Do you favor a hard cap?

[Mr. Sun]

I do. I think salaries in the NBA are way, way out of reality.

[MaryvalesFinest]

It will be good for the Suns so I vote yes.

[raff]

To be honest, I'm really not sure either way at this point. How would stricter salary restrictions affect a player's motivation?

The wiretap article says that one gm thinks that star money would be $8 mil under a hard cap. If this were true, and a hard cap came in, what would happen to the stars of this offseason that sign max deal extensions. How do their contracts move across to the new cba and under a new cap? Or is it too early to get into that sort of detail for this?

[Qwigglez]

I would prefer it. Smaller market teams will too.

[RaisingArizona]

In reality, bench players should make under a million. Think about it, that's still more than doctors, lawyers, some executives and virtually all government personal.

[sunfire0112]

I think a hard cap would help curb over-paying players and maybe even the playing field among large/small market teams. Not quite sure about what a good # would be. Would be funny if it was $60mil, teams like the lakers would be so screwed.

However, $8mil as star money is too small. Would the NBA still be able to attract top talent from other countries or keep their own talent from going to European teams who can offer $15-$20mil contracts? True, most players want to be in the NBA because they want to play against the best but another motivating factor is the money.

The new CBA negotiations should be pretty interesting.

[Mr. Sun]

However, $8mil as star money is too small. Would the NBA still be able to attract top talent from other countries or keep their own talent from going to European teams who can offer $15-$20mil contracts? True, most players want to be in the NBA because they want to play against the best but another motivating factor is the money.

Oh come on! A stand out star will make a ton of money in endorsements and jersey sales. They won't need a basketball salary to make money.

[LukasBMW]

A hard cap will level the playing field and keep players from being overpaid.

However, $8mil as star money is too small. Would the NBA still be able to attract top talent from other countries or keep their own talent from going to European teams who can offer $15-$20mil contracts? True, most players want to be in the NBA because they want to play against the best but another motivating factor is the money.

The threat of supestars going to Europe is real, but that is why we need a hard cap at $60-$65 million and not a cap on pay. If you limit pay to $8, $10, or even $12-15 million a season, guys like Kobe and Lebron might bolt for europe. With a hard cap, you can still pay Kobe or Lebron $20-$30 million a year and have $30-$40 million to spend on the rest of the players. With a hard cap I think you would have only the top 5 players getting "MAX" type deals. The other superstars would probably have $10 mill a year deals. Starters would probably make $6 mill, bench players would pull $3-4 mill, and scrubs would make about a million.

Oh come on! A stand out star will make a ton of money in endorsements and jersey sales. They won't need a basketball salary to make money.

Exactly.

[LukasBMW]

With a hard cap I see pay going like this:

Kobe, Lebron, - $15-$25 mill per season (superstars)

Dwight Howard, Dwade, Steve Nash - $12-$15 mil per season (hall of famers)

Amare, Bosh, Joe Johnson, Brandon Roy, Chris Paul - $10-$12 mil per season (perennial all stars)

Rondo, D. Wiliams, Marion, Iggy, Granger - $8-$10 million per season (all stars)

$4-8 million per season for productive starters and a few 6th men.

$2-$4 million per season for bench players

$1 mil per season for scrubs

That seem VERY fair to me. The hard cap should prevent the slip we have seen in good players getting superstar money and role players getting all star money.

Under a new cap I see the suns players’ market value as (based on average productivity over the past 2 years and potential)

Nash - $15 mil per
Amare - $12 mil per
Barbosa - $5 mil per
Jrich - $5 mil per
Hill - $4 mil per
Fry - $4 mil per
Dudley - $4mil per
Dragic - $4 mil per
Lopez- $3 mil per
Amundson - $2 mil per
Clark - $2 mil per
Collins - $2 mil per
Griffin - $1 mil per

Total - $63 million

I have not been this excited about basketball in a long time! If this new hard cap is made a reality, teams won’t be able to buy championships, players won’t be able to get big deals and quit, small market teams will be as competitive as big market teams, and the NBA will be exciting (and profitable) as ever.

[sunfire0112]

Oh come on! A stand out star will make a ton of money in endorsements and jersey sales. They won't need a basketball salary to make money.

My argument was more about European players and "role-player" caliber players.
The higher paid European players make around $6mil. link What's the motivation for a "starter" level Euro player to come to the NBA if he can make the same kind of money in his own country.

I know a "stand out star" would make a ton of money off endorsements but there is a sharp drop-off in marketing income after that for "starter/role-player" level players. http://jonesonthenba.com/2008/06/top-nba-player-marketing-figures-for.html
There's the threat of Euro teams diluting the talent pool because they would be able to overpay "role-player/bench" players.

Also, I thought players don't get money off jersey sales, and that money goes to the NBA and the player's team.

[lilfishi22]

I'm 50/50 on this issue. It will certainly even out the playing field by making big market teams keep their salary down to the level of small market teams, but to be honest, I like to culture of big market and small market teams.

I think a hard cap at the luxury tax line is adequate. The NBA will still be able to pay top rates for the best players in the world and will keep those players in the NBA. At the same time, we won't have teams like the Lakers, Mavs or Knicks paying something like 20-30mil in tax money. I think lowering salary is a must but I don't think $8m for a superstar will be enough to keep players in the NBA. But no matter how you look at it, players are still going to be overpaid. I mean $4m a year for a man playing a child's sport?

