RealGM

First of all, let me say that I am a business man and I believe in capitalism and free markets. Unfortunately, the crony capitalism that we have today in the United States has given capitalism a bad name and has caused many people to misunderstand what a "free market" really is.

As much as I believe in letting the market set the price of goods, services, and even NBA contracts, given the recent salaries explosion, I now have to ask: "How much is too much?"

I think that as fans really all we expect from our players is for them to play hard, play with passion, and respect the fans and media that support them and make them famous. I'm sure most of us would KILL to have the athletic talent to be professional athletes. I know that if I was 6'9" instead of 5'9" and I had more athletic talent, I would promise that I would give everything to be the best I could be. I would give it my all. I would do anything to compete and win.

Unfortunately, it seems like in today's NBA, winning is not always most important and most players don't play hard all the time. Off court activity and outside factors are more of a priority then competing. In my opinion, it's gotten much worse since the early to mid 90's. Where are the Jordan's, Barkley's, Bird's, Garnett's? Who plays with that intensity these days?

I really think that the exploding salaries are to blame for the problems with athletes today: The attitude and disrespect most have for the media and fans. The lack of effort. The laziness. The focus on off court activities and endorsements over competing and winning.

Example:

In his 92-93 MVP year, Charles Barkley made $2.4 million. That's about $1.2m after taxes and agent fees. Now some may argue that due to inflation, $1.2m in 93 money is about $2 million today (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/)

Still, while $2 million after taxes is a lot of money, it's not "F-U money." $2 million a year after taxes is enough to buy a mansion, some luxury cars, and send your kids to private school. But $2 million doesn't get you a private jet, 2 vacation homes, a maid, a driver, and an entourage. $2 million a year gets you a very very nice life, but it doesn't separate you from reality.

That's probably why people living in Scottsdale/PV back in 1993 saw Barkley at the local bars, saw Barkley picking up his own dry cleaning, and saw Barkley on commercial flights.

Today, that is not the case. Star players now make $30 million a year ($15 million a year after taxes) + endorsements. With the new cap, role players are making $8-10 mil a year ($4-$5m after takes).

Star players can now afford the most ridiculous perks on the planet including private jets, a fleet of exotic cars, personal porn stars, and 4-5 mansions in various cities.

Role players now live better then star players once lived.

My point, NBA players today have no concept of reality and the guaranteed contracts give them no sense of urgency.

In his MVP year, Barkley picked up his own dry cleaning. Now guys like Tristan Thompson have enough money to pay someone to get their own mail.

I love basketball and I will always be a Suns fan, but I'm not sure I will continue to support the league especially given the recent cap explosion just because I have no interest in supporting a bunch of diva crybabies that have more money then most executives yet snub their noses at fans, disrespect the media, and live in a celebrity fantasy land.

Sure, our new star Devin Booker seems like a wonderful person now, but what happens 3 years down the road when he signs his first max contract, runs through 200 groupie sluts, and has a private driver shuttling him around town? Will he still be a outgoing and personable guy, or will he turn into a giant D-bag? With $120 million guaranteed over the next 5 years, will he still drive to the basket, or will he settle for outside jumpers? Will he be content with 22ppg and a 2nd round playoff exit, or will he still be motivated to give it everything he has, put up 28ppg, and try to win in the finals?

It seems like the excess money and fame corrupts everyone. It's only a matter of time.

And in the end, aren't we all to blame? I mean, we continue to support the new generation diva athlete with our wallets and our free time. Maybe if the players don't start giving it 100% all the time like the old school greats, it's time for us all to move to a new sport?

Well it's really not as much as they are getting crazy deals it's that even though the product in many ways has gotten worse, it hasn't gotten more popular and expanded worldwide and the tv deals are so big.

I think a HUGE part of the reason the tv deals are so big is because all scripted programming is available on demand, netflix, hulu, amazon, whatever, so what's the point on watching when it airs live? So the advertising that paid for all those became worthless to advertisers.

But what DIDN'T become worthless to advertisers? Live events, so advertising during NFL or NBA games or the Academy Awards, etc, is where all the money goes.

Then it's not really like the owners are making the decision necessarily to pay the guys this much (sure there are some dumb signings) but they HAVE to split the money at the close to 50/50 ratio between the owners and players.

So there is a pot that you HAVE to spend on players, and there are only so many roster spots and not that many really good players. The game would be better if players spent more time in college and we were not watching 1/3 of the teams rebuilding with college age players.

