Ballmer/Kawhi proves NBA cap = NCAA pre NIL

[Curmudgeon]

LOL, the cap and the aprons were put in place to protect the owners from themselves. But they didn't count on someone as rich as Ballmer.

[jbk1234]

People break the rules so the rules are stupid is the height of logical fallacy. Should murder and rape be legal because people still commit those acts?

[bkkrh]

The 90's when two teams won 8 titles? And the Spurs won the title after the owner's locked the players out to fix the broken system....which btw was all in the 90's.

But yeah when things were simpler 3 teams won 14 titles from 1980-1998.

What does that have to do with anything I wrote? 2 teams won 8 titles because 1 team won 6 titles based on having the player that many consider to be the best player of all time on the roster.

How often did it happen during that period that there were situations that teams did a complete rebuild, rotation players got bought out midseason or benched the rest of the season, players were evaluated by their contract value, players weren't resigned or traded because teams needed to stay under the 2nd appron and so on.

I'd prefer a league where the Celtics off-season isn't viewed as a success because they traded enough players from their former championship team to get a year under the 2nd appron so that they aren't handicapped the next few years.

I like to watch Basketball, I don't like to spend about time researching on how much we can offer Hartenstein last season or consider all the reasons on why or why not a trade scenario is possible. But everybody can of course have their own preferences.

One team won 6 titles because of the salary cap being completely broken.

Here are the top 27 salaries in 1995-96

1. Patrick Ewing (NY) ......... $18,724,000
2. Clyde Drexler (Hou) ......... 9,810,000
3. David Robinson (SA) ......... 7,700,000
4. Chris Webber (Was) .......... 7,000,000
5. Joe Dumars (Det) ............ 6,881,000
6. Danny Manning (Pho) ......... 6,833,000
7. A.C. Green (Pho) ............ 6,473,000 (average)
8. Shaquille O'Neal (Orl) ...... 5,700,000
9. Derrick Coleman (Phi) ....... 5,476,000
10. Sean Elliott (SA) ........... 5,333,000 (average)
11. Hakeem Olajuwon (Hou) ....... 5,305,000
12. Anfernee Hardaway (Orl) ..... 5,230,000
13. James Worthy (LAL) .......... 5,150,000 (retired)
14. Detlef Schrempf (Sea) ....... 5,000,000
15. Sam Bowie (LAL) ............. 4,800,000 (retired)
16. Charles Barkley (Pho) ....... 4,760,000
17. Brad Daugherty (Cle) ........ 4,700,000
18. Danny Ferry (Cle) ........... 4,643,000
19. Alonzo Mourning (Mia) ....... 4,560,000
20. Tom Gugliotta (Min) ......... 4,500,000
21. Clarence Weatherspoon (Phi) . 4,500,000
22. Shawn Bradley (NJ) .......... 4,320,000
23. Larry Johnson (Cha) ......... 4,295,000
24. Brian Shaw (Orl) ............ 4,250,000
25. John Williams (Pho) ......... 4,151,000 (average)
26. Dale Davis (Ind) ............ 4,050,000
27. Grant Hill (Det) ............ 4,050,000

You'll notice a certain NBA champions aren't represented. The Bulls won largely because of long deals that kept their players vastly underpaid.

That has to do with the evolvement of salaries and players being able to sign long term deals. This list changed every season depending on which star got the latest contract extension. We can also look at the season when Jordan got his new contract and was the best paid player and all of sudden the Bulls have one of the highest league salaries.

Also, just to point out, the top 3 paid players are players that were on constant contenders while 4 & 5 were on teams that struggled to make the playoffs and the list contains 2 players that were already retired, which somehow didn't seem to impact the Lakers at all. So I can't really see any correlation at all here.

And to point out the super obvious, the Knicks became contenders during the early 90s before Ewing had that contract and they stayed contenders the rest of the decade. Retaining all the players they wanted to retain, doing trades to improve the roster and being able to replace declining players. It wasn't the case that they couldn't afford to keep Mason and Starks, or needed to make a choice between Oakley and Mason, which would be the case today, because somehow it's bad now if you develop a guy that was bagging super market groceries into an All Star and then also want to keep him on the roster afterwards while he gets a fair salary. It's better if that player signs then with another team that can afford the salary, which of course also had the same chance to sign him initially and develop him.

And the exact same thing can be said about the Rockets and Spurs. Or Phoenix, the Lakers, Orlando and Charlotte which all bounced back from losing multiple franchise players in pretty much no time.

