| . |
 |
What if he takes the supermax and 2 or 3 years in decides he wants out because the team has not progressed or gotten worse? I wouldn't blame him for wanting to leave at that point.Originally Posted by Mythrol
I think he's committed to the city, for now. But they need to keep winning if we reasonably expect him to stick around.
The Supermax is fine. The league can only give incentives to the players they can't force them. Honestly if we don't have a team built to contend by year 7 or 8 around a superstar we should lose them and any GM in that situation should lose their job.
Yes that's a different scenario. He would have still signed the supermax at that point.
The NFL has a franchise tag because of how important a single player is. The NBA players have fought against the franchise tag and the agreed upon solution was the supermax. So if AD turns around and turns down the supermax it shows that that isn't enough to hold onto franchise players.
For all the faults of the NFL their is a decent amount of parity across the league. The biggest flaw in the NBA today is all the talent pooling and no way for teams to hold onto their talent. Especially in a sport where literally hundreds of games are played there needs to at least be a semblance of parity with teams. Right now most casual fans feel like games are meaningless because of Golden State.
Last edited by Mythrol; 09-13-2018 at 08:23 AM.
They need a hard cap.
Something like 130 million (of course it increases every year) that no team can go over. Still have the soft cap with bird rights (only way you can go over the soft cap), but implement a hard cap. It'll force these teams like GS to disband, or everyone would have to take pay cuts. Either way, it wouldn't allow them to stay together for years and ruin the parity in the NBA all because that owner has deep pockets and a large market
The easiest way to fix it is remove the soft cap having only one single hard cap every team must stay under.
Remove all exceptions and remove the max that can be given to players. Allow teams to offer any type of contract they want to a player but force teams to stay under a specific hard cap.
I kind of like the bird rights and max contracts, and soft cap that cant be exceeded without the bird rights. It gives smaller market teams a little bit of an advantage in keeping their home grown talent, otherwise someone like LA or GS can swoop in and say "I'll give you 10 million a year, but you know you'll make that up and more being in a bigger market, plus win the championship every year"
I'm in the group with soggy. I think they should keep things exactly the same except add a hard cap. Just make the luxury tax line a bit higher and change it into a hard cap. I also like the idea of removing maximum contract limits. A player can make whatever any team is willing to pay them as long as they stay under the hard cap.
I'm not a cap whizz, and I have never professed to be an expert on the topic of the CBA, but I have to agree. Regardless of the details, which can be worked out by some people who know more than me, there has to be something they can do that puts a stop to the way the league is going, and a hard cap of some sort does seem to be the quickest and easiest way to do it.
Basketball.
So, apparently AD signing with Rich Paul is not a done deal, hes still deciding on a new agent..
Might have just been a behind the scenes falling out with Foucher
https://nba.nbcsports.com/2018/09/12...ent-rich-paul/
There's already a hardcap. It's worthless because of all the other nonsense in the cap.
Except the soft cap and current system has done exactly ZERO to bring parity to the league.
The cap on player contracts is exactly what caused GS to be built.
Set a true hardcap that every team must stay under and remove all restricts on what players can be offered. Let's see KD go to GS if it meant he'd lose out on 30-40m EACH YEAR instead of only 5m.
Who in their right mind would pay a player 70-80 million a year?
The max contracts with a hard cap (pretty much the LT floor), would allow a team like GS to form, but they wouldnt be able to sustain it.. This year alone they would have to shed 24 million in salary to be under a hard cap, that's the equivalent of them having to trade off KT, not being able to sign Cousins, and they would still have 4 million left to shed
Last edited by soggymoss; 09-13-2018 at 09:53 PM.
A team desperate for a star which would in turn spread out the talent and balance out the NBA some. If we assume the hardcap this year would be somewhere around 130-140m I think it very likely that a team would offer KD, LBJ, or AD 70m a year. That's truly how much they're worth. It's only because of artificial caps that the top tier of players can't get their value, so there is more incentive to group together and win rings to gain extra money through sponsorships.
It's not a perfect solution because it doesn't address if a rookie happens to blow up and we'd have to see how it effects end of career players but it certainly would be more effective than what we currently have.
In a general sense I like the thought behind the soft cap and being able to offer your own players more but it simply hasn't worked in doing what it was supposed to. If AD were to walk away from the supermax it'd show the system has truly failed.
I would like to see a hard cap. I would not mind a franchise tag either. The luxury tax is simply a way for the larger market teams to "buy" championships by paying the smaller market teams extra money. It is a joke. Make all teams play on a level playing field.
The luxury tax just hasn't been enough of a disincentive for big market teams. I think a hard cap married to a max salary (expressed as a percentage of the cap number--say, 25%) is the only way your going to get the kind of circulation of parity in the NBA that you get in the NFL. Well-run franchises will still thrive, just as the Pats have thrived in football.
So under this system let's say the cap is set at $120 million (just for instance) then a max contract would be 5 years starting at $30 million and moving as the cap moves. In theory a team could have two or even three max players under contract--though two would probably be the practical limit.
