Hard Cap Coming?

[Check my Stats]

This summer, FanHouse's Sam Amick reported that if owners are successful in creating a hard cap similar to the NHL's in the neighborhood of $45 million, high salaried teams may be forced to release star players to fit the cap number. Two powerhouse NBA teams that were alluded to in the report were the Miami Heat and Los Angeles Lakers.

 

WojYahooNBA

 

However, no cap on his impending fine RT @TheNBPA: Ted Leonsis Expects NBA to Use NHL Hard Salary Cap Model http://t.co/jQeVGHM via @AOL

14 minutes ago via ÜberTwitter

 

Just speculation, and I doubt the number is as low as the NHL's if it does happen, but I think I speak for everyone who isn't a Knick, Magic, Celtic , Laker or Heat fan when I say PLEASE!!

Edited September 29, 2010 by travesy3

[Big Penny]

i would like a hard cap, i don't like seeing teams buy their way to victory. however, they would probably have to somehow ease it in

[reno]

I'm for it 110%

[Poe]

Pat Riley played by the rules and won. And now they gotta change them? Please...

[Real Deal]

Pat Riley played by the rules and won. And now they gotta change them? Please...

The discussion of a hard cap has been ongoing long before LeBron and Bosh were even free agents, and serious talks about one were going on last offseason.

[Poe]

Now the talks are super-duper serious. The rest of the league is like "awww no fair". Now they gotta go cry to David Stern to make the Heat share their superstars.... so everybody's a winner!

 

 

On a serious note, I suppose a hard cap would make things more fair for all teams around the league, so then owners like Mark Cuban can't pay their way into the playoffs.

[deestillballin]

Pat Riley played by the rules and won. And now they gotta change them? Please...

 

 

Nothing against you bro, but if the Heat wouldn't of received LeBron and Bosh you wouldn't be saying any of this. You would be like everybody else who is going for it.

 

I'm just saying

[Poe]

Nothing against you bro, but if the Heat wouldn't of received LeBron and Bosh you wouldn't be saying any of this.

 

Of course, because therefore Riley would have lost the game, and nobody would have been so butthurt about it.

[Real Deal]

I really doubt this happens, and if it continues to be part of the new CBA negotiations, you'll most definitely see a lockout.

 

A hard cap will eventually restrict where free agents choose to go. If all contenders are at the cap, or a hair below it, big-name players will literally be forced to go to a struggling team, or in many cases, a small-market team.

 

And in restricting team availability, it will force salary cuts. Someone like John Wall may be a deserving max player, but the only teams that could offer the max are the Bucks, Cavaliers, Pistons and Pacers...and assuming they are all struggling, and they aren't Los Angeles, Miami, or New York (where all big-name players want to go because of the market), Wall will have to look to a team like Denver, who may have a little less money to offer, is a better team, but not exactly cream of the crop (yes, Melo has left).

 

So, really, a free agent really won't be free anymore.

 

Also, you create a problem come draft time, if a team is maxed out and has a top pick. That's $3-4 million they will need to shed off of their roster just to sign their top pick, which could mean some deserving player ends up out of a job because his team had to waive him.

 

Most all contract lengths will be shorter (much, much shorter) for guys like Oden, Yao and Bynum, who have been suffering from injuries over the last three seasons, because teams know they will NEVER be able to get out of those contracts once they write them up.

 

How many times will you see a team offer expiring contracts in deals for non-superstar players? It would be much easier to pick up a superstar through free agency, with the hard cap, so teams will more than likely keep their expiring contracts, even of those players who are barely logging minutes. Could lead to more teams tanking seasons, keeping useless players on their rosters just to have an extra $18 million for the following season.

 

You drop the luxury tax, and suddenly, the NBA doesn't make money off of it.

 

I could go on and on.

[Real Deal]

Of course, because therefore Riley would have lost the game, and nobody would have been so butthurt about it.

Yeah, we get it, the NBA revolves around the Heat. Most of us don't [expletive]ing care. The hard cap proposals have absolutely nothing to do with the circus in Miami right now.

[Poe]

A hard cap will eventually restrict where free agents choose to go. If all contenders are at the cap, or a hair below it, big-name players will literally be forced to go to a struggling team, or in many cases, a small-market team.

 

Good points. If a hard cap was made, I can see the Euroleague potentially being able to offer more money than NBA teams to certain players, even some big names in the right circumstances. That's much worse than having superstars team up, which probably increases the NBA's popularity more than hurts it, actually.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Poe

[Poe]

The hard cap proposals have absolutely nothing to do with the circus in Miami right now.