But if you are in college and see that money and are REALLY good, than it's hard to turn down.

The guys it really hurts are the guys that overestimate themselves, think they are really good and don't get drafted. That is why the Lillard's and McCollum's do so well so fast, because they are that much more experienced.

I'd say the same for Hield, and I think he may be very good, but he also really didn't show or look like a premier prospect until his final year, but hey, it was smart for him to wait, because he likely goes at end of first round last year, and another year in college was the perfect decision for him.

I never liked the idea of NBA players being paid millions and millions to play a child's game but I totally understand that the product generates revenue and they should absolutely be paid their fair share of that revenue. It's also hard to compare how much people were paid back then vs now since the product has grown significantly in terms of viewership (it's more readily available on streams etc overseas) and also in reach (games overseas, merchandising) and salary levels are just a byproduct of that growth.

I definitely don't hold it against the players for earning what they are earning since they should be afforded their fair share of that revenue. And if it didn't go to them, it would just go to the owners and I'd much rather the money go to the ones who are actually putting their blood, sweat and tears into the game. While I understand your sentiment that the players have it too easy nowadays which leads to complacency and lower competitiveness, I don't know if there is data to back that up. If the increase in salary correlates to a decrease in competitiveness (not sure what the measure would be) then we should see that across the board and I just don't know that's necessarily true. If more players have already made FU money nowadays then I think a lot more players would stop playing hard or there would be a lot more disciplinary issues after the first 6-10 years in a player's career. To me, the only difference is that players have more comfortable and lavish lives off the court. I mean, lets be honest, you can fall off the right path with a lot less than FU money. It all depends on the individual.

The explosion of the NBA has everything to do with technology. When David Stern first took over, there was literally taped delayed finals. He turned the league into a cash cow, which has grown in an error of fractured viewership, with satellite and digital options for a global audience.

The one thing about inflation, is that not all industries remain inflated. Twenty years from now, the TV deals may not be able to be this high and you'll be looking at this era as the high-water mark. The future is unknown. Always has been, always will be.

I think we should have non-guaranteed contracts. The NFL is a lot of fun, a small reason IMO, is because most of the time all the players give it their all. They know their contract is on the line, where as in the NBA, after they get that fat contract, they can just be lazy asses and not give a crap.

I'm not too familiar with NFL contracts but if it's true that most deals are non-guaranteed then I think that's the best route the NBA should take to ensure players are giving it their all. That said, I'm still not convinced players being more lazy than ever just because they are getting paid more and it's guaranteed. I feel like it's a certain type of player who are happy to just be on a certain level and stay there and that percentage hasn't necessarily changed from 5, 10, 25 years ago. You're going to get lazy players no matter how much they are getting paid.

I guarantee if you had non-guaranteed contracts in the NBA, fans would hate it, especially if NBA stars were holding out every year demanding raises. And that's exactly what would happen because without your stars, your team is garbage.

And as lilfishi alluded to, back in the 1980's, Joe Barry Carroll was nicknamed Joe Barely Cares and he was traded for Parish and McHale. Derrick Coleman was always thought to have the same talent as Barkley and Malone. The money has changed, but guys not giving a damn regardless of talent has not.

Look at Michael Olowokandi. He turned down a 6/66 million dollar deal, only to suck in a contract year and be forced to take 3/16. Some of the lazy players can't help themselves. It's their nature, dollars be damned.

Chuck Everett wrote:I guarantee if you had non-guaranteed contracts in the NBA, fans would hate it, especially if NBA stars were holding out every year demanding raises. And that's exactly what would happen because without your stars, your team is garbage.

And as lilfishi alluded to, back in the 1980's, Joe Barry Carroll was nicknamed Joe Barely Cares and he was traded for Parish and McHale. Derrick Coleman was always thought to have the same talent as Barkley and Malone. The money has changed, but guys not giving a damn regardless of talent has not.

Look at Michael Olowokandi. He turned down a 6/66 million dollar deal, only to suck in a contract year and be forced to take 3/16. Some of the lazy players can't help themselves. It's their nature, dollars be damned.

I'd definitely rather have unguaranteed contracts. I don't care if a few stars hold out...but I'm guessing their contracts would be guaranteed. Sure they might hold out for renegotiations, but those would be the stars that likely deserve it. Everyone else could be cut and players who were more deserving than some of the dead weight in the league would get their chance.

bwgood77 wrote:

Chuck Everett wrote:I guarantee if you had non-guaranteed contracts in the NBA, fans would hate it, especially if NBA stars were holding out every year demanding raises. And that's exactly what would happen because without your stars, your team is garbage.

