Was the entire idea of the supermax ill conceived?

[Pinkyring]

A lot of you have said it and people have said it before. The "extra" part of the supermax shouldn't count against the cap. The whole idea of a cap and tax is that they limit competition so costs don't perpetually rise due solely to that competition. But the supermax already has that built in since it's a max salary (plus) and has other restrictions. So there's no reason to penalize the bonus since it won't affect the scarcity of the option.

Why shouldn't it count against cap, u already give a guy a treat to stay so why shouldn't it all count? No, gms need to stop giving it, there's zero reason john wall should be on a supermax, id rather trade a guy before grossly overpaying him

[Pinkyring]

Yes bc in sports, GMs pay players for past performance not expected future, but that’s changing in baseball and you’re going to see the same in other sports.

Thats how it should be, u dont marry a person based on who they could be you marry based on who they are and have been. A lot of guys on max deals right now based on potential, ie Harrison barnes and a host of others. Not too many players in the this league are on maxes they deserved at one point and dont now, and the few that are are strictly no longer drserving because of age or injury, but u take that risk and sports

[jbk1234]

I've said since the beginning that the "Super-Max" should only count as a normal max against the cap, albeit I honestly think there probably shouldn't be one in the first place.

That idea really works against the smaller market teams. The Clippers, Lakers and Knicks will all gladly pay super max contracts that don't count against the tax. The actual dollar impact will hit the lower revenue teams harder.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

[OptionZero]

YES
YES
YES

Every time the owners try to change the CBA, a new problem emerges

You know why?
Because the problem ISN'T the CBA

It's dumbass, cheap owners and their dumbass, incompetent front offices.

What CBA modification will make Jeanie Buss competent? How bout Robert Sarver? James Dolan? Ted Leonsis?

NONE

It is completely irrelevant what the CBA says - good owners and general managers will make smart decisions according to the rules and continue to be successful.

As this past Lakers season has shown to an extreme degree, even the best market in the NBA, unlimited budget, and Lebron WONT SAVE YOU FROM TERRIBLE OWNERSHIP

[Pillendreher]

The main issue is that instead of helping teams to keep their guys, the whole thing is actually shortening that 2nd contract. And Silver actually likes that:

"Part of the goal in 'early-ing' up the discussion was that those players then wouldn't reach the end of their contracts and, frankly, surprise teams by then announcing they were leaving," Adam Silver said at his annual news conference last month. "The fact that a player left the market doesn't mean it was a failure, because at least in those cases the teams got value."

[JXL]

Only way the supermax can benefit a team is if the player getting it is worth spending 35% of your cap space, and you don't blow the rest of mediocre talent.

The only team that did it right is Houston. Pay Harden what he's worth and surround him with the right talent. It's up to him and his game if he really worth spending on (he is).

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[giberish]

The value is in keeping guys who are worth (and ideally the guys who are bargains on) 35% max deals. Those guys are so good that you can build a winning team around them even on a huge contract.

There are two catches, which are somewhat unavoidable. The first is that if your team is poorly run enough that you haven't been able to build something with them they may leave anyway (the Anthony Davis situation). There's really no way to avoid that as a great player drafted by a badly run team needs the option of leaving.

The second is that teams may give it out to guys who aren't 'bargain on a 35% max good' or even 'worth a 35% max good'. Ideally that's fixed by just having quality GM's around the league, though a stricter criteria may limit these cases (needing 2nd team All-NBA status for instance).

[macNcheese3]

I think the whole offering more money to have the player stick isn’t exactly how it seems. See AD. If there’s a toxic situation and the team is consistently losing and missing the post season- I don’t think money makes that better.

Winning cures all. Unless you are Melo- I think superstars want to win.

[Ugly Duckling]

Yup it was a terrible idea. There should be tiers. You have your top tier (Curry, Kawhi, KD, Giannis, LeBron, Harden) making 40, your second tier (Dame, Jokic, Kyrie, CP3, Klay, Dipo) making 30, your third tier (Kemba, Griffin, Draymond, Holiday, Gobert, Aldridge) making 20 and so on. And you can only have 1 player from tier one, one from tier 2 (unless you forgo your tier one player than you can have 2 from tier 2), 2 from tier 3 and so on

[Kordic27]

The problem is that the max is so much, the supermax is only for ego. Like, it’s not the difference between $5m and $10m per year, it’s between stupid rich and stupid rich. Lifestyle doesn’t change. Like, your great grandkids might wish you took the supermax.

So all it’s done is force teams to pay players more money, eat up more of the cap, screw over teams that players aren’t clamouring to go to. The max should be the super max, and the super duper max as well. And it should only be given to the absolute top players.

[baldur]

I've said since the beginning that the "Super-Max" should only count as a normal max against the cap, albeit I honestly think there probably shouldn't be one in the first place.

this.

otherwise it is a double-edged sword for small market teams. plus, you cant build a contender around your franchise player who absorbs the 40 percent of the cap.

[xdrta+]

I mean it appears that almost no one who is getting is worth it.