The lowered future salary cap is looking to be around $53-55m but if we put a hard cap right near the luxury tax line, we still get the big market, small market teams but the big markets have to now pay a lower rate.

I say, introduce a hard cap around the current luxury tax line to stop those big market teams from overspending ($10-20m over lux tax line) and lower the salary cap/tax line. Also putting more restrictions on max contracts like lowering the percentage a max contract can take up in a team's salary. Currently the percentage is something like 45%, if we lower that to say 33% or less of the cap, this will lower salaries of max contracts. Lower the raises players are allowed to have from the 8% to 5% for FA's and from 10% to 7% for own FA's.

As for the endorsement, I think that's a matter that's outside of the concern of the NBA and shouldn't tie in with the hard cap argument. Endorsements are a business, if we lower salary because of endorsement then it's no different than saying we should lower player salary because a few players have a successful real estate business or landscaping business outside the NBA. There are players who do very little endorsements but they shouldn't be penalized because other players are making bank with their endorsements.

Long story short, we don't need a hard cap that restricts star player salaries to $8m. What we need it to force owners to strongly differentiate the superstars from starters/stars. What we need is to stop owners from paying the Rashard Lewis', Michael Redd's and the Jermaine O'Neal's of the basketball world, Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan or Dirk Nowitzki money.

[SideSwipe]

PERFORMANCE BASED PAY

I think the issue of caps might be able to avoided by tagging pay to performance indicators somewhat similar to PER modified by years of service, team performance and playoff success. As an example we'll take Amare. We could do $250,000 per year of service and add that to roughly $500,000 per PER. Amare's salary would be $1.75 mil ($250,000 x 7 years of service) + $10 mil (PER of 20 multiplied times $500,000) totaling $11.75 mil modified +/- 20% based on team performance in the regular season and playoffs. LBJ would make roughly $15 million based on his current PER. The league would need to track more performance indicators to assure the hybrid PER system used accounted for as many aspects of player performance as possible (deflections, turnovers caused- character would be the most difficult to quantify in this type of scenario).

Teams should also make a good amount of money for making each different round of the playoffs and the championship. A large part of BRI should be used as an incentive for each team to strive for excellence every year, instead of tanking and going for picks.

Just my 2 cents. That would help bring down salaries of those that should have it brought down, allow owners to pay the bills and make money (it is a business) all while not establishing a hard cap. Thoughts?

[Gorilla Warfare]

Definitely a fan of the hard cap.



Look at that thing, all yellow and sexy.

[the_warden]

No. It's essentially collusion by the owners to keep player salaries done. If this were done in any other field/industry, people would be up in arms.

[the_warden]

In reality, bench players should make under a million. Think about it, that's still more than doctors, lawyers, some executives and virtually all government personal.

There are far more people who can be doctors, lawyers, executives, and especially government personnel than can play professional basketball.

[garrick]

I really don't know to be honest. All I know is that players salaries are way too high at the moment and it must come down to what it was before the dot com era because we are in a recession.

The NBAPA needs to realize that even with steep price cuts their players are getting paid insane amounts of money just to play basketball and the owners need to slash prices on their tickets so that the real NBA fans can attend the games.

[Mr. Sun]

Let me ask those who say players might be unfairly paid: How much did Wilt Chamberlain, Larry Bird or Magic Johnson earn? If Magic could earn $2.5 million that was awesome money.

Problem is players are spoiled on excessive high salaries.

[RaisingArizona]

In reality, bench players should make under a million. Think about it, that's still more than doctors, lawyers, some executives and virtually all government personal.

There are far more people who can be doctors, lawyers, executives, and especially government personnel than can play professional basketball.

Perhaps, but you're saying that someone that takes 10 years of school at a university level doing public service work such as a doctor should make less than a Taylor Griffin? PPPPPPPPPLEASE

[the_warden]

In reality, bench players should make under a million. Think about it, that's still more than doctors, lawyers, some executives and virtually all government personal.

There are far more people who can be doctors, lawyers, executives, and especially government personnel than can play professional basketball.

Perhaps, but you're saying that someone that takes 10 years of school at a university level doing public service work such as a doctor should make less than a Taylor Griffin? PPPPPPPPPLEASE

Should? What is this "should"? How do we determine "should"?

There are not many people who can be doctors. There are even less that can play professional basketball. The amount they get paid is relative to the demand they receive for their services and the number of them available. It works like this in every free industry; why is it okay here? Because of your "should"?

[the_warden]

Let me ask those who say players might be unfairly paid: How much did Wilt Chamberlain, Larry Bird or Magic Johnson earn? If Magic could earn $2.5 million that was awesome money.

Problem is players are spoiled on excessive high salaries.

What are you talking about?

First, basketball is a far more widespread phenomenon than it was back then. It seems fitting that people should be paid accordingly. You're also begging the question when you assume that Wilt, Bird, and Magic were paid fairly. Second, how are you determining what counts as "fair"? You're just arbitrarily deciding. I think the best way is to let people use their money to their own ends. To use an example from philosophy, if I have what is considered a "just" distribution of income, and LeBron James says, "I'll let you watch me play for $50" and a million people take him up on that offer, suddenly he has $50M. How is that unjust?

Finally, you people are missing the forest for the trees. Every dollar a player doesn't get is a dollar the owner does. It doesn't make the quality better. It doesn't mean lower prices for consumers. It means monopoly profits for owners.

If this happened in any other industry and employers effectively conspired to keep employment costs down, there would be riots. It's not just in that instance and it isn't here.