And as lilfishi alluded to, back in the 1980's, Joe Barry Carroll was nicknamed Joe Barely Cares and he was traded for Parish and McHale. Derrick Coleman was always thought to have the same talent as Barkley and Malone. The money has changed, but guys not giving a damn regardless of talent has not.

Look at Michael Olowokandi. He turned down a 6/66 million dollar deal, only to suck in a contract year and be forced to take 3/16. Some of the lazy players can't help themselves. It's their nature, dollars be damned.

I'd definitely rather have unguaranteed contracts. I don't care if a few stars hold out...but I'm guessing their contracts would be guaranteed. Sure they might hold out for renegotiations, but those would be the stars that likely deserve it. Everyone else could be cut and players who were more deserving than some of the dead weight in the league would get their chance.

But stars would be holding out every single season. Because all it takes is for a lesser player (like say Mike Conley) to get a big new contract and guys like Melo, Cousins, Wall, Lowry, Paul, Westbrook, Anthony Davis, Curry, would all want to re-negotiate. How do you build a legit team where you're constantly having to renegotiate.

Football is different. The players (all of them) are disposable with the possible exception of the elite quarterbacks. That's why their contract situation sucks. None of them matter. Not JJ Watt, not Von Miller, not Luke Kuechly, not Adrian Peterson. They could retire tomorrow and some no-name will take their place.

Basketball, even on a bad team, there is usually two or three players that you want to hold onto, who aren't simply wave your hand and someone can fill-in the gaps. The downgrade from Isiah to Ronnie Price was laughably bad.

Chuck Everett wrote:

bwgood77 wrote:

Chuck Everett wrote:I guarantee if you had non-guaranteed contracts in the NBA, fans would hate it, especially if NBA stars were holding out every year demanding raises. And that's exactly what would happen because without your stars, your team is garbage.

And as lilfishi alluded to, back in the 1980's, Joe Barry Carroll was nicknamed Joe Barely Cares and he was traded for Parish and McHale. Derrick Coleman was always thought to have the same talent as Barkley and Malone. The money has changed, but guys not giving a damn regardless of talent has not.

Look at Michael Olowokandi. He turned down a 6/66 million dollar deal, only to suck in a contract year and be forced to take 3/16. Some of the lazy players can't help themselves. It's their nature, dollars be damned.

I'd definitely rather have unguaranteed contracts. I don't care if a few stars hold out...but I'm guessing their contracts would be guaranteed. Sure they might hold out for renegotiations, but those would be the stars that likely deserve it. Everyone else could be cut and players who were more deserving than some of the dead weight in the league would get their chance.

But stars would be holding out every single season. Because all it takes is for a lesser player (like say Mike Conley) to get a big new contract and guys like Melo, Cousins, Wall, Lowry, Paul, Westbrook, Anthony Davis, Curry, would all want to re-negotiate. How do you build a legit team where you're constantly having to renegotiate.

Football is different. The players (all of them) are disposable with the possible exception of the elite quarterbacks. That's why their contract situation sucks. None of them matter. Not JJ Watt, not Von Miller, not Luke Kuechly, not Adrian Peterson. They could retire tomorrow and some no-name will take their place.

Basketball, even on a bad team, there is usually two or three players that you want to hold onto, who aren't simply wave your hand and someone can fill-in the gaps. The downgrade from Isiah to Ronnie Price was laughably bad.

JJ Watt? Kuechly? You're talking about a guy who might be the best defensive player ever and another stud. Sure QBs are the most important, but there are only about 16 or so who are somewhat legit talents, and you can probably split that into thirds for age group.

I don't think there are more premier talents in the NBA than in the NFL. The big stars seem to sign one year contracts these days anyway.

bwgood77 wrote:

Chuck Everett wrote:

bwgood77 wrote:
I'd definitely rather have unguaranteed contracts. I don't care if a few stars hold out...but I'm guessing their contracts would be guaranteed. Sure they might hold out for renegotiations, but those would be the stars that likely deserve it. Everyone else could be cut and players who were more deserving than some of the dead weight in the league would get their chance.

But stars would be holding out every single season. Because all it takes is for a lesser player (like say Mike Conley) to get a big new contract and guys like Melo, Cousins, Wall, Lowry, Paul, Westbrook, Anthony Davis, Curry, would all want to re-negotiate. How do you build a legit team where you're constantly having to renegotiate.

