in the NFL. The replacement need at the NBA makes that pick at the end of the first even a lot less valuable.

I guess it would help somewhat, but the value of a star in the NBA vs a non-QB, and the value of a pick at the end of the first would make it a really weak return. Pekovic, Pendergraph, Pleiss, Bogdanovich, Jeff Taylor, Crabbe, Ingliss, Osman. 1st overalls in the 2nd round.

To get any real value, you'd almost need to make that pick the first non-lottery pick.


What if instead of that, some sort of cap rule. If you lose a bird rights player to FA (had him 3+ years), you gain the ability to sign a FA under bird rights rules to that same value +10%.

IE, you lose Durant. He's been there 3+ years. Even if you are at the cap, you have a full year where you can go out and sign a player regardless of your cap situation. So even if you were at the cap you could sign Luol Deng for example or anyone up to Durant's previous salary +10%.


Hmm, has me also wondering.. for FA.

Week 1. Teams can negotiate with their own players only.
Week 2. Max contract deals allowed only (or some limit.. 25+ mil a year or something).
Week 3. Open FA.

Would give teams a chance to keep their core together maybe. Would let the big players move first, the real shifts to the landscape, and then would let teams that swung and hit, or swung and missed make the rest of their moves based on what already happened

 

[tducey]

I agree, there has to be more competitive balance. The Warriors could win more than 73 games next year now that they have Durant.

 

[podsox]

Wouldn't have stopped the SuperFriends from teaming up.

U really think kd would have passed up 50 mil to play for 25 in Oakland? I don't