 

A circus that ain't sharing any rings for the next 6 years

 

 

This is fun.

[Flash]

This doesn't make sense for a lot of reasons. Miami's team being none of those reasons.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Flash

[Check my Stats]

Lol.... it makes sense for far more reasons than it doesn't. It means that small market teams would have an opportunity to compete, it means everyone is on a level financial playing field, it means teams can't hoard their players, it means teams with cap have to use their brains before offering contracts, it means that guys like Amir Johnson and Drew Gooden don't make more than a few million a year.

 

Turning the luxury tax into the hard cap would be fair for everyone, IMO.

Edited September 30, 2010 by travesy3

[Real Deal]

Lol.... it makes sense for far more reasons than it doesn't. It means that small market teams would have an opportunity to compete, it means everyone is on a level financial playing field, it means teams can't hoard their players, it means teams with cap have to use their brains before offering contracts, it means that guys like Amir Johnson and Drew Gooden don't make more than a few million a year.

 

Turning the luxury tax into the hard cap would be fair for everyone, IMO.

In other words, two reasons: small market teams can compete, and undeserving players would be given smaller contracts. Most of what you said falls under the category of having all 30 teams compete.

 

Thing is, paying less for guys like Gooden also means underpaying deserving players, so that cancels itself out.

 

As far as all 30 teams competing goes, that's what the draft is for, and that's why teams hire intelligent and witty general managers and scouts. The Sixers are dishing out over $69 million, 9th most in the league, and it's not translating into wins. However, the Thunder are at $50 million, 24th most in the NBA, and they nearly upset the Lakers and won 50 games last year.

[Check my Stats]

The draft doesn't give all the teams a change at all. Basketball is a sport where star impact might be bigger than any other, a star can be the difference between lotto and 50 wins. What are the chances you are drafting a star (even a borderline star like a Maggette type) outside of the top 5, maybe 1/10? I think that is pretty generous to be honest. If you aren't drafting in the top 5 you are pretty much lucky if you are getting someone who is a solid starter down the road, that is why I am so pro-tanking. The middle of the road teams have no way of improving when the good role players are re-signed so easily.

 

The Thunder's salary is so low for obvious reasons, not sure why you mention that, when their best players get what they deserve salary-wise, they will easily be over 70M, assuming that the cap didn't change between now and then. And they are probably going to have to give Green up, for this exact reason.

 

The way FA works in the NBA, you are actually better off winning 15 games than 35 games, and it simply should not be that way. I am sick of the gap between good and bad teams, I am sick of the same teams winning yearly. You mention the 76ers, but how about every team in the top 10, besides them, is probably winning around 50 games or more, you don't get a homecourt advantage without hovering around the lux tax, and if you want playoff run, you are going over it, I don't think it should be like that.

 

Unfortunately Stern would prefer the Lakers, the Heat, the Celtics, the Magic, the top stars, continue dominating each year, and I don't blame him. It does ratings, it makes him money, it just sucks for the other half the league that can't, or owners (like the Raptors) just simply won't. If all teams were capped out at the same level, it would put everyone on the same playing field, I think a hard cap of like 65 million would be extremely fair, as long as you give teams an optimum buyout rate and years to comply, so then the Lakers aren't dealing Pau for the same type of trash they gave up for him.

Edited September 30, 2010 by travesy3

[Flash]

The draft doesn't give all the teams a change at all. Basketball is a sport where star impact might be bigger than any other, a star can be the difference between lotto and 50 wins. What are the chances you are drafting a star (even a borderline star like a Maggette type) outside of the top 5, maybe 1/10? I think that is pretty generous to be honest. If you aren't drafting in the top 5 you are pretty much lucky if you are getting someone who is a solid starter down the road, that is why I am so pro-tanking. The middle of the road teams have no way of improving when the good role players are re-signed so easily.

 

Kevin Durant is an example here, so is LBJ and many other top picks. That's how you see bottom teams end up going to the top of the league through the draft. Not every season is going to be a winning one. The draft is there so that the bottom teams can get a player to build around for their future or to add another piece to a team who might almost be a playoff team. Then that leads into free agency where those middle of the road teams usually have enough cap space to gain some nice additions.

 

The Thunder's salary is so low for obvious reasons, not sure why you mention that, when their best players get what they deserve salary-wise, they will easily be over 70M, assuming that the cap didn't change between now and then. And they are probably going to have to give Green up, for this exact reason.

What's wrong with that though? They drafted this entire team and built it to what it is today. That's the draft helping a team at its finest. So if they have to give up Green that's fine, its part of the business that is the NBA. They'll find someone else.