Football is different. The players (all of them) are disposable with the possible exception of the elite quarterbacks. That's why their contract situation sucks. None of them matter. Not JJ Watt, not Von Miller, not Luke Kuechly, not Adrian Peterson. They could retire tomorrow and some no-name will take their place.

Basketball, even on a bad team, there is usually two or three players that you want to hold onto, who aren't simply wave your hand and someone can fill-in the gaps. The downgrade from Isiah to Ronnie Price was laughably bad.

JJ Watt? Kuechly? You're talking about a guy who might be the best defensive player ever and another stud. Sure QBs are the most important, but there are only about 16 or so who are somewhat legit talents, and you can probably split that into thirds for age group.

I don't think there are more premier talents in the NBA than in the NFL. The big stars seem to sign one year contracts these days anyway.

The only bad thing about the NBA contracts is role players getting long-term deals, just because.

Why would I give Kyle Singler five years? Why give Mozgov and Deng four years? Why not two years, with team options after year 2? If your role players were on shorter deals, teams wouldn't be as bad for as long. Some teams are learning though. If you're not a starter, you tend to get three year deals max.

You singled out Watt and Kuechly, but said nothing of Von and Peterson. My point still stands. Any of those dudes retire tomorrow and it still has no major effect on whether the team is great or not. Hell even with Watt being dominant, the Texans are terrible.

Chuck Everett wrote:

bwgood77 wrote:

Chuck Everett wrote:
But stars would be holding out every single season. Because all it takes is for a lesser player (like say Mike Conley) to get a big new contract and guys like Melo, Cousins, Wall, Lowry, Paul, Westbrook, Anthony Davis, Curry, would all want to re-negotiate. How do you build a legit team where you're constantly having to renegotiate.

Football is different. The players (all of them) are disposable with the possible exception of the elite quarterbacks. That's why their contract situation sucks. None of them matter. Not JJ Watt, not Von Miller, not Luke Kuechly, not Adrian Peterson. They could retire tomorrow and some no-name will take their place.

Basketball, even on a bad team, there is usually two or three players that you want to hold onto, who aren't simply wave your hand and someone can fill-in the gaps. The downgrade from Isiah to Ronnie Price was laughably bad.

JJ Watt? Kuechly? You're talking about a guy who might be the best defensive player ever and another stud. Sure QBs are the most important, but there are only about 16 or so who are somewhat legit talents, and you can probably split that into thirds for age group.

I don't think there are more premier talents in the NBA than in the NFL. The big stars seem to sign one year contracts these days anyway.

The only bad thing about the NBA contracts is role players getting long-term deals, just because.

Why would I give Kyle Singler five years? Why give Mozgov and Deng four years? Why not two years, with team options after year 2? If your role players were on shorter deals, teams wouldn't be as bad for as long. Some teams are learning though. If you're not a starter, you tend to get three year deals max.

You singled out Watt and Kuechly, but said nothing of Von and Peterson. My point still stands. Any of those dudes retire tomorrow and it still has no major effect on whether the team is great or not. Hell even with Watt being dominant, the Texans are terrible.

Well the Texans won their division last year, so they are not that terrible, and they didn't have all that great of qb. Plenty of teams have won with defense. I wouldn't call Dilfer, McMahon, etc good qbs, or even some teams that made the championship game, like the Jets with Sanchez or the Bears not too long ago with whoever their qb was...Grossman?

Watt has singlehandedly made a huge difference in seasons and games. So he may have helped them win 8 games instead of 4 in the past. This year it could be 11 instead of 9 otherwise. He can make game turning plays and often does more than once in a game.

The salaries are based on supply and demand. There are only around 450 NBA players in the league at any given time. There are billions of dollars in revenue now since the game has grown globally. With those numbers, It is natural that players salaries are extremely high. Now if the league feels the average salary is too much, there is a way to change it. One way is to get rid of the salary floor so teams do not give out contracts just to meet it. In addition, another way to bring player salaries down is to eliminate the capped maximum amount a team can offer any player.

