RealGM

We all know the deal: Supermax contracts are available only for some players, and can only be given from the team for which the player has earned the right for it. And when a player earns the leverage to gain a supermax contract, he usually gets it. But this has become a burden on teams, especially from a salary cap point of view.

* If the team does not give the player the supermax, the player feels belittled.
* If the team gives the player the supermax, their cap is shredded.

Let's call the financial difference between the max contact and supermax contract "the extra money".

So what if... (I'm just experimenting here)

1- The extra money does not count against the cap for the team who has given the contract. The team pays it, the player gets it, but it creates no cap burden on the team. Only the actual max contract limit counts against the cap.

2- The extra money counts against the cap if the player is traded to another team.

3- The unsure part:
a-) The player keeps getting the extra money.
b-) The teams which are below the salary cap get the money.
(That's why I am not sure about that part - I am against punishing the player for getting traded. But 3-b ensures that the player loses "the extra money" if he wants out.)

Pros:
* Teams would hesitate less about giving out supermax contracts, because their cap situation would not be affected by this decision. (1)
* The team which trades for a supermax player should be aware of the situation that all the supermax contract amount would count against the cap. (2)
* A player who has signed a supermax would lose the extra money if he wants out. (3-a)

Cons:
* A player who has signed a supermax would lose the extra money if he is traded against his will. (3-b)

Some observations and opinions relevant to this question:
1 The rules are the rules. CBA discussions do not happen for another 4-5 years, so it's kinda irrelevant idea these days. By the time we get that far down the road, what's seen as "important" to try to change could be anything.
2 The "extra money" isn't a big number in NBA terms. It's basically just allowing certain players who meet certain high-level criteria to be paid the 35% max salary one year sooner than everyone else. And frankly, aren't those the guys that drive the league and SHOULD get paid extra?
3 The salary cap exists for the very reason this comes into play --so teams will have to make wise choices, and be faced with limits that tend to help drive better competition with more similar talent to work with. Stars want to get paid like stars, and if you can't afford to pay yours (due to cap limits, hesitation to pay such a big number, or any other reason), they can go elsewhere to find a team that can find a way.

My personal guess is that such an idea would never get off the ground, because of the consequences. I doubt the direct one (let certain teams have more cap salary than others) would appeal to anyone, and the indirect consequences (a regular reduction in the cap itself and perhaps in cap exceptions to offset the off-the-cap spending allowed) would prove unpopular as well with the vast majority of the players. It would appeal to the "have's" of the league who have lots of talent to pay and would love to do it at no cost or consequences to them, and the few star players on those few teams, but the "have-not's" far outnumber them and would never agree. If you can't afford your talent, let someone else have it.