"Only way to avoid 'super teams' is to impose a hard cap."

[Ditchweed]

How do you figure that? The players get their total from the %age of the BRI ... the owners overall wouldn't spend more or less, just the distribution from the teams to the 450 players would be different.

They would of course pay more. They all would have to pay more to second tier stars. They couldn't afford LeBrons or Griffins. they would pay a lot of money to guys who don't change revenue. Westbrook, Bosh, etc

With a hard cap, all teams pay the same maximum amount. The amount that each would pay would be a %age of the BRI divided by the 30 teams.

A small market team still wouldn't pay more than a large market team and vice versa, all 30 teams have $70 million max teams, for example, and all 30 teams pay the same $70m. They would just have different players but not all teams would have to have a max salary player. An organization could get a "better than average but more of them" player team. Same cost ... $70m.

(Next year, the minimum is 90% of the cap so teams still have to spend even if they want to spend lower, or they get penalized for the difference)

[DanTown8587]

How do you figure that? The players get their total from the %age of the BRI ... the owners overall wouldn't spend more or less, just the distribution from the teams to the 450 players would be different.

They would of course pay more. They all would have to pay more to second tier stars. They couldn't afford LeBrons or Griffins. they would pay a lot of money to guys who don't change revenue. Westbrook, Bosh, etc

With a hard cap, all teams pay the same maximum amount. The amount that each would pay would be a %age of the BRI divided by the 30 teams.

A small market team still wouldn't pay more than a large market team and vice versa, all 30 teams have $70 million max teams, for example, and all 30 teams pay the same $70m. They would just have different players but not all teams would have to have a max salary player. An organization could get a "better than average but more of them" player team. Same cost ... $70m.

(Next year, the minimum is 90% of the cap so teams still have to spend even if they want to spend lower, or they get penalized for the difference)

Ok, let's say each team pays the exact same. That only helps large markets. The Pacers, Bucks, Kings, Bobcats aren't able to sign players that impact their revenue stream enough to help them pay $70 million. If you say the cap goes up to $60 million next year, 90% is 54 million. You've just said every team in the league has to essentially pay the luxury tax. That's just not feasible for a lot of teams.

The current system is the best it can be. While you can NEVER make unrestricted free agency good for small markets, max salaries and restricted free agency certainly help keep their talent for many many years. The Thunder will control Durant, Westbrook for NINE years.

[Boneman2]

Ok, let's say each team pays the exact same. That only helps large markets. The Pacers, Bucks, Kings, Bobcats aren't able to sign players that impact their revenue stream enough to help them pay $70 million. If you say the cap goes up to $60 million next year, 90% is 54 million. You've just said every team in the league has to essentially pay the luxury tax. That's just not feasible for a lot of teams.

Herb Simon (Pacers Owner) will spend money if it makes sense to do so. He spent close to $115,000,000.00 this offseason, and as recently as 7 years ago he carried the 4th highest payroll in the league.

The Pacers owner is the world's largest mall magnate, and doesn't need the NBA to develop a welfare program for his team.

He just needs a level playing field in terms of competition.

[EddieJonesFan]

Do we want to avoid super teams, or do we just want to make them harder to build? If you just limit the ways that loaded teams can acquire star players without drafting them, then I don't see why you need to do more than that. Super teams aren't a problem if they do it by scouting and drafting well, it's just when the same franchises keep getting the same advantage from their markets and payrolls and attractiveness to star players, that it becomes a problem. You don't want to get rid of the possibility of building dominant dynasties, that's the goal of the NBA. I don't want some BS take-turns winning parity league.

And I hate how much people are currently judging the the new CBA before its full effects even kick in.

[DanTown8587]

Ok, let's say each team pays the exact same. That only helps large markets. The Pacers, Bucks, Kings, Bobcats aren't able to sign players that impact their revenue stream enough to help them pay $70 million. If you say the cap goes up to $60 million next year, 90% is 54 million. You've just said every team in the league has to essentially pay the luxury tax. That's just not feasible for a lot of teams.