Let's say the salary cap is 100 million dollars. Imagine one team, like the 76ers, has sixty million dollars in cap space. Instead of saying we have the cap space to sign two max free agents, they should be able to say, we can offer 60 million a year to all-star player X and no one else can. If they are allowed to do that, I guarantee you that player will consider signing there. This does multiple things. First off, the all-star player gets paid their true market value. Secondly, this creates more parity in the league. Thirdly, this makes cap space meaningful again. More teams will be inclined to give out smaller contracts to lesser players in order to preserve cap space for a big offer down the line where they can actually outbid an opposing team. Therefore players undeserving of max contracts will not get them. Only the few top players in all the league will be paid what they are truly worth.

A perfect example of how this could change the landscape of the NBA is the Durant situation. The Celtics had about 53 million dollars to spend in free agency this offseason. The Warriors had far less. Durant's max salary offer was around 30 million. All the Warriors needed to do was clear enough space to match the Celtics offer. But what if the Celtics were allowed to offer Durant whatever they wanted and offered 50 million a year for 4 years. That would not be possible for the Warriors to match unless they dismantled their team. Suddenly Durant says wow, 50 million a year? I want that. Goodbye Warriors. You cannot come close to matching that. So a team with more cap space available is rewarded by winning the big prize. That will inspire other teams to create cap space and not waste it on random players that do not move the needle. This change would also stop super teams from forming.

letsgosuns wrote:The salaries are based on supply and demand. There are only around 450 NBA players in the league at any given time. There are billions of dollars in revenue now since the game has grown globally. With those numbers, It is natural that players salaries are extremely high. Now if the league feels the average salary is too much, there is a way to change it. One way is to get rid of the salary floor so teams do not give out contracts just to meet it.

I don't think the salary floor is all that high and that is far from the cause of the increasing average salary or the ridiculous contracts being handed out. I think the salary floor is a good thing, forces teams to at least put on a bottom of the barrel NBA level team.

In addition, another way to bring player salaries down is to eliminate the capped maximum amount a team can offer any player.

Let's say the salary cap is 100 million dollars. Imagine one team, like the 76ers, has sixty million dollars in cap space. Instead of saying we have the cap space to sign two max free agents, they should be able to say, we can offer 60 million a year to all-star player X and no one else can. If they are allowed to do that, I guarantee you that player will consider signing there. This does multiple things. First off, the all-star player gets paid their true market value. Secondly, this creates more parity in the league. Thirdly, this makes cap space meaningful again. More teams will be inclined to give out smaller contracts to lesser players in order to preserve cap space for a big offer down the line where they can actually outbid an opposing team. Therefore players undeserving of max contracts will not get them. Only the few top players in all the league will be paid what they are truly worth.

A perfect example of how this could change the landscape of the NBA is the Durant situation. The Celtics had about 53 million dollars to spend in free agency this offseason. The Warriors had far less. Durant's max salary offer was around 30 million. All the Warriors needed to do was clear enough space to match the Celtics offer. But what if the Celtics were allowed to offer Durant whatever they wanted and offered 50 million a year for 4 years. That would not be possible for the Warriors to match unless they dismantled their team. Suddenly Durant says wow, 50 million a year? I want that. Goodbye Warriors. You cannot come close to matching that. So a team with more cap space available is rewarded by winning the big prize. That will inspire other teams to create cap space and not waste it on random players that do not move the needle. This change would also stop super teams from forming.

I feel like this may only address the NBA competition parity issue. I also feel like this will just lead to more marginal talent being rewarded with ridiculous contracts just to attract these players. Instead of Durant and Lebron on $40m, you might have an Al Horford on $40-50m a year. A maximum level contract is still a better way to combat overpaying players. Also overpaying players

But I think the overall best way to address parity and the salary level has to start with instilling a hard cap on salary. The soft cap disincentivises or worse, penalises teams who want to spend more for a better team but can't afford to sustain a luxury tax level position while those teams with rich owners or are in a big market, don't mind going over the luxury cap to stack talent. Essentially, those with rich ownership aren't stopped by the luxury tax which is suppose to be a deterrent from going over the luxury tax line. If you can stop owners from going over a salary cap, then you'll cap the amount of star players joining the same team and you will also stop the amount of teams being able to offer max level or close to max level deals.

lilfishi22 wrote:

letsgosuns wrote:The salaries are based on supply and demand. There are only around 450 NBA players in the league at any given time. There are billions of dollars in revenue now since the game has grown globally. With those numbers, It is natural that players salaries are extremely high. Now if the league feels the average salary is too much, there is a way to change it. One way is to get rid of the salary floor so teams do not give out contracts just to meet it.