 

The way FA works in the NBA, you are actually better off winning 15 games than 35 games, and it simply should not be that way. I am sick of the gap between good and bad teams, I am sick of the same teams winning yearly. You mention the 76ers, but how about every team in the top 10, besides them, is probably winning around 50 games or more, you don't get a homecourt advantage without hovering around the lux tax, and if you want playoff run, you are going over it, I don't think it should be like that.

Boston sucked until they got the Big 3. They've been winning for 3 years now. The Lakers were a decent team until Pau came along and Bynum grew into a stud. The Heat have been miserable for years since Wade hurt the shoulder. The difference with the teams I just mentioned though is quality management resulting in good drafts and good trades and that's why they're at the top.

 

Unfortunately Stern would prefer the Lakers, the Heat, the Celtics, the Magic, the top stars, continue dominating each year, and I don't blame him. It does ratings, it makes him money, it just sucks for the other half the league that can't, or owners (like the Raptors) just simply won't. If all teams were capped out at the same level, it would put everyone on the same playing field, I think a hard cap of like 65 million would be extremely fair, as long as you give teams an optimum buyout rate and years to comply, so then the Lakers aren't dealing Pau for the same type of trash they gave up for him.

 

Stern isn't the one drafting these guys and developing the talent on these teams. At some point its time to hold management accountable for the failure of some teams and not just say Stern only wants the big markets involved. Is San Antonio a bigger market than LA? Is Detroit? I don't think so and those teams were involved in plenty of NBA finals this past decade.

Edited September 30, 2010 by Flash

[Check my Stats]

So 1-4 studs each draft helps the other 10-15 teams who missed the playoffs/middle of the road teams that year get better?

 

The point about the Thunder is that they are contending with low salaries, but in reality they are contending with a time limit because of the rookie deals. There is nothing wrong with it at all, the way that team was built was 100% how I would do it as a GM if I was good smart enough to be one. The point is they haven't had to re-sign anyone yet so I don't think it is fair to use their salary as an example in a discussion like this.

 

The Heat, Lakers, Celtics got good through good drafting? Outside of Boston, Al Jeff specifically, I don't see it. Lakers hit a homerun trade, but this isn't about how they got good, for me at least, it is about how these teams STAY good, and I don't like how easy it is to stay good in the NBA right now, the way the cap is constructed.

 

San Antonio might be the best managed team for the past decade. A hard cap could potentially encourage teams to be built exactly like the Pistons were.

[Flash]

So 1-4 studs each draft helps the other 10-15 teams who missed the playoffs/middle of the road teams that year get better?

 

The point about the Thunder is that they are contending with low salaries, but in reality they are contending with a time limit because of the rookie deals. There is nothing wrong with it at all, the way that team was built was 100% how I would do it as a GM if I was good smart enough to be one. The point is they haven't had to re-sign anyone yet so I don't think it is fair to use their salary as an example in a discussion like this.

 

The Heat, Lakers, Celtics got good through good drafting? Outside of Boston, Al Jeff specifically, I don't see it. Lakers hit a homerun trade, but this isn't about how they got good, for me at least, it is about how these teams STAY good, and I don't like how easy it is to stay good in the NBA right now, the way the cap is constructed.

 

San Antonio might be the best managed team for the past decade. A hard cap could potentially encourage teams to be built exactly like the Pistons were.

 

How did Boston acquire those guys? Last time I checked they got Ray on draft night and KG through Jefferson, a top 10 pick. Draft picks can be acquired through trades than then you can land a good player by trading picks. They traded for Rondo on draft night too IIRC.

 

The Heat drafted Wade and then traded to get the guys they wanted through trades.

 

The whole point of this is that at the end of the day the way a team is run from the top, starting with management is usually going to be the difference between how good or bad they're going to be.

Edited September 30, 2010 by Flash

[Big Penny]

Pat Riley played by the rules and won. And now they gotta change them? Please...

shut up.

[Real Deal]

I think a hard cap of like 65 million would be extremely fair, as long as you give teams an optimum buyout rate and years to comply, so then the Lakers aren't dealing Pau for the same type of trash they gave up for him.

I wasn't aware that Marc Gasol was trash. He was scouted for two years before that draft, and the only reason why he wasn't a first-rounder was because he wasn't showing interest in the NBA.

 

But anyway...your first sentence...a hard cap of $65 million?

 

So, basically, the Big Three in Miami can co-exist? Because all three are making under $15 million that first season. It gives the Heat $20 million to work with, due to your hard cap proposal. Mike Miller signed for $5 million, with Ilgauskas at under $2 million. House is cheap, Anthony had for cheap, Arroyo is vet's minimum, Chalmers is under a million, Howard and Magloire are at a million each. Miami basically has the same team they have now.