Herb Simon (Pacers Owner) will spend money if it makes sense to do so. He spent close to $115,000,000.00 this offseason, and as recently as 7 years ago he carried the 4th highest payroll in the league.

The Pacers owner is the world's largest mall magnate, and doesn't need the NBA to develop a welfare program for his team.

He just needs a level playing field in terms of competition.

First off, regardless of what Simon was paying, he was LOSING money, every year. Regardless of what else he does outside the NBA, he isn't an owner that enjoys losing money every single year.

Secondly, how much balance can you make? LeBron James and Dwight Howard win 50+ games a year carrying teams with awful 2nd, 3rd and 4th options. When only seven to eight guys is all you need, having the best is a competitive advantage that can never be trumped.

[Agenda42]

The current system is the best it can be. While you can NEVER make unrestricted free agency good for small markets, max salaries and restricted free agency certainly help keep their talent for many many years. The Thunder will control Durant, Westbrook for NINE years.

This claim is absolutely hilarious to me. I see the current system as terribly broken in a lot of different ways, and even the owners wanted to make dramatic changes last negotiating session before they decided to just grab the money.

A single team controlling the future of players they draft for nine years is not a good thing, it's a bad thing. The NBA needs that under their current system because free agency destinations are so lopsided. Small markets shouldn't be places where you can only hope to hold onto players you draft forever, it's not like that in any other sports league.

[Ditchweed]

They would of course pay more. They all would have to pay more to second tier stars. They couldn't afford LeBrons or Griffins. they would pay a lot of money to guys who don't change revenue. Westbrook, Bosh, etc

With a hard cap, all teams pay the same maximum amount. The amount that each would pay would be a %age of the BRI divided by the 30 teams.

A small market team still wouldn't pay more than a large market team and vice versa, all 30 teams have $70 million max teams, for example, and all 30 teams pay the same $70m. They would just have different players but not all teams would have to have a max salary player. An organization could get a "better than average but more of them" player team. Same cost ... $70m.

(Next year, the minimum is 90% of the cap so teams still have to spend even if they want to spend lower, or they get penalized for the difference)

Ok, let's say each team pays the exact same. That only helps large markets. The Pacers, Bucks, Kings, Bobcats aren't able to sign players that impact their revenue stream enough to help them pay $70 million. If you say the cap goes up to $60 million next year, 90% is 54 million. You've just said every team in the league has to essentially pay the luxury tax. That's just not feasible for a lot of teams.

The current system is the best it can be. While you can NEVER make unrestricted free agency good for small markets, max salaries and restricted free agency certainly help keep their talent for many many years. The Thunder will control Durant, Westbrook for NINE years.

It wouldn't affect their revenue streams, and a more equitable system draws more payer fans for small market teams (theoretically) plus there is still revenue sharing amongst teams.

I never said every team will pay the tax. Right now, the salary cap and luxury tax levels are two different things: the salary cap is set at $58m and the luxury tax cutoff is $70m. With a hard cap, there will not be that difference, using 2012/2013 numbers and if they instituted a hard cap, it would most likely be the higher number and be set at $70m. There will just be one cap number to deal with, not two.

So if a hard cap is set at $70m , the minimum for a team to pay starting in 2013/2014 would be $63m using the new minimums. If they don't pay that, they get penalized for the difference so they might as well spend it. That amount is independent of their team's local revenue streams and is set by the %age of the BRI for the league.

It gets long to extrapolate the new player balance but what you are missing from the hardcap argument is that a team can not put more than two players on a team at a max salary of $26m. As well, the remaining teams do not have to have a max salary player. As an example, would a team spending $52m on two players with $18m left for the other twelve be better than a team spending $45m on three top players with $25 left for the other eleven?

Players would just reshuffle around the league and a team like LA would still get their choice of top stars like a Kobe and a Howard, but that is all they would get star wise and they wouldn't be able to keep players like Gasol or Nash for $29m. As well, keeping max contracts with a hard cap system still doesn't mean it's a system where OKC couldn't offer Durant more or a longer term than any other team, that wouldn't change.