I don't think the salary floor is all that high and that is far from the cause of the increasing average salary or the ridiculous contracts being handed out. I think the salary floor is a good thing, forces teams to at least put on a bottom of the barrel NBA level team.

In addition, another way to bring player salaries down is to eliminate the capped maximum amount a team can offer any player.

Let's say the salary cap is 100 million dollars. Imagine one team, like the 76ers, has sixty million dollars in cap space. Instead of saying we have the cap space to sign two max free agents, they should be able to say, we can offer 60 million a year to all-star player X and no one else can. If they are allowed to do that, I guarantee you that player will consider signing there. This does multiple things. First off, the all-star player gets paid their true market value. Secondly, this creates more parity in the league. Thirdly, this makes cap space meaningful again. More teams will be inclined to give out smaller contracts to lesser players in order to preserve cap space for a big offer down the line where they can actually outbid an opposing team. Therefore players undeserving of max contracts will not get them. Only the few top players in all the league will be paid what they are truly worth.

A perfect example of how this could change the landscape of the NBA is the Durant situation. The Celtics had about 53 million dollars to spend in free agency this offseason. The Warriors had far less. Durant's max salary offer was around 30 million. All the Warriors needed to do was clear enough space to match the Celtics offer. But what if the Celtics were allowed to offer Durant whatever they wanted and offered 50 million a year for 4 years. That would not be possible for the Warriors to match unless they dismantled their team. Suddenly Durant says wow, 50 million a year? I want that. Goodbye Warriors. You cannot come close to matching that. So a team with more cap space available is rewarded by winning the big prize. That will inspire other teams to create cap space and not waste it on random players that do not move the needle. This change would also stop super teams from forming.

I feel like this may only address the NBA competition parity issue. I also feel like this will just lead to more marginal talent being rewarded with ridiculous contracts just to attract these players. Instead of Durant and Lebron on $40m, you might have an Al Horford on $40-50m a year. A maximum level contract is still a better way to combat overpaying players. Also overpaying players

But I think the overall best way to address parity and the salary level has to start with instilling a hard cap on salary. The soft cap disincentivises or worse, penalises teams who want to spend more for a better team but can't afford to sustain a luxury tax level position while those teams with rich owners or are in a big market, don't mind going over the luxury cap to stack talent. Essentially, those with rich ownership aren't stopped by the luxury tax which is suppose to be a deterrent from going over the luxury tax line. If you can stop owners from going over a salary cap, then you'll cap the amount of star players joining the same team and you will also stop the amount of teams being able to offer max level or close to max level deals.

It 100% addresses the parity of the league, but I do not think it will lead to more marginal talent getting rewarded ridiculous contracts. This past offseason was unique because the salary cap spiked and everyone had huge cap space at the same time. However, allowing teams a chance to offer a player their entire amount of cap space if they choose encourages teams to think frugally and wait for the big fish to be a free agent rather than spend huge on marginal talent.

How often do teams have 50+ million dollars of cap space available? Maybe one or two a year if that. It is not like there are ten teams with 50 million in cap space all going for the same guy and nine of them saying we missed out and have to spend the money somehow. Most teams usually have around 20 million in cap space or less per year and only a few have 30 million in cap space. So therefore, I do not think a team is going to pay 40-50 million a year to a guy like Horford just to attract other players. He is not a top 5-10 player in the league. Those salaries will be reserved for the true first and second team All-NBA players. If you give a third or fourth option player like Horford 50% of your cap space, how do you expect to compete, even with another all-star. You still have to build the rest of the team. You cannot win with only two players.

Regardless, no matter what idea is put forward, the NBA has to change. The current system is broken. It allowed a team like the Warriors to create this monster super team that could win the next five championships. It makes cap space meaningless. There is no reason now to clear cap space similar to how the Suns did when they traded Marbury and Hardaway to afford Nash. That opened up massive cap space and allowed them to offer Nash a contract Cuban refused to match. Nowadays, every team is willing to offer an all-star a four year max contract yet no one can outbid another team. It is a terrible way to run a league.

letsgosuns wrote:It 100% addresses the parity of the league, but I do not think it will lead to more marginal talent getting rewarded ridiculous contracts. This past offseason was unique because the salary cap spiked and everyone had huge cap space at the same time. However, allowing teams a chance to offer a player their entire amount of cap space if they choose encourages teams to think frugally and wait for the big fish to be a free agent rather than spend huge on marginal talent.

