RealGM

Is this a HARD cap?

No, it was a flex cap with bird rights and MLE intact. The system proposed is similar to the NHL. It hasn't garnered much news (a realgm story), but this is a big step toward avoiding a prolonged lockout. I'm not sure how the players association is reacting because a flex cap is tied to revenue and if salaries exceed a certain percentage they get rolled back so that profitability is maintained, but it's a big shift from the hard cap proposal in my opinion.

Does, anyone have a model of this proposal or the NHL cap rules since it supposedly like the NHL deal?

The players evidently didn't react as positively as I did. Looks like it will still get ugly.

The NBA cant afford a long lockout. They league should be more popular than MLB on principal alone with all the scandal the MLB has been through. I think they need to simply redistribute the wealth by making the luxury threshold a lot lower. Last year salaries were about $2 billion, cut salaries 25% to 1.5 billion, divide that by 30 teams you get a $50 million dollar soft cap. If you go over that you are into the luxury and get none of the revenue share because you are considered a rogue organization, meaning your on your own you had better make sure you are profiting in other ways.

Superiorblogman wrote:The NBA cant afford a long lockout. They league should be more popular than MLB on principal alone with all the scandal the MLB has been through. I think they need to simply redistribute the wealth by making the luxury threshold a lot lower. Last year salaries were about $2 billion, cut salaries 25% to 1.5 billion, divide that by 30 teams you get a $50 million dollar soft cap. If you go over that you are into the luxury and get none of the revenue share because you are considered a rogue organization, meaning your on your own you had better make sure you are profiting in other ways.

You're looking for a much bigger cut in salaries than the owners (about 3x) and the union is having a fit over the owner's proposal. The pending lockout is partially because the sides are so far apart. I say partially because the other reason is that the NBA doesn't extensively share revenue the way the NFL does. The ownership isn't in agreement on this matter and it's hard to fix the business model with labor if you can't fix it within yourselves first.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/12031620

http://realbasketballtalk.motionsforum. ... ue-sharing

Your suggestion is interesting in that you imply that by violating the cap you will not get any of the revenue share. That's a bold concept and I'm not sure the various owners would agree to. If you remove the actual luxury tax you are left with the National TV contract and licensed products. I've no idea what licensed products account for, but the TV contract would be about 30M a team and that amount would increase by splitting it less ways.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketba ... 1424_x.htm

Ironically the system you suggest would be very strong at keeping owners within the soft cap because most couldn't afford otherwise. It also would allow for a franchise to embrace rogue status if their local revenue streams were strong enough. I can see where it could create a league with a handful of Harlem Globetrotter franchises and a lot of Washington General franchises. Most owners would get rewarded for thinking like Donald Sterling and the rogue teams do the heavy lifting revenue wise. You only sell out when a star laden team comes to town, you split national TV revenues but aren't actually in any nationally televised games. Your system could work in theory if the everyone would agree to it, but it's such a drastic change to the way things are done that no one would agree to it. I admire your attempt to simplify the solution, but I think you go too far.

evildallas wrote:

Superiorblogman wrote:The NBA cant afford a long lockout. They league should be more popular than MLB on principal alone with all the scandal the MLB has been through. I think they need to simply redistribute the wealth by making the luxury threshold a lot lower. Last year salaries were about $2 billion, cut salaries 25% to 1.5 billion, divide that by 30 teams you get a $50 million dollar soft cap. If you go over that you are into the luxury and get none of the revenue share because you are considered a rogue organization, meaning your on your own you had better make sure you are profiting in other ways.

You're looking for a much bigger cut in salaries than the owners (about 3x) and the union is having a fit over the owner's proposal. The pending lockout is partially because the sides are so far apart. I say partially because the other reason is that the NBA doesn't extensively share revenue the way the NFL does. The ownership isn't in agreement on this matter and it's hard to fix the business model with labor if you can't fix it within yourselves first.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/12031620

http://realbasketballtalk.motionsforum. ... ue-sharing

Your suggestion is interesting in that you imply that by violating the cap you will not get any of the revenue share. That's a bold concept and I'm not sure the various owners would agree to. If you remove the actual luxury tax you are left with the National TV contract and licensed products. I've no idea what licensed products account for, but the TV contract would be about 30M a team and that amount would increase by splitting it less ways.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketba ... 1424_x.htm

Ironically the system you suggest would be very strong at keeping owners within the soft cap because most couldn't afford otherwise. It also would allow for a franchise to embrace rogue status if their local revenue streams were strong enough. I can see where it could create a league with a handful of Harlem Globetrotter franchises and a lot of Washington General franchises. Most owners would get rewarded for thinking like Donald Sterling and the rogue teams do the heavy lifting revenue wise. You only sell out when a star laden team comes to town, you split national TV revenues but aren't actually in any nationally televised games. Your system could work in theory if the everyone would agree to it, but it's such a drastic change to the way things are done that no one would agree to it. I admire your attempt to simplify the solution, but I think you go too far.

Ha,ha maybe I went to far with saying $50 million is the cap and you go over and get no revenue share. My whole thing is redistributing the wealth so the owners can stop crying if them losing money is really the problem. I don't like the concept of a hard cap and I don't see how setting it at $62 million is gonna really help. 62x30= 1.86 Billion. You save 140 million that is about 4.6 Million per team over what went out this year. The Hawks reportedly lost about $7 million this year so how does setting it at $62 million fix the problem?

73% of NBA teams had salaries over $62 million this year. I don't get what they are really trying to fix here. The salary cap can not be structured to try and protect owners against bad business decisions. The New York Yankees are good for sports they give the people someone to hate. The Heat were hated this year for reasons the Yankees are hated every year. The Yankees do what the Heat did this year every year, they go out and try to get the best players and pay whatever they need to. Why should the Lakers, Celtics, and Knicks be forced to act like the cost of doing business in there city is the same as it is in Milwaukee?