Though keep in mind that many proponents of a hard cap also want no salary maximums. If a guy like Wade can demand and get his $50m, then let him get it but then a team can only get one star and will have only $20m for for the filler 13. So be it.

Anyway, this is all looking at things from the wrong direction again. Go back and read my post "What's missing in all these arguments is why does the NBA league exist?'. It is back a few paragraphs. The league is about maximizing profits for the owners and what the owners determine will do that is what will eventually be put in place.

[microfib4thewin]

...

If we have 30 Prokhorovs and Cubans running the teams and the CBA doesn't exist, then it'd just be whichever team is lucky enough to gather all the top talent. Unlike soccer where there are plenty of top talent for several teams there aren't enough of those in the NBA. So, running under the assumption that every team has unlimited spending power, one of those teams could conceivable have a roster of Lebron, Wade, Howard, and Love with Bosh and Bynum as reserves. The other 29 teams can spend until they file bankruptcy and they wouldn't be able to compete because of the disparity in talent. You think that those other guys who overpay for the likes of Monte Ellis or Shane Battier will put up a fight? Since any team can give the stars the money they want and there is no cap, the stars will just gather at the most desirable locations, and we go back to LA/NY being the favorites to hoard all the talent.

This is why I believe the imbalance of the league is more of a talent issue than a money issue. If it's a money issue, then small market teams should have no problem with competing since the richest owners are the ones operating in a small market(Glen Taylor, Paul Allen). However, the imbalance in talent is unquestionable. The fortune of a team in the draft can be very different even for those who have a top 3 pick. Portland is a non-playoff team because Oden became a bust while OKC is talking about winning a title. Is that fair and does this have anything to do with large market vs small market? How about Dwight Howard and Emeka Okafor? Things didn't end well for the Magic but they were able to compete for the years that Dwight was still there. While serviceable Okafor is considered overpaid and was sent away after his fifth year. Rose vs Beasley? Rose would be leading a team to contention again if he gets healthy while the Heat would have remained mediocre if not for the big 3 signing. Hoarding talent damages the balance of the NBA much more than any other leagues due to the fact that the current state of the game favors superstars and there aren't enough top tier talent to go around.

If the game continually caters to superstars who can get to the line 20 times a game and have ref treatments in other areas it makes every non-star player irrelevant. Any team that doesn't have two top 15 players are boned from the beginning no matter how much buying power they have or how attractive the location is.

[DanTown8587]

The current system is the best it can be. While you can NEVER make unrestricted free agency good for small markets, max salaries and restricted free agency certainly help keep their talent for many many years. The Thunder will control Durant, Westbrook for NINE years.

A single team controlling the future of players they draft for nine years is not a good thing, it's a bad thing. The NBA needs that under their current system because free agency destinations are so lopsided. Small markets shouldn't be places where you can only hope to hold onto players you draft forever, it's not like that in any other sports league.

MLB and college athletics would like to argue that the NBA is the only sport that "penalizes" small markets.

[Sark]

Removing the cap on max contracts is the only way to avoid super teams.

[DanTown8587]

Anyway, this is all looking at things from the wrong direction again. Go back and read my post "What's missing in all these arguments is why does the NBA league exist?'. It is back a few paragraphs. The league is about maximizing profits for the owners and what the owners determine will do that is what will eventually be put in place.

And that is the crux of my argument: it isn't good business for most of the owners in the league to have a hard cap. The majority of owners pay LESS for a max salary AND it's for a guy they would have no way to keep. In the current system, any team can have the best player in the league on it's team. How can Indiana or Oklahoma City or Charlotte afford to keep a LeBron on their team if they get him?

And by making the owners pay at least 90% of the luxury tax number instead of the cap, you're still basically taking a lot of money that LA, Brooklyn and the Knicks are paying and making teams like the Pacers, Kings, Bobcats, Bucks and other pay a little more to offset that.

