CBA - My Thoughts to a Fan Friendly Cap

[Coach]

I know there have been other threads around on this, but with the lockout looming, I thought I'd throw out my ideas as to what would constitute a fan friendly CBA.  In my opinion, the owners and the players get what they want, plus the fans wouldn't be strapped by terrible contracts, and injured players.

CBA - Soft Cap – Tax on Dollars over Cap Limit

Broad Strokes:

No Restrictions on Signings.  You want to sign LBJ to $40 million per year, go for it.

No Restrictions on Trades.  LBJ for Scal – Go For It.

Cap set at a % of Basketball related revenue. – 57% or whatever.

If you exceed this, $1 for $1 over tax.
If you exceed this by 10% - $2 for every $1 over
If you exceed this by 20% - $3 for every $1 over
If you exceed this by 30% - $4 for every $1 over.
If you exceed this by 40% - $5 for every $1 over.
Etc.

Tax amount is calculated at the highest amount of salary at any point during the year.

Teams must spend 85% of cap amount.

Teams must sign 12 players.

All dollars collected from tax go to teams not over cap.

These dollars go to salary by increasing the amount a team must spend in the following year, and increacing the tax limit of that team by the same amount.

Example:

Soft Cap 60 million.  20 Teams are over the 60 million cap by a total of 100 million.
Following year, cap is set at 60m as well.
Minimum amount a team must spend = 60m * 85% = 51m.
The ten teams receiving cap money must spend 51 m + (100m tax / 10 teams = 10m) = 61m.

As well, cap for these teams under cap go up by 10 million, so the 10 teams under the cap, get a cap number of 70 million next season.

Players can be cut at any time.  When cut after July 1, they receive full amount of that year contract, and 50% of next year.  However, If player is cut, their number comes off the cap (tax) amount.  Cut players are free to sign with any team they want.  If they resign, the immediately stop receiving pay checks from former team.

If player is injured – career ending, they are still able to be cut (see above) but still have access to teams medical staff – or perhaps a league setup medical team.

Minimum Salary is 1.5% of cap for players with under 6 years of experience
Minimum Salary is 2.0% of cap for players with six years of experience or more.
Rookie Deals is as current.

Would also like to see a provision where you can punish a player from quitting or a team (so that they would cut him), like Vince Carter did in Toronto.  If a player loafs, you can slap him with a tag, and restrict what he can make on his next contract.  (I know that this wouldn't happen, but hey, it's my CBA, and this is what I would like!)

I sure there are a million holes, but like I said above, these are the broad strokes.  What y'all think?

[cdif911]

biggest problem is it would be impossible for bad teams to get good - the richer, big market teams with big tv deals would have all the money to sign whoever they wanted for whatever they wanted, and you'd end up with more teams like Miami

If I were to fix the cba, I'd put in a franchise tag like the NFL and create non-guaranteed contracts to a point - sort of like you said if a guy tanks (hard to quantify though)

revenue sharing may be another way to help smaller market teams get big time players if cap resrictions were lifted

[Moranis]

I never liked the player maximums.  I'd just eliminate that.  If you want to pay Lebron 50 million a year for 10 years, you can.  But, I'd also have a hard cap number at 1.75 times (or something to that effect) the soft cap number (so if the soft cap is 56 mill, the hard cap would be 98 mill).  You can't exceed the hard cap and I'd have a luxury tax starting at 1.25 the soft cap (in the example above that would 70 mill).  For every dollar above the luxury tax you pay a dollar to the league most of which ends up at the teams below the cap.

[Fan from VT]

I'd like semi-guaranteed contracts in BOTH directions. Seems like a good compromise.

