Unintended Consequences of Max Salary Rule

[Friend_Of_Haley]

I didn't say Lebron forced a S&T. He didn't have to. But if he had to force one to get to Miami, how would these new rules (with the exception of the hard cap, I'll address that later) stop him from doing so?

Teams can trade for players while over the cap without those players needing to be minimum-salaried or exception-salaried.


RE hard salary cap -
The union will fight that to their last breath. The union doesn't really care which player makes how much money, as long as the total salary pool from all the players combined increases. If Derek Fisher gets the max instead of Joe Johnson, it makes no difference to the union - they'd just collect more dues from Fisher than Johnson, whereas now they collect more from Johnson than Fisher.

A hard salary cap reduces the total salary pool from all the combined players, since teams can no longer pay salaries above the cap. That means reduced total dues and reduced power for the union.

In addition a hard cap would be harmful to the league as a whole, as it would squeeze mid-level players out of the league since teams wouldn't be able to afford them. The max players wouldn't get squeezed, because they're the stars. You'd see a significant exodus of mid-level players to Europe if teams didn't have the cap flexibility to pay them. If all an NBA team could pay Josh Childress was the minimum, he'd still be in Greece.

While the NBA is clearly the premier club basketball league around, it's not in the same position as the NFL. The NFL can get away with a hard cap because other football leagues are jokes. NFL players are not going to go to Canada or the Arena league as anything but a last resort - NBA players will go, and have already gone, to Europe even though NBA teams wanted them.

With the current system, don't the players get guaranteed a minimum of the BRI. You'd still have that. They'd get their minimum payout from the BRI if salaries weren't at least that.

The middle level player concern is a legitimate concern. You will certainly lose more. Whether its enough to dramatically influence the league, I'm not sure. I mean, Euro players will sign contracts here that make less money because they want the chance at the best and a big contract. That drive would still be in a lot of players.

[Malinhion]

Yes, 57% of BRI.

[Heat11114]

The PA would agree to it because it would allow any player to get as much as any owner was willing to pay. That would obviously benefit the best players. Remember when Michael got $30 and $33 million. No one can approach that salary under today's CBA.

How does this prevent another Miami situation? As long as rich teams can still go over the cap, they'll still have a massive advantage over poorer teams like the Bucks.

I don't see how the ability of any team to pay Lebron $30 million prevents Lebron from forcing a $30 million sign and trade to the team of his choice.

Well part of my solution would be a hard cap, which would pretty much address that worry.

But with a S&T in which the receiving team needs to operate over the soft cap, the player has much less power to try and force his way out. You want to go to that team? Fine you'll have to do it at whatever salary they can afford you at. If they're over the cap that mean MLE or Minimum.

Bosh and Lebron didn't force S&T's. They chose a FA destination. Once that decision was made a S&T was agreed to so that their old teams got something. In order to force your way out with a S&T would be much more difficult, and that player isn't likely to get what they could get as a true FA.

So how exactly do you have a hard cap and no max salary? Do we keep Bird rights? If so you're basically keeping players from leaving their teams and you don't have a hard cap. If not the salaries are going to go WAAAAAAAAAAAAY down as teams cut salaries to make sure they can keep their stars. Something the players union would never agree to.

[Friend_Of_Haley]

Their tax rates just went up again on September 1.

He'd be giving up at least an additional $14m. That basically means that he'd be playing a season for free just to live in New York. No thank you.

If that's just a drop in the bucket to you, you must be an oil sheikh or something.

Didn't realize NY was that high. Most states aren't that high, if they do have an income tax. Maybe that extra marketing revenue money would come into play then, who knows.

For instance if you were going to play in Chicago, its a low flat rate of 3% in the state of IL. So NY is a bit of a unique situation, but for most other states, it will be a much less minimal amount. And you'll probably pay for it in another way such as sales tax or real estate tax.

[Heat11114]

The #1 issue between owners and players is going to be how to split the revenue not how to keep players from leaving. The owners don't want no maximum salary and the players don't want a hard cap and you somehow think they're going to agree on this?

I think the best you guys who want free agents to stay could hope for is increased Bird Rights. Basically give the team with Bird rights the ability to sign a player for 20% more than another team could sign them. This of course wouldn't even mean much unless teams started playing hard ball with sign and trades.

[Friend_Of_Haley]

So how exactly do you have a hard cap and no max salary? Do we keep Bird rights? If so you're basically keeping players from leaving their teams and you don't have a hard cap. If not the salaries are going to go WAAAAAAAAAAAAY down as teams cut salaries to make sure they can keep their stars. Something the players union would never agree to.

This is getting slightly off topic, but quickly to answer:

Higher Salary Cap set at around the level of the current Luxury Tax Level. Yes, the top players would make the most money, and thats frankly the way it should be. Yes, teams would have to make tough decisions to keep their stars. This happens in hockey, and while it sucks to have your team lose a ton of role players, thats better for the league, IMO.

Bird rights would still exist in some form. It would be much different in my proposal though. It would relate to the number of years you can offer and the max amount that you can include in a signing bonus, and the max amount that you can incline/decline salary, but my salary cap hits would be more like the hockey structure in which the cap hit is evenly placed each year. Hockey did run into a problem with this with the career contracts that got handed out, but since the years and increases/decreases would be capped and controlled, it wouldn't be an issue.

One possible solution to even the playing field would to create some type of higher minimum salary. It would be tricky though because you don't want a team shying away from young players because of the higher cost. And plus those minimum salaries would just push up the other salaries too, making it kind of moot.

[Malinhion]

Their tax rates just went up again on September 1.

He'd be giving up at least an additional $14m. That basically means that he'd be playing a season for free just to live in New York. No thank you.

If that's just a drop in the bucket to you, you must be an oil sheikh or something.

Didn't realize NY was that high. Most states aren't that high, if they do have an income tax. Maybe that extra marketing revenue money would come into play then, who knows.

For instance if you were going to play in Chicago, its a low flat rate of 3% in the state of IL. So NY is a bit of a unique situation, but for most other states, it will be a much less minimal amount. And you'll probably pay for it in another way such as sales tax or real estate tax.

I know that its lower in other places. Clearly, in NYC, its not. I don't see him making up the difference elsewhere simply in virtue of being in NY. They have some of the highest taxes across the board. You are not going to make any savings on cost of living in NY.

Also, the $14m I quoted is a little high, since he'd be earning half his paychecks in other places. But you get the point.

[Friend_Of_Haley]

The #1 issue between owners and players is going to be how to split the revenue not how to keep players from leaving. The owners don't want no maximum salary and the players don't want a hard cap and you somehow think they're going to agree on this?

I think the best you guys who want free agents to stay could hope for is increased Bird Rights. Basically give the team with Bird rights the ability to sign a player for 20% more than another team could sign them. This of course wouldn't even mean much unless teams started playing hard ball with sign and trades.

I have no idea what they will agree on, I'm just stating what I would do if I could control it.

I made a large post with my "full" plan on the Bulls board. I'll see if I can dig it up.

[Dobber-16]

Nba fans will watch the superfriends and other supposed "superteams" for a while but the novelty will wear off in a year or so. This is really good for the Nba? No.

Most fan bases have high hopes for there teams, and after a season or two when the star or stars leave their to form others, attendance will drop, ratings will evaporate, causing the league to flounder.

Is this a good business model? No again.

Teams in states that have different taxes rates also create an imbalance which I think should be addressed in the next CBA. Certain teams should not be able to enjoy this type of competitive imbalance.

Big market teams enjoy a financial edge, and they feel they have an entitlement. They think they can sign anyone they want without any consequences, which just makes me sick.

[raleigh]

The owners don't want no maximum salary and the players don't want a hard cap and you somehow think they're going to agree on this?

I can't see why the owners would be opposed to no max salary as long as there was a hard cap.
Max-level players would be happy with it.
Young players and vets wouldn't care.

It's the MLE-level players who would be the most upset by this proposal.

[KnicksScholar24]

Change your title to "Unintended Consequences of LeDouche Taking His Talents To South Beach"

[Scalabrine]

Because salaries are limited by the CBA Max, we have the unintended consequence of players (LeBron/Wade/Bosh) and now (Melo and Paul) dictating where and with who they want to play.
Since a player will make the same on any new team they sign with or can force a sign and trade from the old to the new team, they can essentially go any where they want.

If salaries were limited only by how much of the Cap a team was willing to spend on one player then this situation wouldn't work. When this whole scenario plays out in the next few years, we'll have a handful of super teams and everyone else will have no chance. Competitive balance will be destroyed and fans, both live and TV, will loose interest. Oh, fans will come out to see the super teams once. But, they won't come out for say Milwaukee vs Utah.

The league is built around star power and every team needs a star to be successful.

Fans arent coming out for a Bucks vs. Jazz game now so that point is moot.

[Scalabrine]

I think we need more superteams to be honest. The Heat and Lakers arent going to disband soon and the Celtics and Spurs, are both aging, and the Suns have lost some players over the years and now they just have Nash. Its time for the Thunder, Blazers, Knicks and Bulls to step in.

[Heat3]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MGnIdwZl-8[/youtube]

[BubbaTee]

With the current system, don't the players get guaranteed a minimum of the BRI. You'd still have that. They'd get their minimum payout from the BRI if salaries weren't at least that.

There's a salary floor for teams - NJ had to hand out what I thought were some overpriced contracts in order to meet the salary floor this year. Still, that was a rare exception, most teams are well above the salary floor and several are well above the cap. In order to make a hard cap even considerable to the union, the floor would have to be raised high enough to where it offsets the loss of money from all those player salaries above the cap.

Example: say the current max soft-cap is $20 and the floor is $10. The Lakers spend $25 on player salary and Nets spend $10. Union dues are calculated based on the total salaries of $35. Now say the $20 soft-cap is changed to a $20 hard-cap. The Lakers have to drop their salary to $20. The union would want the floor raised to $15, forcing the Nets to increase their salary to $15. That way the total salaries that union dues are paid from remains $35.

And even then the union isn't going to like it, and getting it passed would require other concessions from the owners. Because under the soft cap the Lakers could spend $30 or $40 or $50. Under the hard cap they'd never be able to go above $20.

[Old School]

Union dues are calculated based on the total salaries

You're wrong union dues are the same for all players. They are not calculated based on salary. Where did you ever get such an idea.

[Ron Harper]

I don't watch bad basketball teams anyway.

[Sedale Threatt]

The league is built around star power and every team needs a star to be successful.

It's been this way since George Mikan was playing. So what else is new?

[Dobber-16]

I don't watch bad basketball teams anyway.

Honestly, please admit you don't watch your local college basketball teams.

[Warspite]

I have no desire to go back to 3 players making 70% of the salary cap. You think its unbalanced now you watch for key players role players to switch teams because they make very little either way and you watch superstar players play on crap teams with no talent around them.

I dont get how hurting the 3-10 mil a yr player and making the superstar players more powerfull makes the game better.