How often do teams have 50+ million dollars of cap space available? Maybe one or two a year if that. It is not like there are ten teams with 50 million in cap space all going for the same guy and nine of them saying we missed out and have to spend the money somehow. Most teams usually have around 20 million in cap space or less per year and only a few have 30 million in cap space. So therefore, I do not think a team is going to pay 40-50 million a year to a guy like Horford just to attract other players. He is not a top 5-10 player in the league. Those salaries will be reserved for the true first and second team All-NBA players. If you give a third or fourth option player like Horford 50% of your cap space, how do you expect to compete, even with another all-star. You still have to build the rest of the team. You cannot win with only two players.

Regardless, no matter what idea is put forward, the NBA has to change. The current system is broken. It allowed a team like the Warriors to create this monster super team that could win the next five championships. It makes cap space meaningless. There is no reason now to clear cap space similar to how the Suns did when they traded Marbury and Hardaway to afford Nash. That opened up massive cap space and allowed them to offer Nash a contract Cuban refused to match. Nowadays, every team is willing to offer an all-star a four year max contract yet no one can outbid another team. It is a terrible way to run a league.

Perhaps it may solve this parity issue to an extent. In today's NBA, it seems players are more comfortable with giving up some salary to create a winning super team than they are about maximum pay. That's the case with the top level talent anyway. All this does, in my opinion, is potentially opening the door to more overpay for the Chandler Parsons type talent by teams who have to pay more to retain or attract below all-star level talent. If the argument is that it will allow teams the chance to offer $50-70m of cap space then virtually every team will have at least one player that is going to be grossly overpaid. Players like Wes Matthews, Reggie Jackson, Dragic, Monroe, Brook Lopez, Galinari likely making significantly more than they do now even at their overpaid levels.

I like the maximum level contract because it means you can only offer any one player, up to 35% of a team's salary cap. It doesn't stop super teams but it does put a stop on overpaying to a set level of the cap whereas if you remove the maximum, then you're opening up the floodgates. I've always been a proponent of a hard cap and it will both curb overpaying and also stop super teams from forming by not allowing teams to go into "luxury tax" just to stack it with ridiculous talent. The fact that teams are paying a luxury tax means in certain situations, it's not so much putting a stop on spending but rather a cost/benefit debate for that team to have. If the Suns were a top 1-2 contender every year, I'm sure Sarver wouldn't mind paying the luxury tax because the money he gets back from everything else will more than make up for that tax.

But I will concede to your final point, the current NBA system is flawed and does need to be overhauled.

lilfishi22 wrote:

letsgosuns wrote:It 100% addresses the parity of the league, but I do not think it will lead to more marginal talent getting rewarded ridiculous contracts. This past offseason was unique because the salary cap spiked and everyone had huge cap space at the same time. However, allowing teams a chance to offer a player their entire amount of cap space if they choose encourages teams to think frugally and wait for the big fish to be a free agent rather than spend huge on marginal talent.

How often do teams have 50+ million dollars of cap space available? Maybe one or two a year if that. It is not like there are ten teams with 50 million in cap space all going for the same guy and nine of them saying we missed out and have to spend the money somehow. Most teams usually have around 20 million in cap space or less per year and only a few have 30 million in cap space. So therefore, I do not think a team is going to pay 40-50 million a year to a guy like Horford just to attract other players. He is not a top 5-10 player in the league. Those salaries will be reserved for the true first and second team All-NBA players. If you give a third or fourth option player like Horford 50% of your cap space, how do you expect to compete, even with another all-star. You still have to build the rest of the team. You cannot win with only two players.

Regardless, no matter what idea is put forward, the NBA has to change. The current system is broken. It allowed a team like the Warriors to create this monster super team that could win the next five championships. It makes cap space meaningless. There is no reason now to clear cap space similar to how the Suns did when they traded Marbury and Hardaway to afford Nash. That opened up massive cap space and allowed them to offer Nash a contract Cuban refused to match. Nowadays, every team is willing to offer an all-star a four year max contract yet no one can outbid another team. It is a terrible way to run a league.

Perhaps it may solve this parity issue to an extent. In today's NBA, it seems players are more comfortable with giving up some salary to create a winning super team than they are about maximum pay. That's the case with the top level talent anyway. All this does, in my opinion, is potentially opening the door to more overpay for the Chandler Parsons type talent by teams who have to pay more to retain or attract below all-star level talent. If the argument is that it will allow teams the chance to offer $50-70m of cap space then virtually every team will have at least one player that is going to be grossly overpaid. Players like Wes Matthews, Reggie Jackson, Dragic, Monroe, Brook Lopez, Galinari likely making significantly more than they do now even at their overpaid levels.

