Will International Leagues Destroy the Salary Cap

[nickagneta]

I'm hopeful that the new CBA can incorporate some level of amnesty to allow teams to get cap / luxury tax relief, in the event that they cut a player.  Under such scenario, the player would still be paid his entire contract, but only a portion (or none at all) of that salary would continue to count against the cap / luxury tax. 

That's the only major change I'd like to see implemented.  There's an argument that such a system could benefit the richer teams, because they could constantly create cap room so long as they were willing to eat big contracts.  To combat this, you might limit the cap relief to one player every two years.  You could also potentially put a hard cap on total team payroll, limiting the amount a team can pay to players in any given year.  (In other words, teams could still go over the salary cap and the luxury tax, but they could *not* go over the "payroll" cap under any circumstances.  Only a portion of the salary of waived players would count against the salary cap / luxury tax, but their entire salary would count for purposes of the payroll cap.)

Something like that is very feasible. It's also a very good idea.

But the players will want something back for acquiescing to that. The ability to cut a player but still have to have it count against the cap is a deterrent against just letting players go left and right. It allows for some sense of security and peace of mind knowing that if you get hurt, the team isn't just going to dump you because they are still paying you and can get you off their salary cap numbers.

The players will want something in return and I'm sure something could be worked out.

But a very feasible idea.

[jay_jay54]

I hope the NBA goes to a hard cap (higher than the cap is now) but gets rid of the guaranteed contract. It's not good for fans to have to suffer 5 years because a GM's mistake.

TP for your idea ...was thinking alone the same lines.I feel they definitely need some changes.

[Roy Hobbs]

Something like that is very feasible. It's also a very good idea.

But the players will want something back for acquiescing to that. The ability to cut a player but still have to have it count against the cap is a deterrent against just letting players go left and right. It allows for some sense of security and peace of mind knowing that if you get hurt, the team isn't just going to dump you because they are still paying you and can get you off their salary cap numbers.

The players will want something in return and I'm sure something could be worked out.

But a very feasible idea.

I think there is at least some benefit to the players, nick, in that it inevitably gives teams more cap space to sign free agents for more than the MLE.  Thus, salaries will rise, which will certainly benefit the upper-tier of stars.

It's an interesting point about security, for sure.  Still, I think *most* players would be fine being cut, so long as they're still getting 100% of their money.

[Fan from VT]

Something like that is very feasible. It's also a very good idea.

But the players will want something back for acquiescing to that. The ability to cut a player but still have to have it count against the cap is a deterrent against just letting players go left and right. It allows for some sense of security and peace of mind knowing that if you get hurt, the team isn't just going to dump you because they are still paying you and can get you off their salary cap numbers.

The players will want something in return and I'm sure something could be worked out.

But a very feasible idea.

I think there is at least some benefit to the players, nick, in that it inevitably gives teams more cap space to sign free agents for more than the MLE.  Thus, salaries will rise, which will certainly benefit the upper-tier of stars.

It's an interesting point about security, for sure.  Still, I think *most* players would be fine being cut, so long as they're still getting 100% of their money.

well unless I'm mistaken, the above scenario wouldn't really impact the players at all, because in the above scenario, the player still gets paid the same by the team, the team just wouldn't need to count the salary against the cap. I like that idea. teams are still obligated to pay all their contracts, but if they really want to, they can release a player to create room to rebuild, if they are willing to eat money.

[billysan]

Good luck with any of that. Some of the stuff you wrote the players would strike against and some of the other stuff the owners would lockout the players for demanding.

If change is coming in the CBA it will come mildly. I think the general format would stay the same but the percentages in which everything is measured would move.

The players would never play another game if 100% guaranteed contracts are to be changed or contracts were to become incentive laden or based on # of games played.

The owners would never allow the players in the locker room if they demanded expansion of rosters to 18 players.

There are certain lines that either side will not allow the other to cross. Remember that. I think number percentages can be negotiable such as the percentage of revenue that dictates the cap numbers, the percentage of maximum raises given, and the percentage of by which max contracts are established.

I think certain other small allowances made be made such as the players giving in to a more stringent drug policy in exchange for a higher MLE and or a higher minimum veteran salary levels.

These are the types of things that might change. But never expect sweeping change unless something drastic happens.

While I respect your opinion Nick, I strongly disagree that sweeping change cannot be made. Everything is negotiable in business and Quid Pro Quo is certainly in play when the CBA is in question.

An 18 man roster is certainly agreeable to the ownwers 'if' they were allowed to put 4 players for instance in the D league any time up until they have 3 full NBA seasons under their belt. Especially if Rookie contract salary scale is fixed and doesnt count against the team cap.

A contract where a player got an 'up front bonus' that didnt count against the cap would be beneficial to all. Josh Smith signs 58 million offer for 5 years matched by the Hawks. The Hawks give him a 30 million check his first year with 23 million being bonus and 7 million salary. Josh collects 7 million per for the next 4 years. The 23 million one time bonus doesnt count against the cap but the 7 million does leaving the team in better cap position for all of those years. The team pays the same amount either way but takes a chance by paying Smith up front.

This bonus system could be used to help solve the overseas buyout problem we have with desirable foreign players as well. The could use some of their 'bonus' to pay their own buyout.

As long as it is an opportunity to make more money, incentives work just fine. They shouldnt be structured as penalties. Poor performance and undesirable behaviour should have an out clause for owners and if the player is not guilty, he will find another team anyway. I dont think a set buy out structure is unreasonable to create for protecting the team and the players.