Unintended Consequences of Max Salary Rule

[Scorpion King]

Why is it that NBA players are the one who complain most about lack of exposure and attention ?

[Mamba Venom]

The Players UNION would LOVE no max on contracts (there would still be a min)

So if LeBron or Wade is worth 30 mil a year because they are that good, THEN they will have less help.

There should be no more than one unrestricted 'franchise' contract per team.

So
1 unrestricted contract (limited only by full cap)
Everything else is normal
Min players can be added at any time w/o luxury tax

[DEEP3CL]

The cap is doing exactly what it was meant to do, if it was no cap at all you would only have 4 power teams and the rest of the league would be bottom feeders. And you just can't do away with the cap, owners are still going to be smart about business. The guys that deserve it will still get theirs.

[Friend_Of_Haley]

With the current system, don't the players get guaranteed a minimum of the BRI. You'd still have that. They'd get their minimum payout from the BRI if salaries weren't at least that.

There's a salary floor for teams - NJ had to hand out what I thought were some overpriced contracts in order to meet the salary floor this year. Still, that was a rare exception, most teams are well above the salary floor and several are well above the cap. In order to make a hard cap even considerable to the union, the floor would have to be raised high enough to where it offsets the loss of money from all those player salaries above the cap.

Example: say the current max soft-cap is $20 and the floor is $10. The Lakers spend $25 on player salary and Nets spend $10. Union dues are calculated based on the total salaries of $35. Now say the $20 soft-cap is changed to a $20 hard-cap. The Lakers have to drop their salary to $20. The union would want the floor raised to $15, forcing the Nets to increase their salary to $15. That way the total salaries that union dues are paid from remains $35.

And even then the union isn't going to like it, and getting it passed would require other concessions from the owners. Because under the soft cap the Lakers could spend $30 or $40 or $50. Under the hard cap they'd never be able to go above $20.

I'm not talking about the salary floor. I'm talking about the fact that NBA Players are guaranteed a portion of the BRI. If in any given year, salaries paid out do not make that minimum, the owners have to pay the union the difference (not sure what happens after that because I don't think it has ever happened)/ But as long as that same rule was around, players would get their minimum piece of the pie.

[SJSF]

Make it so every team has a hard cap. And that every team will be only able to sign a limited number of great players. Lets say 2 at most. I say this because a hard cap stops all the team from loading up and it turns teams toward the draft to get good.

[SJSF]

First off, If there is a hard cap, and dependin what max is set. Lets say 55m. A team won't be able to have 3 max players making 12m a year. A team has to have at least 14 players on the roster. SO i wouldn't worry about the super team scenario. But really, this will be short lived. LeBron will leave if he ever wins a title. Thats all he craves. And this has been done before, remember the Lakers. Shaq, Kobe, Karl Malone, and Gary Payton. They won nothing.

P.S. looking forward to this league finally coming back to reality.