Baby either side could buy out any contract for 25% of the remaining dollar amount in a one shot pay out.

for example:

Player A signs a 5 yr 80 million dollar contract without raises, so it's 16 million per year. After one year, the team realizes it's a horrible mistake: Player A is no good. Well, now there's 4 years remaining for 64 million dollars, so they have the option of writing Player A a check for 16 million dollars (25% of the remaining salary) and cutting him; maybe 50% of that amount counts against the cap for that year, and the rest disappears. Or, they may wish to pay him for another year to see if he gets better. Then he'd have 3 years remaining at 48 million, so the buyout would now be 12 million.


Example 2:

Player B signs for 5 yrs 20 million, and things click for him; has a great year and is considered severely underpaid. So he has 4 yrs 16 million remaining; he can write the team a check for 4 million dollars and become a free agent.


I think that's a nice balance; the numbers aren't insurmountable but you would need fairly strong motivation to go around cutting players/voiding contracts and entering free agency.

[Coach]

I'd like semi-guaranteed contracts in BOTH directions. Seems like a good compromise.

Baby either side could buy out any contract for 25% of the remaining dollar amount in a one shot pay out.

for example:

Player A signs a 5 yr 80 million dollar contract without raises, so it's 16 million per year. After one year, the team realizes it's a horrible mistake: Player A is no good. Well, now there's 4 years remaining for 64 million dollars, so they have the option of writing Player A a check for 16 million dollars (25% of the remaining salary) and cutting him; maybe 50% of that amount counts against the cap for that year, and the rest disappears. Or, they may wish to pay him for another year to see if he gets better. Then he'd have 3 years remaining at 48 million, so the buyout would now be 12 million.


Example 2:

Player B signs for 5 yrs 20 million, and things click for him; has a great year and is considered severely underpaid. So he has 4 yrs 16 million remaining; he can write the team a check for 4 million dollars and become a free agent.


I think that's a nice balance; the numbers aren't insurmountable but you would need fairly strong motivation to go around cutting players/voiding contracts and entering free agency.

The reason I don't like the player option to opt out, is that it could create a crazy summer, ala "The Decision", every summer.  These prima donna superstars might opt out every summer and create this crazy drama.  I think fans and teams need the stability of knowing which players are on their team.  If player A signs a 6 year deal, then I know that, as a fan, I can invest in that player for the next 6 years. 

In any CBA going forward, you have to deal with stability issues.

[Fan from VT]

I'd like semi-guaranteed contracts in BOTH directions. Seems like a good compromise.

Baby either side could buy out any contract for 25% of the remaining dollar amount in a one shot pay out.

for example:

Player A signs a 5 yr 80 million dollar contract without raises, so it's 16 million per year. After one year, the team realizes it's a horrible mistake: Player A is no good. Well, now there's 4 years remaining for 64 million dollars, so they have the option of writing Player A a check for 16 million dollars (25% of the remaining salary) and cutting him; maybe 50% of that amount counts against the cap for that year, and the rest disappears. Or, they may wish to pay him for another year to see if he gets better. Then he'd have 3 years remaining at 48 million, so the buyout would now be 12 million.


Example 2:

Player B signs for 5 yrs 20 million, and things click for him; has a great year and is considered severely underpaid. So he has 4 yrs 16 million remaining; he can write the team a check for 4 million dollars and become a free agent.


I think that's a nice balance; the numbers aren't insurmountable but you would need fairly strong motivation to go around cutting players/voiding contracts and entering free agency.

The reason I don't like the player option to opt out, is that it could create a crazy summer, ala "The Decision", every summer.  These prima donna superstars might opt out every summer and create this crazy drama.  I think fans and teams need the stability of knowing which players are on their team.  If player A signs a 6 year deal, then I know that, as a fan, I can invest in that player for the next 6 years. 

In any CBA going forward, you have to deal with stability issues.

unless of course the team ditches them.

[action781]

I like some of the general ideas, but there is one glaring problem that I can't seem to see around.

Say a team is under the cap like you said and then forced to spend 61m the next season.  Generally, players get signed to ascending deals.  So say they spend exactly 61m, but the season after, those ascending deals take them up to 64m.  Now, if the salary cap goes back down to 60m the next season, did the league just effectively force this team into the luxury tax?