[dhsilv2]

What does that have to do with anything I wrote? 2 teams won 8 titles because 1 team won 6 titles based on having the player that many consider to be the best player of all time on the roster.

How often did it happen during that period that there were situations that teams did a complete rebuild, rotation players got bought out midseason or benched the rest of the season, players were evaluated by their contract value, players weren't resigned or traded because teams needed to stay under the 2nd appron and so on.

I'd prefer a league where the Celtics off-season isn't viewed as a success because they traded enough players from their former championship team to get a year under the 2nd appron so that they aren't handicapped the next few years.

I like to watch Basketball, I don't like to spend about time researching on how much we can offer Hartenstein last season or consider all the reasons on why or why not a trade scenario is possible. But everybody can of course have their own preferences.

One team won 6 titles because of the salary cap being completely broken.

Here are the top 27 salaries in 1995-96

1. Patrick Ewing (NY) ......... $18,724,000
2. Clyde Drexler (Hou) ......... 9,810,000
3. David Robinson (SA) ......... 7,700,000
4. Chris Webber (Was) .......... 7,000,000
5. Joe Dumars (Det) ............ 6,881,000
6. Danny Manning (Pho) ......... 6,833,000
7. A.C. Green (Pho) ............ 6,473,000 (average)
8. Shaquille O'Neal (Orl) ...... 5,700,000
9. Derrick Coleman (Phi) ....... 5,476,000
10. Sean Elliott (SA) ........... 5,333,000 (average)
11. Hakeem Olajuwon (Hou) ....... 5,305,000
12. Anfernee Hardaway (Orl) ..... 5,230,000
13. James Worthy (LAL) .......... 5,150,000 (retired)
14. Detlef Schrempf (Sea) ....... 5,000,000
15. Sam Bowie (LAL) ............. 4,800,000 (retired)
16. Charles Barkley (Pho) ....... 4,760,000
17. Brad Daugherty (Cle) ........ 4,700,000
18. Danny Ferry (Cle) ........... 4,643,000
19. Alonzo Mourning (Mia) ....... 4,560,000
20. Tom Gugliotta (Min) ......... 4,500,000
21. Clarence Weatherspoon (Phi) . 4,500,000
22. Shawn Bradley (NJ) .......... 4,320,000
23. Larry Johnson (Cha) ......... 4,295,000
24. Brian Shaw (Orl) ............ 4,250,000
25. John Williams (Pho) ......... 4,151,000 (average)
26. Dale Davis (Ind) ............ 4,050,000
27. Grant Hill (Det) ............ 4,050,000

You'll notice a certain NBA champions aren't represented. The Bulls won largely because of long deals that kept their players vastly underpaid.

That has to do with the evolvement of salaries and players being able to sign long term deals. This list changed every season depending on which star got the latest contract extension. We can also look at the season when Jordan got his new contract and was the best paid player and all of sudden the Bulls have one of the highest league salaries.

Also, just to point out, the top 3 paid players are players that were on constant contenders while 4 & 5 were on teams that struggled to make the playoffs and the list contains 2 players that were already retired, which somehow didn't seem to impact the Lakers at all. So I can't really see any correlation at all here.

And to point out the super obvious, the Knicks became contenders during the early 90s before Ewing had that contract and they stayed contenders the rest of the decade. Retaining all the players they wanted to retain, doing trades to improve the roster and being able to replace declining players. It wasn't the case that they couldn't afford to keep Mason and Starks, or needed to make a choice between Oakley and Mason, which would be the case today, because somehow it's bad now if you develop a guy that was bagging super market groceries into an All Star and then also want to keep him on the roster afterwards while he gets a fair salary. It's better if that player signs then with another team that can afford the salary, which of course also had the same chance to sign him initially and develop him.

And the exact same thing can be said about the Rockets and Spurs. Or Phoenix, the Lakers, Orlando and Charlotte which all bounced back from losing multiple franchise players in pretty much no time.

When Jordan got his huge 30 million deal the next year, it didn't count against the Bull's cap because of the Larry Bird Rule. Which just goes to make my point all the more. The system was just broken which is why you rarely heard teams talking about the cap. But it's 100% why the 96 bulls were able to have Toni and Harper as their 2nd and 3rd highest paid player. You can't sign guys like that if you pay Jordan and Pippen their market value.

[bkkrh]

One team won 6 titles because of the salary cap being completely broken.