I like the maximum level contract because it means you can only offer any one player, up to 35% of a team's salary cap. It doesn't stop super teams but it does put a stop on overpaying to a set level of the cap whereas if you remove the maximum, then you're opening up the floodgates. I've always been a proponent of a hard cap and it will both curb overpaying and also stop super teams from forming by not allowing teams to go into "luxury tax" just to stack it with ridiculous talent. The fact that teams are paying a luxury tax means in certain situations, it's not so much putting a stop on spending but rather a cost/benefit debate for that team to have. If the Suns were a top 1-2 contender every year, I'm sure Sarver wouldn't mind paying the luxury tax because the money he gets back from everything else will more than make up for that tax.

But I will concede to your final point, the current NBA system is flawed and does need to be overhauled.

This is a great link showing how much projected cap space each team will have available next year: http://www.spotrac.com/nba/cap/2017/ You can see that there is not really a team out there that truly has 50+ million to spend without giving up players on their team and/or starting from scratch.

Now I fully understand what you are saying about potentially every team always having a player that is grossly overapaid. However, I do not envision any team ever actually having 50-70 million in cap space to offer one player. If you click the Thunder's page on that link I gave, you will see they can have up to about 73.5 million in cap space, but that is if they literally renounce every single exception and cap hold on their team. That means only Kanter, Singler, and rookies will be signed. If they do that and say re-sign Westbrook to a 50 million dollar a year contract, they will have only a few players signed and about 23.5 million dollars left to sign possibly 10 more players. That is not a good way to build a team.

However, if a team out there like the Suns which has a good young foundation locked up says we are willing to pay Westbrook 35-40 million a year to pair him with Booker, Warren, Bender, Chriss, Len, Chandler, and whoever else, they can make it happen. They can sign and trade for him and give the Thunder Bledsoe and Knight. The Suns would never do something like that for a guy like Parsons or another mediocre player. Only a top five player in the league would they make an offer so big. So only a select few would get massive offers and the rest of the players would take whatever their market value dictates they deserve. It is just an idea though. Idk if it would work. Obviously more thought has to be put into it but I can picture how changing the NBA salary rules into more of MLB style rules could keep the top players paid high and the rest of the league in line with their real market value.

letsgosuns wrote:This is a great link showing how much projected cap space each team will have available next year: http://www.spotrac.com/nba/cap/2017/ You can see that there is not really a team out there that truly has 50+ million to spend without giving up players on their team and/or starting from scratch.

Now I fully understand what you are saying about potentially every team always having a player that is grossly overapaid. However, I do not envision any team ever actually having 50-70 million in cap space to offer one player. If you click the Thunder's page on that link I gave, you will see they can have up to about 73.5 million in cap space, but that is if they literally renounce every single exception and cap hold on their team. That means only Kanter, Singler, and rookies will be signed. If they do that and say re-sign Westbrook to a 50 million dollar a year contract, they will have only a few players signed and about 23.5 million dollars left to sign possibly 10 more players. That is not a good way to build a team.

However, if a team out there like the Suns which has a good young foundation locked up says we are willing to pay Westbrook 35-40 million a year to pair him with Booker, Warren, Bender, Chriss, Len, Chandler, and whoever else, they can make it happen. They can sign and trade for him and give the Thunder Bledsoe and Knight. The Suns would never do something like that for a guy like Parsons or another mediocre player. Only a top five player in the league would they make an offer so big. So only a select few would get massive offers and the rest of the players would take whatever their market value dictates they deserve. It is just an idea though. Idk if it would work. Obviously more thought has to be put into it but I can picture how changing the NBA salary rules into more of MLB style rules could keep the top players paid high and the rest of the league in line with their real market value.

Grossly overpaid isn't necessarily the $50m contract. It could easily be the $30-40m to the kinds of players I've listed because its what it takes to retain or sign talent to a smaller market.
But if it's the case that most teams don't have 50-70m in cap space, when that one team does, like a Philly for example, they are going to go all out to sign an Elton Brand type player for $30-50m which will not only hurt their forward outlook but it may be their only option to sign a player of that calibre. And that's exactly what they did and it's those kinds of deal which got the NBA to re-look at the old maximum deals because were legitimately cap killers and I think that's what these kind of blank cheque deals will create.