The idea was to create incentive for stars to stay. Wall, Westbrook, Griffin, Curry - mission accomplished. Other teams have traded guys before hand. Lebron and Durant are worth so much an extra 30-40mill didn't mean anything. Don't think they envisioned guys turning down the extra year and money.

The problem is just because a guy is eligible for the super max doesn't mean you should pay it. No way Kemba should get it.

Griffin didn't get the supermax, Harden did.

[tondi123]

Its kind of turning into the equivalent of the NFLs situation with QB contracts. Teams are paying their QBs so much money on their second contracts that they can't afford to put a decent team around them. There are only a handful of "supermax" guys who can carry a team to a high seed practically by themselves. Certainly far fewer than fifteen a season, which is how many supermax potentials are created (not all are new guys each season I realize).

[Catchall]

The original purpose of the supermax was to enable teams to retain their franchise players.

It hasn't had that effect in cases where the player cares more about leaving the franchise than staying and getting paid more (e.g., Davis, CP, etc.), or in the case where the team doesn't want to offer it (e.g., Sacto).

Instead it can place the incumbent team at a disadvantage. A player may expect to receive the supermax if he's eligible, and it results in the incumbent team having to pay more to keep the player compared to other teams. A team can afford to have two or even three players on max deals, but not on supermax deals. So it ultimately can hurt a team's ability to maximize its competitiveness.

The Miami Heatles wouldn't have happened if Lebron, Wade and Bosh were all eligible for supermax deals.The supermax blows the cap structure.

[the sea duck]

A lot of you have said it and people have said it before. The "extra" part of the supermax shouldn't count against the cap. The whole idea of a cap and tax is that they limit competition so costs don't perpetually rise due solely to that competition. But the supermax already has that built in since it's a max salary (plus) and has other restrictions. So there's no reason to penalize the bonus since it won't affect the scarcity of the option.

Why shouldn't it count against cap, u already give a guy a treat to stay so why shouldn't it all count? No, gms need to stop giving it, there's zero reason john wall should be on a supermax, id rather trade a guy before grossly overpaying him

I stated why. The max already does the job of limiting skyrocketing costs for that tier of player. The supermax is primarily meant to affect player movement, not costs. So the difference in amount of supermax to max is not about controlling cost, but adding an exception to already otherwise max contracts. Since it is not primarily about controlling cost and is still restricted with its own max values, the difference between supermax and max needs not to be an additional "penalty" under the rules (cap/tax management) that are primarily there to control costs.

[XxIronChainzxX]

The lotto reform came on the heels of an increase in tanking teams, but I would argue more teams were tanking because they felt hopeless trying to compete with superteams. Another band-aid that I fear will make it too easy for a team that only missed the playoffs by a few games to jump into the top 3-4.

That does address, substantively, the superteam issue. A bubble playoff team - someone who's a 9th seed - can catapult to a contender if they get a superstar. The biggest issue when drafting a star is that you don't have the supporting cast for them. Having competitive treadmill teams jump up in the draft is a way of addressing the accretion of talent on a single team.

So this is where we are. There's been a problem(perhaps somewhat overblown) with stars teaming up and the league can only attempt band-aid fixes like this.

Perhaps the younger generation in the league, the generation after the Superfriends, the generation of Giannis, Embiid, Jokic, Doncic, Zion, etc will have a a different mindset than the Superfriends and the problem will solve itself.

The mindset won't change unless people stop overvaluing championships for legacy purposes. That doesn't seem to be happening any time soon.

[XxIronChainzxX]

The main issue is that instead of helping teams to keep their guys, the whole thing is actually shortening that 2nd contract. And Silver actually likes that:

"Part of the goal in 'early-ing' up the discussion was that those players then wouldn't reach the end of their contracts and, frankly, surprise teams by then announcing they were leaving," Adam Silver said at his annual news conference last month. "The fact that a player left the market doesn't mean it was a failure, because at least in those cases the teams got value."

But that's not bad. The Kings should have sold early on Cousins - and frankly, Washington should have should early on Wall. Teams balking at offering supermax $$ to guys who don't deserve is forcing them to rebuild.

[Showdown]

I've said since the beginning that the "Super-Max" should only count as a normal max against the cap, albeit I honestly think there probably shouldn't be one in the first place.

there shouldn't be a cap or a max?

Both

[OptionZero]

Every single problem can be traced to an incompetent owner with a terrible front office doing stupid things
and
The NBA having teams in markets that are not best for business

Yet they refuse to admit thise and keep trying to litigate stupidity out of the league through rule changes

Newsflash:
Good teams will continue to be good because they're smart
Bad teams will continue to be bad because they're stupid

Supermax
cap smoothing
stretch provision
amnesty

whatever the **** rules you wanna put in there, teams are still gonna be run by smart or dumb people and do smart or dumb things

how bout we stop **** with the rules and get rid of dumbass owners?

Actually my team has a good owner, so no, don't change the owners. We need MORE JEANIE BUSSES. MORE JAMES DOLANS. MORE TED LEONSIS

[vamos]

is the entire idea of a salary cap ill conceived?

if you're like me and think yes, then any of the artifices within it would follow.