Here are the top 27 salaries in 1995-96

1. Patrick Ewing (NY) ......... $18,724,000
2. Clyde Drexler (Hou) ......... 9,810,000
3. David Robinson (SA) ......... 7,700,000
4. Chris Webber (Was) .......... 7,000,000
5. Joe Dumars (Det) ............ 6,881,000
6. Danny Manning (Pho) ......... 6,833,000
7. A.C. Green (Pho) ............ 6,473,000 (average)
8. Shaquille O'Neal (Orl) ...... 5,700,000
9. Derrick Coleman (Phi) ....... 5,476,000
10. Sean Elliott (SA) ........... 5,333,000 (average)
11. Hakeem Olajuwon (Hou) ....... 5,305,000
12. Anfernee Hardaway (Orl) ..... 5,230,000
13. James Worthy (LAL) .......... 5,150,000 (retired)
14. Detlef Schrempf (Sea) ....... 5,000,000
15. Sam Bowie (LAL) ............. 4,800,000 (retired)
16. Charles Barkley (Pho) ....... 4,760,000
17. Brad Daugherty (Cle) ........ 4,700,000
18. Danny Ferry (Cle) ........... 4,643,000
19. Alonzo Mourning (Mia) ....... 4,560,000
20. Tom Gugliotta (Min) ......... 4,500,000
21. Clarence Weatherspoon (Phi) . 4,500,000
22. Shawn Bradley (NJ) .......... 4,320,000
23. Larry Johnson (Cha) ......... 4,295,000
24. Brian Shaw (Orl) ............ 4,250,000
25. John Williams (Pho) ......... 4,151,000 (average)
26. Dale Davis (Ind) ............ 4,050,000
27. Grant Hill (Det) ............ 4,050,000

You'll notice a certain NBA champions aren't represented. The Bulls won largely because of long deals that kept their players vastly underpaid.

That has to do with the evolvement of salaries and players being able to sign long term deals. This list changed every season depending on which star got the latest contract extension. We can also look at the season when Jordan got his new contract and was the best paid player and all of sudden the Bulls have one of the highest league salaries.

Also, just to point out, the top 3 paid players are players that were on constant contenders while 4 & 5 were on teams that struggled to make the playoffs and the list contains 2 players that were already retired, which somehow didn't seem to impact the Lakers at all. So I can't really see any correlation at all here.

And to point out the super obvious, the Knicks became contenders during the early 90s before Ewing had that contract and they stayed contenders the rest of the decade. Retaining all the players they wanted to retain, doing trades to improve the roster and being able to replace declining players. It wasn't the case that they couldn't afford to keep Mason and Starks, or needed to make a choice between Oakley and Mason, which would be the case today, because somehow it's bad now if you develop a guy that was bagging super market groceries into an All Star and then also want to keep him on the roster afterwards while he gets a fair salary. It's better if that player signs then with another team that can afford the salary, which of course also had the same chance to sign him initially and develop him.

And the exact same thing can be said about the Rockets and Spurs. Or Phoenix, the Lakers, Orlando and Charlotte which all bounced back from losing multiple franchise players in pretty much no time.

When Jordan got his huge 30 million deal the next year, it didn't count against the Bull's cap because of the Larry Bird Rule. Which just goes to make my point all the more. The system was just broken which is why you rarely heard teams talking about the cap. But it's 100% why the 96 bulls were able to have Toni and Harper as their 2nd and 3rd highest paid player. You can't sign guys like that if you pay Jordan and Pippen their market value.

And what exactly is the problem with that? Jordan, Pippen, Grant, Kukoc, BJ Armstrong were all either directly drafted, or draft day trades. The only significant player the Bulls ever signed as a free agent was Ron Harper, who was a shadow of his former self at that point.

So the draft exists to enable teams to rebuild and make sure that bad teams (which the Bulls were) wind up with talented players. Then when they do a great job rebuilding it's "sorry, you are too good now." Meanwhile teams that just constantly suck and do a horrible job in player development get rewarded by receiving new high draft picks each season that they then turn into busts but "hey we can just draft another talent next season". Where is the logic in that?

[dhsilv2]

That has to do with the evolvement of salaries and players being able to sign long term deals. This list changed every season depending on which star got the latest contract extension. We can also look at the season when Jordan got his new contract and was the best paid player and all of sudden the Bulls have one of the highest league salaries.

Also, just to point out, the top 3 paid players are players that were on constant contenders while 4 & 5 were on teams that struggled to make the playoffs and the list contains 2 players that were already retired, which somehow didn't seem to impact the Lakers at all. So I can't really see any correlation at all here.

