Is it time to do away with individual salary limits?

[Moranis]

The arbitrary "max" contracts with 3 separate tiers of maximum is just strange to me.  I totally understand the need for an actual salary cap and various other rules, but artificially limiting what a team can pay a player and what a player can receive as salary just seems backwards to me.  If a team has 60 million in cap space and wants to offer it all to a free agent, why shouldn't they be able to do that?  Why should Giannis, the likely MVP, make less than Durant just because Giannis hasn't been in the league as long?  If you are the Cavs and want to keep Lebron James, why shouldn't Dan Gilbert be able to pay him 80 million a year (if he is willing to pay the luxury tax, why not)?  I think this would make it far less likely for players to team up in free agency (as they would be leaving a lot more money on the table) and just in general seems like a fairer system which is far more inline with the other major sports. 

So what do you think?  Should the league eliminate player maximums (I'd still be ok with 4 or 5 year length limits, just not the dollar limit)?

[jpotter33]

Eh, I think that would unfairly penalize smaller market teams with less money, as the big market teams with virtually limitless spending ability could pay ridiculous salaries to several guys and just take the associated luxury taxes with it, which they would likely make up with the increased marketing ability anyways. I mean, compare the spending capacity of a team like the Knicks or Lakers versus a team like the Pelicans or Thunder - they'd likely be completely swallowed up and unable to compete, which would just exacerbate the current problems.

I do like the idea of being able to offer a single player (perhaps even regardless of time in the league or any other condition) a type of "super-max" contract that could maybe go up to $50M per year or 50% of the salary cap. While not as extreme as your example, it would definitely spread the talent out more I think and get at some of the concerns that you are addressing.

[nickagneta]

The limits are in place to:

A. Save smaller markets.
B. Maximize the earning power of the majority of NBA players who would vote for changes in the CBA. If the BRI split is such that it limits the total money going to the players, with no limit on max salaries teams would be playing the stars so much more that there would be so much less available to most of the players.
C. Save the owners from themselves because they have been shown to make really stupid contract signings over many, many years.

[jambr380]

I think the main argument against this would be that teams would have like 2 big contracts and everybody else would be vet min.

I am in favor of raising the salary limit, though. The 50% jpotter mentioned sounds about right.

I agree that multiple guys teaming up in FA to go to a singular, undeserving team kind-of breaks the NBA. Maybe they wouldn't be so apt to do so if they could get even more money.

[Kuberski33]

The limits are in place to:

A. Save smaller markets.
B. Maximize the earning power of the majority of NBA players who would vote for changes in the CBA. If the BRI split is such that it limits the total money going to the players, with no limit on max salaries teams would be playing the stars so much more that there would be so much less available to most of the players.
C. Save the owners from themselves because they have been shown to make really stupid contract signings over many, many years.

Regarding C - NBA franchises have skyrocketed in value the past few years.  Part of the reason is because there's a limit on their biggest cost - contracts. Remove the cap and some of these clowns will bankrupt their teams, leading to less stability for the league, more legal bills when limited partners sue majority partners etc.  It probably reduces the value of all of the franchises.

I would love to see it happen but to me the only chance of it ever occuring would be if the Players Association tried to end it through the courts.

[Moranis]

The limits are in place to:

A. Save smaller markets.
B. Maximize the earning power of the majority of NBA players who would vote for changes in the CBA. If the BRI split is such that it limits the total money going to the players, with no limit on max salaries teams would be playing the stars so much more that there would be so much less available to most of the players.
C. Save the owners from themselves because they have been shown to make really stupid contract signings over many, many years.

That is what the actual team salary cap is for.  If you still have the team salary cap, then it really won't affect the smaller markets as much.  So a team still either has to have the player on its team or have the cap space to sign them.  Now I do get the idea that if you pay Giannis what he is worth that is less money for the George Hill's of the world, but so what.  Giannis is worth far more than he can be paid, while Hill is paid far more than he is worth because of the way the current system works.  Balance that out, and I think you see a lot less top end player movement.

[nickagneta]

The limits are in place to:

A. Save smaller markets.
B. Maximize the earning power of the majority of NBA players who would vote for changes in the CBA. If the BRI split is such that it limits the total money going to the players, with no limit on max salaries teams would be playing the stars so much more that there would be so much less available to most of the players.
C. Save the owners from themselves because they have been shown to make really stupid contract signings over many, many years.

That is what the actual team salary cap is for.  If you still have the team salary cap, then it really won't affect the smaller markets as much.  So a team still either has to have the player on its team or have the cap space to sign them.  Now I do get the idea that if you pay Giannis what he is worth that is less money for the George Hill's of the world, but so what.  Giannis is worth far more than he can be paid, while Hill is paid far more than he is worth because of the way the current system works.  Balance that out, and I think you see a lot less top end player movement.

So you want the NBAPA to vote to give the massive minority of players almost unlimited earnings, so that the overall massive majority of players can take a massive pay cut so that player movement of the massive minority of players don't move around as much?

[Jvalin]

I think that would unfairly penalize smaller market teams with less money, as the big market teams with virtually limitless spending ability could pay ridiculous salaries to several guys and just take the associated luxury taxes with it

No they couldn't. They wouldn't have the necessary cap space anymore. If a team signs LeBron/KD/whomever for let's say 70-80 million a year, there's no cap space left for another star free agent. They could always sign a star via free agency and then pair him with a second star via trade, but in this case the luxury tax would explode through the roof.