[Coach]

I'd like semi-guaranteed contracts in BOTH directions. Seems like a good compromise.

Baby either side could buy out any contract for 25% of the remaining dollar amount in a one shot pay out.

for example:

Player A signs a 5 yr 80 million dollar contract without raises, so it's 16 million per year. After one year, the team realizes it's a horrible mistake: Player A is no good. Well, now there's 4 years remaining for 64 million dollars, so they have the option of writing Player A a check for 16 million dollars (25% of the remaining salary) and cutting him; maybe 50% of that amount counts against the cap for that year, and the rest disappears. Or, they may wish to pay him for another year to see if he gets better. Then he'd have 3 years remaining at 48 million, so the buyout would now be 12 million.


Example 2:

Player B signs for 5 yrs 20 million, and things click for him; has a great year and is considered severely underpaid. So he has 4 yrs 16 million remaining; he can write the team a check for 4 million dollars and become a free agent.


I think that's a nice balance; the numbers aren't insurmountable but you would need fairly strong motivation to go around cutting players/voiding contracts and entering free agency.

The reason I don't like the player option to opt out, is that it could create a crazy summer, ala "The Decision", every summer.  These prima donna superstars might opt out every summer and create this crazy drama.  I think fans and teams need the stability of knowing which players are on their team.  If player A signs a 6 year deal, then I know that, as a fan, I can invest in that player for the next 6 years. 

In any CBA going forward, you have to deal with stability issues.

unless of course the team ditches them.

Assuming the team is acting in the best interests of the team, the fans would be on board.  Do you think the fans would be upset if we cut Vin Baker back in the day?

Of course, there might be a team that would dump salary just to save money, but if a team developed a reputation of signing players just to dump them, then that would eventually hurt their long term ability to sign players.

[Coach]

I like some of the general ideas, but there is one glaring problem that I can't seem to see around.

Say a team is under the cap like you said and then forced to spend 61m the next season.  Generally, players get signed to ascending deals.  So say they spend exactly 61m, but the season after, those ascending deals take them up to 64m.  Now, if the salary cap goes back down to 60m the next season, did the league just effectively force this team into the luxury tax?

You are right.

There would need to be some language in the deal to cover this, as it would be an issue.  Probably something like the base amount of the contract would be "tax protected", where as the raises would be "tax eligible".

The basic premise behind this "spend the cap money on salary" would be to appease the players and the fans.  This would keep greed owners from hording this cash all the way to the bottom line.

[Moranis]

I like some of the general ideas, but there is one glaring problem that I can't seem to see around.

Say a team is under the cap like you said and then forced to spend 61m the next season.  Generally, players get signed to ascending deals.  So say they spend exactly 61m, but the season after, those ascending deals take them up to 64m.  Now, if the salary cap goes back down to 60m the next season, did the league just effectively force this team into the luxury tax?

You are right.

There would need to be some language in the deal to cover this, as it would be an issue.  Probably something like the base amount of the contract would be "tax protected", where as the raises would be "tax eligible".

The basic premise behind this "spend the cap money on salary" would be to appease the players and the fans.  This would keep greed owners from hording this cash all the way to the bottom line.

and I don't get why you would force any team to spend money just to spend money. 

[Coach]

I like some of the general ideas, but there is one glaring problem that I can't seem to see around.

Say a team is under the cap like you said and then forced to spend 61m the next season.  Generally, players get signed to ascending deals.  So say they spend exactly 61m, but the season after, those ascending deals take them up to 64m.  Now, if the salary cap goes back down to 60m the next season, did the league just effectively force this team into the luxury tax?

You are right.

There would need to be some language in the deal to cover this, as it would be an issue.  Probably something like the base amount of the contract would be "tax protected", where as the raises would be "tax eligible".

The basic premise behind this "spend the cap money on salary" would be to appease the players and the fans.  This would keep greed owners from hording this cash all the way to the bottom line.

and I don't get why you would force any team to spend money just to spend money. 

There is a minimum salary amount now.  That is forcing teams to spend money, just to spend money.  If not, the Donald Sterlings of the NBA would sign 12 minumum salaries, and take all the TV money and revenue sharing money, and put it in their back pocket.

[Fan from VT]

I like some of the general ideas, but there is one glaring problem that I can't seem to see around.

Say a team is under the cap like you said and then forced to spend 61m the next season.  Generally, players get signed to ascending deals.  So say they spend exactly 61m, but the season after, those ascending deals take them up to 64m.  Now, if the salary cap goes back down to 60m the next season, did the league just effectively force this team into the luxury tax?

You are right.

There would need to be some language in the deal to cover this, as it would be an issue.  Probably something like the base amount of the contract would be "tax protected", where as the raises would be "tax eligible".

The basic premise behind this "spend the cap money on salary" would be to appease the players and the fans.  This would keep greed owners from hording this cash all the way to the bottom line.

and I don't get why you would force any team to spend money just to spend money. 

There is a minimum salary amount now.  That is forcing teams to spend money, just to spend money.  If not, the Donald Sterlings of the NBA would sign 12 minumum salaries, and take all the TV money and revenue sharing money, and put it in their back pocket.

i agree with this. revenue sharing is pointless unless that money goes immediately and directly into acquiring players to improve the team


as for 2 way non-guaranteed contracts, I'm of the mind that a contract is a contract. It should only be voided for specific breaches of the contract. It really doesn't make sense to be to be able to say "here, we signed this and you sign this and we'll pay you 100 million over 5 years to play." then that player plays the same as he always has, and the team is like "oh, we made a mistake, see ya!" whereas a player might sign for 5 yrs 20 million, then play like a 12 million per year player, but can do nothing. Why is one side locked in and the other isn't?

And i'm not even talking about VC dogging it, which should be punishable by suspension without pay.

I'm talking about Zach Randolph playing on a rookie contract, putting up 20/10 and playing lousy D, THEN portland offers him a max deal, KNOWING WHO HE IS!!!, and suddenly regrets it. HE'S HAS THE SAME ATTITUDE AS WHEN YOU SIGNED HAPPILY SIGNED HIM!!!!! NOW IT'S AN ALBATROSS CONTRACT?!?!?!?!?

Or even other "overpaid" players, like emeka okafor. What did they expect? How did he not live up to his contract? He gives you 10/10, very good defense, has been very healthy lately, is a hard worker, smart, and a stand up guy. But he's considered a bad contract and would probably be voided if allowed. what?

[Coach]

I like some of the general ideas, but there is one glaring problem that I can't seem to see around.

Say a team is under the cap like you said and then forced to spend 61m the next season.  Generally, players get signed to ascending deals.  So say they spend exactly 61m, but the season after, those ascending deals take them up to 64m.  Now, if the salary cap goes back down to 60m the next season, did the league just effectively force this team into the luxury tax?

You are right.

There would need to be some language in the deal to cover this, as it would be an issue.  Probably something like the base amount of the contract would be "tax protected", where as the raises would be "tax eligible".

The basic premise behind this "spend the cap money on salary" would be to appease the players and the fans.  This would keep greed owners from hording this cash all the way to the bottom line.

and I don't get why you would force any team to spend money just to spend money. 

There is a minimum salary amount now.  That is forcing teams to spend money, just to spend money.  If not, the Donald Sterlings of the NBA would sign 12 minumum salaries, and take all the TV money and revenue sharing money, and put it in their back pocket.

i agree with this. revenue sharing is pointless unless that money goes immediately and directly into acquiring players to improve the team


as for 2 way non-guaranteed contracts, I'm of the mind that a contract is a contract. It should only be voided for specific breaches of the contract. It really doesn't make sense to be to be able to say "here, we signed this and you sign this and we'll pay you 100 million over 5 years to play." then that player plays the same as he always has, and the team is like "oh, we made a mistake, see ya!" whereas a player might sign for 5 yrs 20 million, then play like a 12 million per year player, but can do nothing. Why is one side locked in and the other isn't?