And to point out the super obvious, the Knicks became contenders during the early 90s before Ewing had that contract and they stayed contenders the rest of the decade. Retaining all the players they wanted to retain, doing trades to improve the roster and being able to replace declining players. It wasn't the case that they couldn't afford to keep Mason and Starks, or needed to make a choice between Oakley and Mason, which would be the case today, because somehow it's bad now if you develop a guy that was bagging super market groceries into an All Star and then also want to keep him on the roster afterwards while he gets a fair salary. It's better if that player signs then with another team that can afford the salary, which of course also had the same chance to sign him initially and develop him.

And the exact same thing can be said about the Rockets and Spurs. Or Phoenix, the Lakers, Orlando and Charlotte which all bounced back from losing multiple franchise players in pretty much no time.

When Jordan got his huge 30 million deal the next year, it didn't count against the Bull's cap because of the Larry Bird Rule. Which just goes to make my point all the more. The system was just broken which is why you rarely heard teams talking about the cap. But it's 100% why the 96 bulls were able to have Toni and Harper as their 2nd and 3rd highest paid player. You can't sign guys like that if you pay Jordan and Pippen their market value.

And what exactly is the problem with that? Jordan, Pippen, Grant, Kukoc, BJ Armstrong were all either directly drafted, or draft day trades. The only significant player the Bulls ever signed as a free agent was Ron Harper, who was a shadow of his former self at that point.

So the draft exists to enable teams to rebuild and make sure that bad teams (which the Bulls were) wind up with talented players. Then when they do a great job rebuilding it's "sorry, you are too good now." Meanwhile teams that just constantly suck and do a horrible job in player development get rewarded by receiving new high draft picks each season that they then turn into busts but "hey we can just draft another talent next season". Where is the logic in that?

They were able to give Toni as huge salary to get him away from europe. They were able to trade Purdue at half the salary straight up for Rodman. That's a lot of flexibility imo.

Meanwhile notice the Spurs having Robinson...totally legit pay there and he was Larry Bird ruled...but then over 5 million on Sean Elliot? He was a pick from them too, but he's taking up Pippen + Rodman's salary roughly. It's an awful lot harder to build around Robinson given that than it was for the Bulls. It was an unfair competitive advantage in terms of the cap.

If you want to say that's fine because they drafted a lot of guys...I don't hate that view. But it's a bit misleading. Even Longly also got really solid money.

[bkkrh]

They also waited on Kukoc for 3 seasons after drafting him and took the gamble not knowing if he even will come over at one point.

Yes they paid Longley a lot of money, who was a pretty average center where it didn't really make a difference when Bill Wennington or Will Perdue played instead of him. Today those kind of players would be on 1 year minimum deals, or maybe a MLE if they get lucky. Don't see an issue with them being able to be on the same team and getting a decent salary as kind of a reward for loyalty and being a good fit with the team.

I prefer a system where teams try to build the best possible roster. You sign talents hoping they develop, you take a gamble on some.

If you do a draft I don't see why teams shouldnt be able to retain players they either drafted or had them on the roster for a long time.

[madmaxmedia]

I think there's a version of this where Ballmer can give Kawhi infinity dollars but he doesn't have the ability to go shopping for a bunch of other high dollar vets. Maybe a team has one salary they can give that doesn't impact the cap or theres some luxury taxes.

I personally think the cap is stupid and it's funny to me how Americans are so capitalistic in almost every domain except for elite basketball and football. It was same with NCAA, just blatant hypocrisy. Some old guys in NCAA and coaches were making millions per year talking about "paying players is bad for them"

Hey why IS it that MLB is the only major American sport with no salary cap anyway?

Are fans threatening to not watch MLB because the Dodgers and Yankees have great players?

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, it doesn't mean there are no rules, the NBA is a private league, they set their own rules in a way that maximizes their revenue, they even change the rule of the game itself compared to the rest of the world, the rules and the revenue come together, and can't be separated, if the rules change there will likely be consequences.
The league had no cap before, and they had to institute one.

Employers being able to collude to hold down wages is not capitalism per se. I am not a worshipper at the church of capital but the fact is, the Owners of Means of Production want capitalism when it benefits them and socialist collectivism when it also benefits them.

Imagine when you graduate, all employers in your field have colluded and they hand you a wage schedule and your work location for your next several years. Is that a free market?

MLB actually has a soft cap with a luxury tax, which is why teams like the Dodgers can sign more multi-hundred-millionaires every year.