Not to mention, even if a team signs LeBron via free agency, they 'd have to dump salary first. To put it another way, they 'd probably have to dismantle most of their team just for a chance to offer him a contract in free agency.

[slamtheking]

The arbitrary "max" contracts with 3 separate tiers of maximum is just strange to me.  I totally understand the need for an actual salary cap and various other rules, but artificially limiting what a team can pay a player and what a player can receive as salary just seems backwards to me.  If a team has 60 million in cap space and wants to offer it all to a free agent, why shouldn't they be able to do that?  Why should Giannis, the likely MVP, make less than Durant just because Giannis hasn't been in the league as long?  If you are the Cavs and want to keep Lebron James, why shouldn't Dan Gilbert be able to pay him 80 million a year (if he is willing to pay the luxury tax, why not)?  I think this would make it far less likely for players to team up in free agency (as they would be leaving a lot more money on the table) and just in general seems like a fairer system which is far more inline with the other major sports. 

So what do you think?  Should the league eliminate player maximums (I'd still be ok with 4 or 5 year length limits, just not the dollar limit)?

I think there should be a max if for no other reason than to help distribute the money throughout the league's players.   a change to the current method of determining what that max is based on player years may help in your cause to prevent player movement.

[wdleehi]

Since we are at a point where max players are choosing to leave millions on the table to go to anther team, I don't think it is an issue. 

[mqtcelticsfan]

Let’s get rid of the max and the salary cap. Money to the players, not the owners.

[jambr380]

Since we are at a point where max players are choosing to leave millions on the table to go to anther team, I don't think it is an issue.

I think Moranis' point is that there has to be a breaking point in regards to money. Right now, the major difference is 5 yrs vs 4 yrs, as the 8% raises don't really blow away the 5% raises. This becomes even less important if a player is nearing their next max tier (7 year, 10 year, etc). It looks like they tried to address this with the supermax, but since the only teams that can offer this are teams that drafted a player (if not traded within rookie contract), teams are limited. I imagine a player like Kyrie would be staying on right now if the supermax was available to him.

But this isn't about a team being able to keep a player, it's about teams really having to commit if they want a player, as well as less collusion with players teaming up. Right now players are willing to leave a few million dollars on the table to play with a friend, but I doubt they would be willing to sacrifice $100M.

[Moranis]

Since we are at a point where max players are choosing to leave millions on the table to go to anther team, I don't think it is an issue.

There is a very large difference between 2 million a year and 20 million a year.  And if you start paying players what they are actually worth teams just aren't going to have the cap space to bring in a bunch of players all at once.

I would have some restrictions in place, i.e. a player can't sign a 1 year MLE contract and then the next summer sign a 50 million a year contract with that same team (because teams would do things like that).  So maybe you limit a contract from being more than twice the prior year unless that player has been on the team for at least 3 years or was traded from a team he had been on for at least 3 years (obviously that rule would not apply to rookie scale contracts ending - and I'd still have rookie scale). 

[Moranis]

The limits are in place to:

A. Save smaller markets.
B. Maximize the earning power of the majority of NBA players who would vote for changes in the CBA. If the BRI split is such that it limits the total money going to the players, with no limit on max salaries teams would be playing the stars so much more that there would be so much less available to most of the players.
C. Save the owners from themselves because they have been shown to make really stupid contract signings over many, many years.

That is what the actual team salary cap is for.  If you still have the team salary cap, then it really won't affect the smaller markets as much.  So a team still either has to have the player on its team or have the cap space to sign them.  Now I do get the idea that if you pay Giannis what he is worth that is less money for the George Hill's of the world, but so what.  Giannis is worth far more than he can be paid, while Hill is paid far more than he is worth because of the way the current system works.  Balance that out, and I think you see a lot less top end player movement.

So you want the NBAPA to vote to give the massive minority of players almost unlimited earnings, so that the overall massive majority of players can take a massive pay cut so that player movement of the massive minority of players don't move around as much?

I don't think it would be as dramatic as you make it out to be.  The vast majority of the leagues salaries wouldn't change because they are on rookie contracts, veteran minimums, or MLE type deals.  It would affect some of the players that aren't MLE type players but not max level players, but I don't think there are all that many of those (at least not dramatically more than the max level players).  Frankly, I don't think a single Celtic would have had their contract affected by this change, other than Irving going up and perhaps Hayward or Horford actually going down (when there is no max then teams also aren't hamstrung by paying max to players that don't really deserve it).   

[johnnygreen]

What about a case where the team is consistently losing, but is still on the hook with paying one of these players? It would be nearly impossible to match salaries in a trade. Take for example Anthony Davis demanding a trade. Yes, the idea would help free agents teaming up, but it would cripple the ability to trade these types of players too.

Say a team signs a free agent to a massive contract like you suggest, what happens to a player on that same team, who is on a rookie contract that blossoms into a superstar? Yes, Bird rights will still exists, but the salary cap penalty would be massive and further restrict the money available to the remaining players on the team. Is that team almost forced to let the young superstar walk or trade him?