A hard cap and no max salaries is a tax cut for the rich in terms of owners and players.

[Agenda42]

MLB and college athletics would like to argue that the NBA is the only sport that "penalizes" small markets.

Less desirable markets can make big signings in MLB. Certainly the Yankees and Red Sox of the world have an unfair advantage, but the player movement isn't in only one direction like it is in the NBA.

I don't really want to get into the tremendously exploitative NCAA model, but to be clear I meant professional sports leagues worldwide. Anytime market participants conspire to fix wages, something bad happens, and this is doubly true for fixing wages at $0.

[Agenda42]

And by making the owners pay at least 90% of the luxury tax number instead of the cap, you're still basically taking a lot of money that LA, Brooklyn and the Knicks are paying and making teams like the Pacers, Kings, Bobcats, Bucks and other pay a little more to offset that.

A hard cap and no max salaries is a tax cut for the rich in terms of owners and players.

I think it's obvious that if you replaced the luxury tax with a hard cap, you would then need to construct a new mechanism for sharing revenue amongst the teams. My question is why you assume there wouldn't be one; every league with a hard cap that exists today also has a pretty robust revenue sharing system.

[Mamba Venom]

You have to also make sure guys wont play for less money and make it up on endorsements / no state taxes

The Miami players took less to team up together (even if it was just a little less and the state tax rate difference made up for it)

[Don Draper]

I don't see how a hard cap makes it harder to challenge good teams. In the NBA, if you have a team of good players and deep pockets, you can retain them all, no matter how much other teams are willing to pay for your players. In the NFL, you can't exceed the cap to retain your players, so if there's a lot of interest in your guys, you'll have to pick and choose.

You have to choose but you will obviously choose the better player. Plus, in the NFL you can cut players to relieve cap space. In the NFL teams are usually good for long periods of time ( Steelers, Ravens, Colts, Patriots, Giants) and it's harder for other teams to catch up with them when they are getting leftover free agents and hindered by a hard cap.

I don't think it's good to have teams exist in any league that have no realistic hope of winning a championship. Every NFL team has hope. The Patriots and Colts were jokes for a long time, then they both built consistent contenders. I don't think every NBA team has hope as the system is designed today.

OKC was garbage not too long ago. Dallas was garbage before Cuban. Miami won 20 games a few years ago. Memphis used to be a laughing stock. I could go on and on.

How about we change how the game is officiated so the impact of superstars isn't a stratosphere above your average player? The CBA is only going to solve issues related to spending power, unfortunately the imbalance of the league is mostly tied in to the influence the best players have over everyone else. The Heat and the Lakers are in a much better position to win a title compared to the Knicks and the Nets despite all 4 teams equally spending money like a madman because they have much better talent, and in the Lakers case the fit is also there. The Spurs also have a better chance at winning than the Knicks and the Nets despite a much smaller payroll because they have a rare talent in Duncan and a GOAT coach. Star players will never be traded unless his contract is absolute toxic or if he has off-court issues. As a result, player movement is minimal and you don't see stars switch teams as often as you see in other leagues. A league with no player movement would only ensure that the status quo will not be broken and the next season will usually play out the same as the previous one unless 2010 happens again.

The Rangers and the Cardinals hardly bat an eye when Lee and Pujols left. Can you imagine a top tier talent moving that wouldn't change the landscape of the NBA?

I've been saying this forever. If you want competitive balance change the rules, don't mess with the money.

[Boneman2]

Ok, let's say each team pays the exact same. That only helps large markets. The Pacers, Bucks, Kings, Bobcats aren't able to sign players that impact their revenue stream enough to help them pay $70 million. If you say the cap goes up to $60 million next year, 90% is 54 million. You've just said every team in the league has to essentially pay the luxury tax. That's just not feasible for a lot of teams.

Herb Simon (Pacers Owner) will spend money if it makes sense to do so. He spent close to $115,000,000.00 this offseason, and as recently as 7 years ago he carried the 4th highest payroll in the league.

