RealGM

I propose teams are limited to one max level range contract per team. Maybe that is defined in the new CBA as any contract being 15+ million. This rule is grandfathered in so teams exceeding this aren't penalized now.

This means more even distribution of the stars of the league. The Lakers could no longer stack Gasol and Kobe. Etc.

It would help the non big market teams compete and potentially keep their superstars or stars who might otherwise keep big market teams competing for championships simply because they can afford monetary penalities.

Maybe even go further. Each team gets 1 Max, and two mid-max contract slots.

1 Max 15-20 mil
2 Mid Max 12-14 Mil

You obviously don't have to sign a max. You can try and wait until one player comes available or you draft one you want to keep one their rookie contract expires (Durant, Rose, etc)

How this would work for the Suns:

We would declare Amare our max player at 16 Mill, Nash our first mid/max. Jrich our second mid/max.

When JRich expires or is traded to a team wanting a mid/max player it would open up that salary slot for us.

I think a rule like this would have equalize talent around the league couple with shorter contract lengths.

Wouldn't this type of system lend itself quite well to a hard cap scenario? You would then offer players contract slots on the roster instead of a contract. And the max range for each slot would sum to the salary cap?

(Sorry about the constant editing) If I remember correctly, this would also be somewhat similar to the system that is/(was) used in the NBL here in Australia, where there isn't an actual salary cap, but players are given ranks by opposing team coaches, and a team must abide by how many player points they have on their roster. (Again, that's what I seem to remember on how it works, I didn't check it up).

That's like the Communism of basketball

But seriously, interesting viewpoint. I guess my question would simply be that some markets can't support a max player, plus on the flip side of the coin, are you taking away from the saturation of major markets - meaning do you lose some attendance at Laker games if they can only have Kobe, Odom and Artest? The system you proposed is certainly a good step towards supporting viability in small markets, but because of the 2 issues I mentioned you may not be able to raise revenue in let's say Memphis and you may be hurting major market teams in hopes of helping the Memphis-es, when the help won't really help anyway.

Performance based pay should be the basis of the new CBA. Maintain a low base pay, but provide high incentives for performance based off of tracked metrics. Years of service x $250,000 plus PER-style metrics (adapted to include way more tracked characeteristics) x $500,000. Amare would make roughly $11.5 mil under this scenario, LBJ would make roughly $15.5 mil.

SideSwipe wrote:Performance based pay should be the basis of the new CBA. Maintain a low base pay, but provide high incentives for performance based off of tracked metrics. Years of service x $250,000 plus PER-style metrics (adapted to include way more tracked characeteristics) x $500,000. Amare would make roughly $11.5 mil under this scenario, LBJ would make roughly $15.5 mil.

I'd definitely be in favor of this - then you don't end up with Elton Brand being paid what $20 million a year to put up Robin Lopez numbers. Sign a player and he can make a lot of money if he's putting up the numbers but then if he falls off cause it isn't a contract year or whatever, the team doesn't get screwed by paying max money for 3 more years.

Miklo wrote:

SideSwipe wrote:Performance based pay should be the basis of the new CBA. Maintain a low base pay, but provide high incentives for performance based off of tracked metrics. Years of service x $250,000 plus PER-style metrics (adapted to include way more tracked characeteristics) x $500,000. Amare would make roughly $11.5 mil under this scenario, LBJ would make roughly $15.5 mil.

I'd definitely be in favor of this - then you don't end up with Elton Brand being paid what $20 million a year to put up Robin Lopez numbers. Sign a player and he can make a lot of money if he's putting up the numbers but then if he falls off cause it isn't a contract year or whatever, the team doesn't get screwed by paying max money for 3 more years.

That'd discourage team ball and encourage stat padding.

Communism indeed


so what happens if you have a max player, then another player deserves the max too? You cant pay him?

What if you trade for a max player?

If a talented underpaid player ends his contract, will he have to move to a new team to get paid?

What if every team has a max player and LeBron and his team mutually end his contract, does he have to play overseas?

Will players phone it in when they know there is a logjam of max contracts around them and they know they wont get paid? Do players have to continually sign 1 year contracts until a team can sign them to a max long term deal? Are we going to have contract lines?

albasuna wrote:

Miklo wrote:

SideSwipe wrote:Performance based pay should be the basis of the new CBA. Maintain a low base pay, but provide high incentives for performance based off of tracked metrics. Years of service x $250,000 plus PER-style metrics (adapted to include way more tracked characeteristics) x $500,000. Amare would make roughly $11.5 mil under this scenario, LBJ would make roughly $15.5 mil.

I'd definitely be in favor of this - then you don't end up with Elton Brand being paid what $20 million a year to put up Robin Lopez numbers. Sign a player and he can make a lot of money if he's putting up the numbers but then if he falls off cause it isn't a contract year or whatever, the team doesn't get screwed by paying max money for 3 more years.

That'd discourage team ball and encourage stat padding.

I think SideSwipe meant, and this is what I supported, to use advanced metrics and not points, rebounds as heavily. Assists maybe but really I could see like PER, +/- averages. I haven't developed the thought much so I do see your point and it could be tough to avoid a system that woudl reward Corey Maggette-ing (stat padding)

Thanks Mik, that's right. Advanced metrics along with a large bonus pool for team perfromance/ redocrd/ playoffs/ championship. Things like deflections, +/- and opponents effectiveness at the position would need to be incorporated. It would be a lot to track, but that's what computers are for. Points, rebounds, assists, steals turnovers, minutes, FG% and so should all still be factors, but should be loaded with the other factors to give us a better grading scale and view.

As an example I think a 20%-30% or more bonus should be based on team wins and playoff performance. That would give Amare a $2.5 million reason to get this team on his shoulders to make the playoffs. Lesser players would be equally incentivized.

Maybe something like this:

1st round- 10% bonus
2nd round- 15%
Conference Finals 20%
Finals 25%
Championship 35%

Amare would make roughly $11.5 mil in the regular season but would be elligible for another roughly $4 million from the team performance pool if they were to win the championship. I think Champions should make more money than lower performers. This will also help prevent teams tanking from season to season, as they would be giving up significant amounts of revenue. The team itself should be equally compensated as the players out of NBA BRI money to give the team as a whole an extra incentive to perform well above and beyond jus the additional ticket sales.