I doubt the players would like this much, especially the superstars, but they are still going to make a ton of loot under this system and I think the game would thrive because you wouldn't start most season already knowing the three or four teams that can even think of winning a championship.
They call it a hard cap but if there are any provisions in the cba that allow teams to go over it for any reason it isn't actually a hard cap.
I think you know what we mean by hard cap.
See, you know what I mean!
New city champ,
That's almost exactly what the current system is. 25% of the cap for a max player or 35% for supermax players.
The problem is all teams can offer 25% of the cap. The home team only has an extra year and 3% per year higher raises. Certainly not much incentive to stay.
That's where the supermax is supposed to fix this issue by allowing the home team to offer 35%.
How about raising minimum contracts a bit and making them the only exceptions to the hard cap?
So, you would want to build a team of say AD, with 1-2 Etwaun Moore's, an Alexis Ajinca, and filled out with Ian Clarks?
If every team is made up that way, then the stars will just take the 60-70 million, go to a big market team where they can get another 20 million in endorsements, and just ride out their career, effectively screwing the small market teams in the meantime...
A true hard cap that cannot be exceeded, a soft cap that can only be exceeded with bird rights, with max contracts (maybe increase bird rights to 5%) allows ANY team to compete without any one team being able to overload on talent, unless the entire roster of superstars are willing to take 10-15 million, which theres none that would do it, besides of course that ***** Boogie
Sure that's fine, however they already have something similar in place for veterans on minimum deals where they are paid more but have a smaller cap hit.
You don't need to be in a big market to get endorsements now. Besides there's only a handful of big market teams so not all star players could go there on big contracts anyway.
Birds Rights already allow 8% raises, higher than other teams can offer. They have proven to completely ineffective in stopping stars from leaving. Also Birds Rights and Mid Level Exception are almost the only way to exceed the soft cap as it is.
My idea is to make it much simpler. Unlock all this cap nonsense with exceptions stuff, set a single hard cap that no one go over, and then let players sign for whatever teams are willing to offer. Golden State happened because it only lost KD about 5m/yr to do it. KD was able to go there because no team could offer him his real value so might as well go and compete for a title.
Golden State happened because they drafted well and had enough under the cap to get KD to come for 25 million.
Super teams will happen no matter what you do, you just have to be able to limit them, and GS wouldnt have lasted more than a year with the cap I suggested.
With what you suggested, pay AD, LBJ and KD 70 million, are you prepared to pay the Jrue Holidays of the NBA 50 million? Because that's exactly what you would have to do to end up with a 2nd tier star in a small market. Then you end up with a team of Jrue Holiday, with 2 Mirotic types, and the rest of the team made up of Ian Clark/Payton types.
It's not sustainable and would lead to a degraded product on the court.
And as far as bird rights, any team can offer 5% raises, bird rights are 8%, increase of 3%. I meant increase bird rights to 10% (5% increase), to further appease some stars
Yes GS could offer KD within a couple million of the team he spent years on. That's exactly my point about why the system is so ineffective. He hardly lost any money to go and create a super team that has done huge damage to the league. So much damage that the league actually missed projections on their profits and had to reduce the expected cap the following year.
Whatever the market is willing to give to players is exactly what they should make. Super teams aren't going to happen if teams can give Lebron insane money, because people aren't going to be stupid enough to turn down mega bucks.
It's not a degraded product on court. Look at what is going on now. How many teams are relevant? 3, maybe? Is that really so important to protect? Do casual fans think anyone outside of Golden State even have a chance this year? Heck do most hardcore fans think anyone outside of Golden State is relevant? We are talking about GS, Houston, and Boston. The system that has bred this type of imbalance is that really worth protecting? Spreading out the talent would lead to more close games and more competition. Which would be better for the league. What you'll actually have is teams made up of B and C tier players playing against a team with a single A tier player. That is going to be fun to watch. A heck of a lot more fun to watch than the current product.
The NFL has continually shot itself in the foot for years now, and it still constantly has better ratings than the NBA. Heck the NFL draft pulls in better ratings than the NBA. People watch because there is a perception that most teams can compete. Barkley summed it up best when he said they have to get on TV and fake it all season long that GS isn't going to win it.
We already see what a system that caps player contracts at 25% does. Which is exactly nothing to help balance out the league. Leonard turned down the supermax because he wanted to leave so bad and that's with a team he won a ring with. It's clear this system doesn't work. It's worth trying out and seeing a level playing field and no caps on contracts. It's worked pretty well for the NFL and the NBA is a much better ran league. Imagine a playoffs where people are excited to watch because they truly don't know who will win.
Last edited by Mythrol; 09-14-2018 at 09:28 PM.
The NBA has never had parity, and never will compared to the NFL. There's 5 players playing both sides of the ball compared to 22 in football, one player is so much more valuable. If there was a hard cap and stars were spread evenly throughout the league, guess what, the team with LeBron would still win all the time.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote