Max Contracts Gripe

[Richfield]

Disclaimer: I am under-educated in how max contracts work, the CBA in general, but based on one thing I do have this one gripe.

Is it true that 35% of the cap, or 35% is a significant number when it comes to how much a max contract can be worth?

Whether it's 35%, another number depending on other things, my gripe remains the same.

This should not be a fixed number for all teams to follow. It should be up to a teams if that want to spend half of all their cap space or 90% of all their cap space on one guy. And it should be up to teams if the most they want to pay their best player is 20% or less of their cap space so that they can have 80% to spend on balancing out their roster with all quality players.

The salary floor, I agree with. Teams should have to spend the money they earn on players, because they bring in the money, money should go to them.

But setting the percent that the max player gets, it's too much. It's too invasive to team philosophy. The 2004 Pistons were awesome in their own way, no one of those guys should have been earning way more than the other role players. It was basically a team of top notch role players. Likewise, if a team thinks LeBron can be built around with all minimum salaries, and they want to offer him 80% of their salary cap to bring him to their city, let them try that.

Give these teams freedom, within the cap, to decide how their salaries are weighted. It would better reflect the different philosophies in basketball and different ways to build great teams. As currently structured, every team has a guy that thinks they're worth possibly more, percentage wise, that the other players on their team who are similarly important, but in different ways.

When teams decide a particular guy is worth half their money, let them put their money where there mouths are, and try to build around him and win that way. That way some other team can show more love money wise to premium role player types, and build a team with guys who do a little bit of everything, without facing the scrutiny of not "maxing" out a guy. Having max contracts only causes problems, and sets a philosophy a team may not have, and causes an imbalance of talent to money ratio for teams that may not agree or have the personnel that agrees with the number 35%, or whatever the going rate.

What are the chances that given 30 teams, on each team, the best player is worth exactly 35% of the salary cap? Or any one number league wide? I say close to none.

[DBoys]

You may not like the setup that NBA players and league negotiated to put in place. Apparently they do, however. ~shrug~

[Richfield]

The setup has it's merits, just don't see the merit to such rigidity and cookie cutter blueprint assigned to each team, other than it's easiest or its best financially for some select few.

You apparently like it fine. But your language suggests unanimity in favor of past traditions which technically isn't the case here, and is never the case when only a few handfuls of people negotiate for everybody. You wouldn't think that max players negotiating for role players has any conflict of interest, right? Yeah I know, those players are voted in. Majority rules. But that doesn't imply unanimity by any means, so your language is misleading.

I get that you want to move on from this idea for some reason. And you could have done so without going out of your way to post a shrug. This thread is inspired by less rigid thinking, creativity in the name of basketball philosophy. Something your post didn't seem to contribute to with your just go with the rigid flow comment.

Anyways, I understand your point, yes we all know this was negotiated, and you don't care. It just seems strange to respond to a post you're not particularly interested in thinking about other than the way things are. Either way, thank you for your contribution to the thread, very insightful.

[winter_mute_13]

^Dude, you might be in the wrong forum. This place is for technical questions about the CBA. Discussion on how the CBA should be, rather than what it currently is, probably fits somewhere else. I'd suggest the GB.

[DBoys]

The setup has it's merits, just don't see the merit to such rigidity and cookie cutter blueprint assigned to each team, other than it's easiest or its best financially for some select few.

You apparently like it fine. But your language suggests unanimity in favor of past traditions which technically isn't the case here, and is never the case when only a few handfuls of people negotiate for everybody. You wouldn't think that max players negotiating for role players has any conflict of interest, right? Yeah I know, those players are voted in. Majority rules. But that doesn't imply unanimity by any means, so your language is misleading.

I get that you want to move on from this idea for some reason. And you could have done so without going out of your way to post a shrug. This thread is inspired by less rigid thinking, creativity in the name of basketball philosophy. Something your post didn't seem to contribute to with your just go with the rigid flow comment.

Anyways, I understand your point, yes we all know this was negotiated, and you don't care. It just seems strange to respond to a post you're not particularly interested in thinking about other than the way things are. Either way, thank you for your contribution to the thread, very insightful.

LOL you mad, bro? You want to make it personal, but that's silly. You gave your thoughts, and I gave mine. Isn't that what a forum is about?

You say YOU don't like the setup. That's fine.

I noted that the people who use the setup apparently like it, because they chose it and have been using it for many many years. You may not like hearing that, but it's incredibly relevant, doncha think?

[Richfield]

Not mad. You seem grumpy though over nothing. Didn't have to comment at all. Instead you took the time to "shrug", and assumed everybody was good with everything the way it is. You don't know that. You're talking out of your rear.

It's like an election. There's a vote. Doesn't mean everybody's on board with result. Is this really hard for you to understand? Or do you really think that's how it works?

[Richfield]

^Dude, you might be in the wrong forum. This place is for technical questions about the CBA. Discussion on how the CBA should be, rather than what it currently is, probably fits somewhere else. I'd suggest the GB.

Constructive comment, thank you.

[DBoys]

Not mad. You seem grumpy though over nothing. Didn't have to comment at all. Instead you took the time to "shrug", and assumed everybody was good with everything the way it is. You don't know that. You're talking out of your rear.

It's like an election. There's a vote. Doesn't mean everybody's on board with result. Is this really hard for you to understand? Or do you really think that's how it works?

LOL too funny. Your OP said you are "under-educated" on both the specifics of max contracts, the CBA in general" and then you "gripe" about what you admittedly don't know. And then when I cut to the bottom line for you, you call me "grumpy" and add more insults? What silliness.

I understand the rules and how they came to be very well, going back to the 1990s. And that history matters. I consider that the ones who are affected by the rule seem to be good with it, and isn't that an indicator it's not broke after all? Sure seems like it to me.

The fact that it isn't ideal for a few players? That doesn't mean it's broken. ALL their rules are not exactly to the preferences of everyone. The CBA is one giant set of interconnected rules that derive from many compromises and trade offs, over many separate negotiations, and the current result is a balancing act where you get something and you give something. Sure, each tiny piece of it could be changed to benefit somebody or another. Do you even know what past compromises a change like this would impact, or what past problems the rule fixed that they didn't want to see again? What are you proposing as a give back to balance out the change to the tiny piece you are obsessing about?

It isn't about anyone's tradition. It's about a worker-boss deal that they apparently like. It sure seems to be working, they're all getting rich, aren't they?

Or, if you prefer the TL:DR version --- Shrug. That's the setup the teams and players decided they like. And if they don't think it's wrong, it's probably not.

[Richfield]

Now you're postin'!

Hey Stephen A Smith talked about something similar to what I'm talking about on his show today (July 8), you can find it on his podcasts, end of hour number 1, how the "stars" are getting paid at the cost to lesser tier players. Maybe it's an issue after all?

Don't shoot the messenger. But it sounds like I'm not the only one thinking about it or questioning it. And if Stephen A is talking about it, you can bet that players already have been or will be talking about it too. Heads up DBoys!

[DBoys]

Now you're postin'!

Hey Stephen A Smith talked about something similar to what I'm talking about on his show today (July 8), you can find it on his podcasts, end of hour number 1, how the "stars" are getting paid at the cost to lesser tier players. Maybe it's an issue after all?

Don't shoot the messenger. But it sounds like I'm not the only one thinking about it or questioning it. And if Stephen A is talking about it, you can bet that players already have been or will be talking about it too. Heads up DBoys!

Do you realize that when you cite SAS's point, he isn't supporting your point at all?!?! In fact, he is arguing for the exact opposite of what you think needs to happen.

I'm not saying either one of you is right or wrong, but rather that neither of you really addresses the balancing act that is at the core of the whole CBA. All the rules have consequences. What helps in one way, or with one constituency, can very well hurt another, or ruin something else.

[giberish]

Now you're postin'!

Hey Stephen A Smith talked about something similar to what I'm talking about on his show today (July 8), you can find it on his podcasts, end of hour number 1, how the "stars" are getting paid at the cost to lesser tier players. Maybe it's an issue after all?

Don't shoot the messenger. But it sounds like I'm not the only one thinking about it or questioning it. And if Stephen A is talking about it, you can bet that players already have been or will be talking about it too. Heads up DBoys!

Do you realize that when you cite SAS's point, he isn't supporting your point at all?!?! In fact, he is arguing for the exact opposite of what you think needs to happen.

I'm not saying either one of you is right or wrong, but rather that neither of you really addresses the balancing act that is at the core of the whole CBA. All the rules have consequences. What helps in one way, or with one constituency, can very well hurt another, or ruin something else.

To a large degree it's about money OR power. Because the top few players are forced to be underpaid by max contract limitations, they have tremendous power in creating elite teams (and because of this teams will bend over backwards to try and get them/make them happy).

If max contract limits went away (or were dramatically increased) then the top players wouldn't impact the strength of teams as much. Top players would cost so much salary that the rest of their teams would be weaker so there wouldn't be much advantage to having them. So the top players would have less power, but much more money (and people would really be complaining when they made $80M/yr rather then just $40M/yr).

[Richfield]

Do you realize that when you cite SAS's point, he isn't supporting your point at all?!?! In fact, he is arguing for the exact opposite of what you think needs to happen.

I'm not saying either one of you is right or wrong, but rather that neither of you really addresses the balancing act that is at the core of the whole CBA. All the rules have consequences. What helps in one way, or with one constituency, can very well hurt another, or ruin something else.

Haaa! I like all the ? marks and ! marks. You alright?? lol

Yes, he has specifically a different point, but it's not actually the opposite. It actually highlights my point that using a fixed number is a problem. It causes problems and creates the perception of unfair circumstances. Different teams have different circumstances and not every team has a superstar or players of similar magnitudes of importance. But the salary set up says pay these guys on this team using the same weighted structure as the guys on that team, and every team. It fosters a particular level of weight on the team's best player, and the same weight for each team. Every team is different, different circumstances, and should be free to build in their own way with their own weights. The cookie cutter has got to go!

I'm not saying either one of you is right or wrong, but rather that neither of you really addresses the balancing act that is at the core of the whole CBA. All the rules have consequences. What helps in one way, or with one constituency, can very well hurt another, or ruin something else.

A house of cards, if you will!!

Sounds like there's a better system possible. Probably simpler with less rules but smarter rules that cover more ground.

[Richfield]

If max contract limits went away (or were dramatically increased) then the top players wouldn't impact the strength of teams as much. Top players would cost so much salary that the rest of their teams would be weaker so there wouldn't be much advantage to having them. So the top players would have less power, but much more money (and people would really be complaining when they made $80M/yr rather then just $40M/yr).

Exactly, and each team would have their own numbers to figure out how they want to build a team and win. They could go for broke and pay superstars contracts that limit their role players, or they could go with a team of all role players to beat those teams that weight superstars higher. In the end, you'd have a specific balance for each individual team that would accentuate that team's individual basketball philosophy and strengths. I think it would enhance the game and diversity of basketball styles. It wouldn't force every team to go the superstar route, because a) there's only one LeBron and b) there are other ways to win a basketball game other running everything through a superstar.

And the superstars who are truly worth a high percentage, would be proving it, and not drawing fan ire. If they didn't prove it, teams wise up on how they offer contracts. Superstars would rise naturally instead of being anointed. That would cut down fan animosity towards them (once teams smartened up on what superstars are actually worth, it varies per player and per team is the point, it's not a fixed number x 30.)

Some people might complain about what LeBron makes, but if his team isn't winning when they pay him that, teams would think harder about signing players to contracts like that. Setting the market more free with these "max contract" percentages seems like it would let a more organic chase for the optimum weights to maximize each team's strengths.

It's the difference between natural selection creating animals (teams) based on survival of the fittest versus cloning the same animal (team) in a laboratory that never changes or gets any more optimal. It puts more onus on franchises to build their teams based on winning basketball, if they want their teams to survive, instead of just milking fans for the money faux "superstars" (Wiggins example) attempts to bring in, ultimately leading toward fan animosity towards such players. In a more free system, fans would realize it's the teams that make the decisions on how much to pay their talent to help them win, and if they did it right, they win and bring in more money. This makes winning the ultimate goal, and basketball philosophies could flourish in this free system.

[giberish]

If max contract limits went away (or were dramatically increased) then the top players wouldn't impact the strength of teams as much. Top players would cost so much salary that the rest of their teams would be weaker so there wouldn't be much advantage to having them. So the top players would have less power, but much more money (and people would really be complaining when they made $80M/yr rather then just $40M/yr).

Exactly, and each team would have their own numbers to figure out how they want to build a team and win. They could go for broke and pay superstars contracts that limit their role players, or they could go with a team of all role players to beat those teams that weight superstars higher. In the end, you'd have a specific balance for each individual team that would accentuate that team's individual basketball philosophy and strengths. I think it would enhance the game and diversity of basketball styles. It wouldn't force every team to go the superstar route, because a) there's only one LeBron and b) there are other ways to win a basketball game other running everything through a superstar.

And the superstars who are truly worth a high percentage, would be proving it, and not drawing fan ire. If they didn't prove it, teams wise up on how they offer contracts. Superstars would rise naturally instead of being anointed. That would cut down fan animosity towards them (once teams smartened up on what superstars are actually worth, it varies per player and per team is the point, it's not a fixed number x 30.)

Some people might complain about what LeBron makes, but if his team isn't winning when they pay him that, teams would think harder about signing players to contracts like that. Setting the market more free with these "max contract" percentages seems like it would let a more organic chase for the optimum weights to maximize each team's strengths.

It's the difference between natural selection creating animals (teams) based on survival of the fittest versus cloning the same animal (team) in a laboratory that never changes or gets any more optimal. It puts more onus on franchises to build their teams based on winning basketball, if they want their teams to survive, instead of just milking fans for the money faux "superstars" (Wiggins example) attempts to bring in, ultimately leading toward fan animosity towards such players. In a more free system, fans would realize it's the teams that make the decisions on how much to pay their talent to help them win, and if they did it right, they win and bring in more money. This makes winning the ultimate goal, and basketball philosophies could flourish in this free system.

Even now though, there's some people - such as your example of SAS - who feel that stars are overpaid and the other players should get more.

There's also already room for different basketball/salary styles to win. 2019 Toronto was a 1 max + several expensive guys (Lowry/Gasol/Ibaka) with their 2nd best player very cheap. 2018 GSW had two max deals with 2 other large non-max deals. 2017 GSW had 1 max deal. 2016 Cleveland had the 3-max build-up with LeBron only making more due to more years in the league. 2015 GSW had David Lee as their top paid player (with a backup SF and low-minute/low-usage C as the next two highest paid).

Of course some of this is due to other CBA limitations. Rookie deals tend to be cheap, and especially when guys outperform where they were drafted (such as Siakam) they become very underpaid for several years. Other players sign contracts then have the conditions change dramatically (such as Curry getting healthy or Wall getting injured).

[Scoot McGroot]

If max contract limits went away (or were dramatically increased) then the top players wouldn't impact the strength of teams as much. Top players would cost so much salary that the rest of their teams would be weaker so there wouldn't be much advantage to having them. So the top players would have less power, but much more money (and people would really be complaining when they made $80M/yr rather then just $40M/yr).

Exactly, and each team would have their own numbers to figure out how they want to build a team and win. They could go for broke and pay superstars contracts that limit their role players, or they could go with a team of all role players to beat those teams that weight superstars higher. In the end, you'd have a specific balance for each individual team that would accentuate that team's individual basketball philosophy and strengths. I think it would enhance the game and diversity of basketball styles. It wouldn't force every team to go the superstar route, because a) there's only one LeBron and b) there are other ways to win a basketball game other running everything through a superstar.

And the superstars who are truly worth a high percentage, would be proving it, and not drawing fan ire. If they didn't prove it, teams wise up on how they offer contracts. Superstars would rise naturally instead of being anointed. That would cut down fan animosity towards them (once teams smartened up on what superstars are actually worth, it varies per player and per team is the point, it's not a fixed number x 30.)

Some people might complain about what LeBron makes, but if his team isn't winning when they pay him that, teams would think harder about signing players to contracts like that. Setting the market more free with these "max contract" percentages seems like it would let a more organic chase for the optimum weights to maximize each team's strengths.

It's the difference between natural selection creating animals (teams) based on survival of the fittest versus cloning the same animal (team) in a laboratory that never changes or gets any more optimal. It puts more onus on franchises to build their teams based on winning basketball, if they want their teams to survive, instead of just milking fans for the money faux "superstars" (Wiggins example) attempts to bring in, ultimately leading toward fan animosity towards such players. In a more free system, fans would realize it's the teams that make the decisions on how much to pay their talent to help them win, and if they did it right, they win and bring in more money. This makes winning the ultimate goal, and basketball philosophies could flourish in this free system.

Something you're forgetting is that the NBPA represents ALL players, not just the superstars. Unless the salary cap is completely eliminated in all forms (luxury tax, hard cap, etc), a Lebron or Durant getting, say, 80% of the cap only takes money away from all the other players in the NBPA. In theory, there's just over $3.27 billion in salary cap this year across the league ($109.14m each for 30 teams) and 450 roster spots, at an average of $7.3m per player across the league. If Lebron gets $80m, that's just $3.19 billion total for the remaining 449 spots, at a new average of $7.1m per player.

Every player has a vote, so the superstars and their 30 votes would get outweighted pretty quickly by the vet minimum type players.

[Richfield]

Exactly, and the point is, players of high basketball value will go to teams that are willing to pay them more than 7.1M. LeBron can only play for one team. If that team wants to spend 80M on LeBron, they'll have to round out the rest of their roster with guys willing to accept much less. Anthony Davis or any other superstar would likely opt to join another team in that hypothetical, one of the other 29 teams. It's a natural organic process where teams need to weight what's most important to winning. If they think that's one guy, that's on them if they don't win it all. If they prefer to distribute their money and pay a bunch of upper quality guys 15-20M, they can try to beat LeBron's one man team that way. It's a process that works itself out. The other benefit of this system is it holds team accountable for how they spend their money, be it on high level role players, or putting all their eggs in one basket and risking that they can win that way, with a less rounded out roster.

[d-train]

You may not like the setup that NBA players and league negotiated to put in place. Apparently they do, however. ~shrug~

The problem I have with the CBA is how "they" are represented. The NBA owners are fairly represented because the interests of every NBA owner is roughly the same. Therefore, the NBA can represent all owners in the negotiation. However, the players don't have fair representation. Not every player can be fairly represented by the NBPA. A majority of players should not be allowed to steal money from a minority of stars and rookies. This is not the intended use of the collective bargaining exemption. The original poster makes an excellent point. There is no logical sense to capping an individual player's salary except to cheat a player with individual bargaining power out of money in favor of spreading it around to other players whose primary bargaining chip is a vote at the collective bargaining table.

[Scoot McGroot]

You may not like the setup that NBA players and league negotiated to put in place. Apparently they do, however. ~shrug~

The problem I have with the CBA is how "they" are represented. The NBA owners are fairly represented because the interests of every NBA owner is roughly the same. Therefore, the NBA can represent all owners in the negotiation. However, the players don't have fair representation. Not every player can be fairly represented by the NBPA. A majority of players should not be allowed to steal money from a minority of stars and rookies. This is not the intended use of the collective bargaining exemption. The original poster makes an excellent point. There is no logical sense to capping an individual player's salary except to cheat a player with individual bargaining power out of money in favor of spreading it around to other players whose primary bargaining chip is a vote at the collective bargaining table.

This is generally just how unions work. They protect the majority, sometimes at the cost of those that aren’t in the union at the time (rookies and future players) and out of the union at the time (retired players).

If ~80% of the players, the so called mid tier of players (non-superstars and non-rookie contract players) want to sacrifice their own money, take a lot less and give a lot more to the top 10-15% of players, they could vote that way. Generally, union members vote in their best interest, and that way, usually, the “majority” is protected.

[d-train]

You may not like the setup that NBA players and league negotiated to put in place. Apparently they do, however. ~shrug~

The problem I have with the CBA is how "they" are represented. The NBA owners are fairly represented because the interests of every NBA owner is roughly the same. Therefore, the NBA can represent all owners in the negotiation. However, the players don't have fair representation. Not every player can be fairly represented by the NBPA. A majority of players should not be allowed to steal money from a minority of stars and rookies. This is not the intended use of the collective bargaining exemption. The original poster makes an excellent point. There is no logical sense to capping an individual player's salary except to cheat a player with individual bargaining power out of money in favor of spreading it around to other players whose primary bargaining chip is a vote at the collective bargaining table.

This is generally just how unions work. They protect the majority, sometimes at the cost of those that aren’t in the union at the time (rookies and future players) and out of the union at the time (retired players).

If ~80% of the players, the so called mid tier of players (non-superstars and non-rookie contract players) want to sacrifice their own money, take a lot less and give a lot more to the top 10-15% of players, they could vote that way. Generally, union members vote in their best interest, and that way, usually, the “majority” is protected.

The collective bargaining exemption doesn't exist so 80% of the workers can steal from 20% of the workers in a scheme that primarily transfers wealth generated by the players to the owners.

[DBoys]

The collective bargaining exemption doesn't exist so 80% of the workers can steal from 20% of the workers in a scheme that primarily transfers wealth generated by the players to the owners.

That's one way to spin it. However, I think reality is way different than that extreme claim that what they have negotiated is about stealing, scheming, and improper wealth transfers.