 

Here's what will happen with a hard cap, and here's why it will ruin the NBA: superstars will still go to those teams, taking less money (like the Heat trio) knowing that they can make much more through endorsements. Because the max contract will more than likely decrease significantly, it will not be a problem to sit at a $65 million playroll every single season, maintain your three superstars or all-stars, and still dominate the league. It also kills players like Haslem, who are loyal to their city, but will be waived once he starts getting good enough to earn more money.

 

So less talented, borderline stars (not all-stars) and sixth men basically get punished for getting better? They grow on the fans, and suddenly, get tossed aside so a team like the Knicks or Heat can bring in another superstar for $14 million?

 

I'm a GM of the Knicks, and I'm in New York. We all want to be there, as players. Superstars will have lower max deals, so why not just try out my Knicks? Why not just create the super-team of three, $15 million each, and surround them with $20 million worth of players? Salary cuts across the board, so even guys like Mike Miller will be had for much cheaper.

 

Hockey is not basketball. The hard cap will never work in the NBA, and it only promotes players signing cheaper deals that, as an option, may never increase per season, which means three superstars can be had for five or six years even with the hard cap, and that owner never, ever has to change that team's core during that time, never has to worry about salary increases and hitting a luxury tax, and he can go on winning titles galore.

 

Same boat, but with bad weather awaiting.

[Multi-Billionaire]

Can someone explain to me how "hard cap" works? So if it's $45 mil you can't exceed it by a penny?

[Real Deal]

Can someone explain to me how "hard cap" works? So if it's $45 mil you can't exceed it by a penny?

Basically, that's it. No MLE or LLE's, no Bird Rights. You have $70 million (making up a number), and you don't go over for any reason whatsoever. You have a draft pick that you need to sign, and you're at a $70 million payroll? You waive someone (or buy them out), or trade someone for future picks, to free up space.

[Multi-Billionaire]

If hard cap, then I think $80 mil is fair.

[Check my Stats]

Are you really suggesting it is easier to retain/keep your players with a hard cap than it is with a soft/lux tax? The big markets don't give a [expletive] about the lux tax, the lux tax is just another thing hindering the smaller markets and making it easier for the bigger markets to add the assets the small markets can't. Like I said before, you don't (typically) win in the NBA unless you are spending the lux tax, or damn close to it, and many franchises, quite simply, cannot afford to.

 

The Miami Heat are fine, if players are going to take less and rig FA (they basically did), they are going to do it regardless of a hard or soft cap. I have no problem with what the Heat did, the fact they did everything they did within the cap, and unable to go over it, is worth applauding. I am just still stuck on the 'superstars will still take less to play together' part of your post, how often do players do this, or have done this, up until the Heat? This wasn't even a concern until the Heat big 3 did it, and they aren't even part of my thought process for wanting a hard cap. If this superstar grouping continues, we have bigger issues beyond whether the cap is hard or soft.

 

I want a hard cap so that the Heat, for the sake of the argument, can't keep adding 5M salaries with the MLE and re-sign their guys until their salary is 90 million like LA, you think they are stacked now? Wait 3 years from now (with a soft cap) when they have added a bunch more sick MLE players like Artest, Odom, Miller (all in the MLE salary range) who took less because they can go as far over the cap as they want to, or have re-signed players and have a bunch of tradeable salaries to add another big name if they want. I don't like that the top teams somehow still have the ability to get some of the best players in FA despite not having cap, meanwhile teams like Memphis, Milwaukee, Indiana, Charlotte will all be stuck in the middle because FA's would rather sign an MLE with a team already way over the cap.

 

Not to mention a hard cap stops teams from overpaying because they feel they have to, IE. Hawks with Joe Johnson.

 

If a soft cap is kept in place, the Miami Heat, as they stand now, are just the tip of the iceberg for what they could be a few seasons from now. Tyson Chandler, Nene, Troy Murphy, do you really want the Heat to be able to pick one of these guys up next FA? And players like this in the coming FA's? I know I don't, and I don't want LA, Boston, Orlando, etc, to be able to get more rock solid players like them either, unless they have to trade something for them. I would rather see these talented players signed to teams looking to go from lotto to playoffs, 40 wins to 50, instead of them signing the MLE for a team looking to go from 55 wins to 60.

 

Sorry for rambling but I was struggling to get all my thoughts without it being 1000 words.

Edited September 30, 2010 by travesy3