The Pacers owner is the world's largest mall magnate, and doesn't need the NBA to develop a welfare program for his team.

He just needs a level playing field in terms of competition.

First off, regardless of what Simon was paying, he was LOSING money, every year. Regardless of what else he does outside the NBA, he isn't an owner that enjoys losing money every single year.

He is not losing money in the sense that you mean. Bottomline, he and his brother paid appr. $11 million for the team in the mid-eighties, today the Pacers net worth is 1.25 billion. Essentially he will never lose money on the Pacers, only the value will fluctuate.

[Agenda42]

You have to choose but you will obviously choose the better player. Plus, in the NFL you can cut players to relieve cap space. In the NFL teams are usually good for long periods of time ( Steelers, Ravens, Colts, Patriots, Giants) and it's harder for other teams to catch up with them when they are getting leftover free agents and hindered by a hard cap.

Those NFL teams that you cite as good for a long time have dramatically different player lineups over time. Player movement in the NFL tends to be from the good teams to the bad teams, and the teams you listed constantly have to find new talent to compensate.

Meanwhile, in the NBA system, everything is backwards. Not only do the good teams not have to choose what players to keep and what players to let go, they get even more good players that leave the bad teams to join the good ones.

Small wonder, then, that everyone already knows that only a few teams have a shot at the NBA title before the season even starts.

I don't think it's good to have teams exist in any league that have no realistic hope of winning a championship. Every NFL team has hope. The Patriots and Colts were jokes for a long time, then they both built consistent contenders. I don't think every NBA team has hope as the system is designed today.

OKC was garbage not too long ago. Dallas was garbage before Cuban. Miami won 20 games a few years ago. Memphis used to be a laughing stock. I could go on and on.

Do you honestly believe that every NBA team has hope to win a championship in the current system? I don't.

I've been saying this forever. If you want competitive balance change the rules, don't mess with the money.

NBA officiating is bad and getting worse. I really don't know why it is the way it is; they are surely turning away fans and losing sales because of it.

[EnigmaticProblem]

To suggest the problem is officiating is absolutely absurd. To suggest officiating would change anything is asinine. The Dallas Mavericks wouldn't have won in 2011 if that were the case. The Detroit Pistons wouldn't have beat the Lakers if that were the case. Sometimes, whilst watching the Thunder play, or the Heat, I feel as if the officiating in the NBA is atrocious-- Then I realize that game-time decisions, split-second decisions have to produce erred results. I mean, I was disgusted watching LeBron's reaction to Chandler's pick, which was a glorious acting job-- I mean, I thought I was watching a man that took an axe to the neck. Nonetheless, fault isn't attributable to the officiating, here.

I think LateRoundFlyer had noteworthy suggestions-- A laissez-faire system has some very intriguing possibilities. Moreover, the concept of introducing a 'transfer and loan system', similar to football, climaxes my intrigue. Allowing a small-market team to simply "sell" a player rectifies a multitude of predicaments. However, it's an unconvincing and improbable proposition, chaperones some issues of its own, and requires a consummate restructuring of the collective bargaining agreement.

I really believe there's a deft foundation in the current collective bargaining agreement, and minor tweaking can assist in approximating an equilibrium.
*Non-playoff teams receive two first round draft picks
-This allows teams the opportunity to acceptably pair potential star talent with other quality/star players
- Durant was paired with Westbrook, and Harden. Roy was paired with Oden, and Aldridge. Quality young talent, growing together. . . It'll increase the probability of retaining "franchise" players.
-There are numerous benefits to such an implementation, with the only drawback being. . . It 'could' endorse more tanking. lol..
*Luxury tax teams should be restricted to veteran's minimums/minimum salary exceptions
-This would prevent "superteams" from hastily, and effectively, adding quality talent to their roster.
-The Heat had LeBron, Wade, and Bosh-- They then added Mike Miller, all credit to the MLE. Shane Battier followed, all credit to the MMLE. And now, they've acquired Ray Allen. Think any of those players sign for the veteran's minimum? Think Miami wins the championship without Miller, or Battier?
*A deterring inflation (increased trade kicker) on sign-and-trades
-It pains me to say this, as a Lakers fan, but, something like this could've prevented the Lakers from getting Steve Nash.
-The negatives to this would restricted player movement, and, potentially, highly-coveted TPEs.

