RealGM

The NBA currently has a soft cap, i.e. teams are able to go under or over the cap, and hay it works.

My question is, do you think the NBA would be better introducing a hard cap? for example (just throwing a number out there) say 70 million, and no team can go over that


I was thinking and im not sure which would be best, a hard cap would help smaller market teams, spread the talent amongst teams, but it would take years to introduce due to teams who are already so far above the salary cap


Just to make it clear, im not saying this should be done, or i want it to be done, its just an idea

I'd like to see them combine it. Keep the soft cap where it is, and add a hard cap on top of that another 10-20 million.

I think the idea behind the hard cap is to make it so that you can't just buy the best big-name players and assemble a monster team.

As the Knicks have tried that to no avail, I don't think a hard cap is all that necessary.

NBA contracts go over every year. IE, a player makes 18 million this year, 19 next year, 20 after that, and then 21.

It would be impossible to have a hardcap unless contracts change.

Get rid of guaranteed contracts and thats feasible or else I can see teams stay in the dog house for far too long with just a couple of bad decisions or luck.

DiscoLives4ever wrote:I'd like to see them combine it. Keep the soft cap where it is, and add a hard cap on top of that another 10-20 million.

There needs to be more room between the salary cap and the luxury tax threshold.

And like j-far said, if you introduce a hard cap you have to get rid of guarenteed contracts. Personally, I think the NBA has the best salary structure of the big 3 (NFL, MLB, and NBA). You don't have the big market-small market disparity of the MLB, but you don't have the near impossibility of creating a prolounged dominance and the "cap casualties" of the NFL. Just make the lux tax a larger percentage of the BRI than it currently is, and problem solved.

The NHL has instituted a hard cap (adjusted every year as a percentage of revenues), has no unguaranteed contracts, and the only real side effect is that it's become very difficult to trade anybody until late in the season.

loserX wrote:The NHL has instituted a hard cap (adjusted every year as a percentage of revenues), has no unguaranteed contracts, and the only real side effect is that it's become very difficult to trade anybody until late in the season.

that would be the way to do it

j-far wrote:Get rid of guaranteed contracts and thats feasible or else I can see teams stay in the dog house for far too long with just a couple of bad decisions or luck.

Yup....get rid of guaranteed contracts and a hard cap can be done.

If there are guaranteed contracts, at least make the team able to waive a player, still pay that player his dues, and not count and salary after the waived date on the cap similar to the amnesty releases of Finley, Houston, etc.

Or make all the contract 2 years shorter. The 7 yr max goes to 5. The 6 yr max foes to 4.

Another option is to start off with a hard cap of 130 mil and reduce that number 15 mil per year until it reaches 70 mil as to allow teams to get rid of current guaranteed contracts before they get in a crunch.

A hard cap should only be implemented if a team can have more flexability to stay within the limits.