I am always lockstep in agreement with you on the NCAA, that was freeway robbery, with even additional draconian rules on athletes (but not coaches) on additional earnings that made no sense. With the pro sports, I am more or less fine with whatever the leagues and player unions agree to. ~50/50 split of BRI seems fair enough to me, there are always arguments here for either side of that. After that, the rest is how to divvy it up amongst the players.

Basketball is a strong chain sport, where having the best players is generally favorable to having the most consistent roster. With a max salary, the top end stars get paid less and lesser players get paid more, whether you think that is good or bad is a judgement call.

[Black Jack]

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, it doesn't mean there are no rules, the NBA is a private league, they set their own rules in a way that maximizes their revenue, they even change the rule of the game itself compared to the rest of the world, the rules and the revenue come together, and can't be separated, if the rules change there will likely be consequences.
The league had no cap before, and they had to institute one.

Employers being able to collude to hold down wages is not capitalism per se. I am not a worshipper at the church of capital but the fact is, the Owners of Means of Production want capitalism when it benefits them and socialist collectivism when it also benefits them.

Imagine when you graduate, all employers in your field have colluded and they hand you a wage schedule and your work location for your next several years. Is that a free market?

MLB actually has a soft cap with a luxury tax, which is why teams like the Dodgers can sign more multi-hundred-millionaires every year.

I am always lockstep in agreement with you on the NCAA, that was freeway robbery, with even additional draconian rules on athletes (but not coaches) on additional earnings that made no sense. With the pro sports, I am more or less fine with whatever the leagues and player unions agree to. ~50/50 split of BRI seems fair enough to me, there are always arguments here for either side of that. After that, the rest is how to divvy it up amongst the players.

Basketball is a strong chain sport, where having the best players is generally favorable to having the most consistent roster. With a max salary, the top end stars get paid less and lesser players get paid more, whether you think that is good or bad is a judgement call.

Sure. NCAA stealing a kings ransom from generations of college players was criminal. Kawhi not making an extra $40M or something is not a comparable injustice.

I guess my real point of comparison is the discrepancy due to market value not being respected. In that sense, star NCAA players pre NIL and Kawhis in todays NBA are similar. There's a huge under the table market that develops in this type of situation.

That said I do think regular middle class players making millions is good too.

[FrodoFraggins]

Team salary caps make complete sense. Players already get a percentage of revenue.

But the max player cap should be much closer to the team cap than it is. A team "could" pay a Lebron a ton but then be left filling the roster with min contracts and some extra cap space set aside for injuries.

The NFL doesn't cap player salaries, beyond being able to fill out a roster, and things work out pretty well. Smarter stars will take less to help their team stay competitive. Selfish ones, or those who don't care about winning titles, will take the best deal available on the market.

The NBA is very different as there's only five starters and the NFL has 11 on offense and 11 on defense plus kickers/punters. But the NBA is very much a star driven league and top players should be able to get what they are worth.

I just don't see it happening in the NBA due to risk averse owners and maybe the NBAPA who would vote against the top players get such a big piece of the pie.

[Mephariel]

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, it doesn't mean there are no rules, the NBA is a private league, they set their own rules in a way that maximizes their revenue, they even change the rule of the game itself compared to the rest of the world, the rules and the revenue come together, and can't be separated, if the rules change there will likely be consequences.
The league had no cap before, and they had to institute one.

Employers being able to collude to hold down wages is not capitalism per se. I am not a worshipper at the church of capital but the fact is, the Owners of Means of Production want capitalism when it benefits them and socialist collectivism when it also benefits them.

Imagine when you graduate, all employers in your field have colluded and they hand you a wage schedule and your work location for your next several years. Is that a free market?

MLB actually has a soft cap with a luxury tax, which is why teams like the Dodgers can sign more multi-hundred-millionaires every year.

I am always lockstep in agreement with you on the NCAA, that was freeway robbery, with even additional draconian rules on athletes (but not coaches) on additional earnings that made no sense. With the pro sports, I am more or less fine with whatever the leagues and player unions agree to. ~50/50 split of BRI seems fair enough to me, there are always arguments here for either side of that. After that, the rest is how to divvy it up amongst the players.

Basketball is a strong chain sport, where having the best players is generally favorable to having the most consistent roster. With a max salary, the top end stars get paid less and lesser players get paid more, whether you think that is good or bad is a judgement call.

Also, winning in the MLB doesn't depend on one or two stars the way the NBA does. Ohtani played alongside Mike Trout for six years and had a losing record. They are both arguably the best players in the league.