I think some of the aforementioned alterations can help balance the "playing" field. At the end of the day, most stars will choose a city that matches their personality, their stardom. You can't "punish" a player for desiring such a location, nor can you "punish" a team for purchasing a franchise in such a location.

Imposing a "hard cap" won't change anything-- Just look at the NHL. I think the elimination of guaranteed contracts COULD have an interesting effect, but, I doubt the NBPA ever budges on such a suggestion.

[Ditchweed]

Anyway, this is all looking at things from the wrong direction again. Go back and read my post "What's missing in all these arguments is why does the NBA league exist?'. It is back a few paragraphs. The league is about maximizing profits for the owners and what the owners determine will do that is what will eventually be put in place.

And that is the crux of my argument: it isn't good business for most of the owners in the league to have a hard cap. The majority of owners pay LESS for a max salary AND it's for a guy they would have no way to keep. In the current system, any team can have the best player in the league on it's team. How can Indiana or Oklahoma City or Charlotte afford to keep a LeBron on their team if they get him?

And by making the owners pay at least 90% of the luxury tax number instead of the cap, you're still basically taking a lot of money that LA, Brooklyn and the Knicks are paying and making teams like the Pacers, Kings, Bobcats, Bucks and other pay a little more to offset that.

A hard cap and no max salaries is a tax cut for the rich in terms of owners and players.

You are missing the point on a lot of this ... the key one is that it may be good business for the owners to have a hard cap, and they will decide what is good business for them and what system will be put in place and whether a hard cap with an increase for the minimum payments will be offset by additional fan base or other additional values for small markets. It's their businesses, they decide what is best for them to do, not us. Besides, it also wouldn't be more to pay at all if the hard cap was set at $60m.

The no max salaries is irrelevant towards the total amounts paid if there is a hard cap, just a different distribution to the players. The amount paid is still the same.

The tax paid by the six offenders last year (Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Lakers, Miami & SA) was $31m and what the other 24 non paying teams get is at most 50% of the amount but could be less ... or is around $500K per team. Not a significant amount for what is considered the pluses of a hard cap.

Hard cap and no max salary, any team can get any player, (outside factors aside) the highest bidder wins. No disadvantage for a small market team over what they have now.

That's it though ... I am not going over this again.

[smith2373]

I don't think it's good to have teams exist in any league that have no realistic hope of winning a championship. Every NFL team has hope. The Patriots and Colts were jokes for a long time, then they both built consistent contenders. I don't think every NBA team has hope as the system is designed today.

This is such BS. It's not just the NFL, that happens in pretty much every pro sports league including the NBA.

Let's take a look at the top 5 seeds in each conference this past season:
Bulls - Before Thibs was hired, they were a perennial 7th-8th seed.
Heat - Just a couple years ago they were a 15 win team
Pacers - This past season was their first time making it past the 1st round in 7 years.
Celtics - Were a 20 win team before they formed the Big 3.
Hawks - Were the laughing the stock of the NBA for the majority of the 2000's until they traded for Johnson and drafted Horford.
Spurs - Were a 20 win team before they drafted Duncan.
Thunder - Were a perennial 20 win team just a couple years ago.
Lakers - Were a perennial 1st round exit before they acquired Pau.
Grizzlies - Had won 0 playoff games in their tenure before the 2010-11 playoff run.
Clippers - Do I really need to say anything?

By the way, since 2000:
21 out of the 30 NBA teams have played in a Conference Finals series.
23 out of the 32 NFL teams have played in a Conference Championship game.