And i'm not even talking about VC dogging it, which should be punishable by suspension without pay.

I'm talking about Zach Randolph playing on a rookie contract, putting up 20/10 and playing lousy D, THEN portland offers him a max deal, KNOWING WHO HE IS!!!, and suddenly regrets it. HE'S HAS THE SAME ATTITUDE AS WHEN YOU SIGNED HAPPILY SIGNED HIM!!!!! NOW IT'S AN ALBATROSS CONTRACT?!?!?!?!?

Or even other "overpaid" players, like emeka okafor. What did they expect? How did he not live up to his contract? He gives you 10/10, very good defense, has been very healthy lately, is a hard worker, smart, and a stand up guy. But he's considered a bad contract and would probably be voided if allowed. what?

Although I agree with a contract is a contract, what is happening to the league is that these contracts are hurting the fans. 

Yes, the owners and GM's are stupid for signing these deals.  But ultimately it's the fans who suffer.

For example, I'll use New Orleans and Emeka Okafor as an example.  He is overpaid.  Everyone knows it.  Is this Emeka's fault?  Is it the fans fault?  No, it's the GM and owners fault.  However, who pays the price?  The fans. 

How? 

Right now, the biggest thing that is being talked about is trading one of the top 5-7 players in the league (CP3), just to get rid or Emeka's contract.  Is this fair to the fans?  No.  They have invested many millions of dollars in CP3 jersesy's, tickets to games, only to lose him mainly due to bad contracts that the team has no ability to get rid of.  But if New Orleans could suddenly cut Okafor, Posey and Peja, they would be around 21.5 million under the cap.  Maybe they could have signed LBJ, and New Orleans fans would be happy, and their investment in the franchise would be rewarded.  Now?  They just have to worry about losing one of the top PG in the game.

[Fan from VT]

I like some of the general ideas, but there is one glaring problem that I can't seem to see around.

Say a team is under the cap like you said and then forced to spend 61m the next season.  Generally, players get signed to ascending deals.  So say they spend exactly 61m, but the season after, those ascending deals take them up to 64m.  Now, if the salary cap goes back down to 60m the next season, did the league just effectively force this team into the luxury tax?

You are right.

There would need to be some language in the deal to cover this, as it would be an issue.  Probably something like the base amount of the contract would be "tax protected", where as the raises would be "tax eligible".

The basic premise behind this "spend the cap money on salary" would be to appease the players and the fans.  This would keep greed owners from hording this cash all the way to the bottom line.

and I don't get why you would force any team to spend money just to spend money. 

There is a minimum salary amount now.  That is forcing teams to spend money, just to spend money.  If not, the Donald Sterlings of the NBA would sign 12 minumum salaries, and take all the TV money and revenue sharing money, and put it in their back pocket.

i agree with this. revenue sharing is pointless unless that money goes immediately and directly into acquiring players to improve the team


as for 2 way non-guaranteed contracts, I'm of the mind that a contract is a contract. It should only be voided for specific breaches of the contract. It really doesn't make sense to be to be able to say "here, we signed this and you sign this and we'll pay you 100 million over 5 years to play." then that player plays the same as he always has, and the team is like "oh, we made a mistake, see ya!" whereas a player might sign for 5 yrs 20 million, then play like a 12 million per year player, but can do nothing. Why is one side locked in and the other isn't?

And i'm not even talking about VC dogging it, which should be punishable by suspension without pay.

I'm talking about Zach Randolph playing on a rookie contract, putting up 20/10 and playing lousy D, THEN portland offers him a max deal, KNOWING WHO HE IS!!!, and suddenly regrets it. HE'S HAS THE SAME ATTITUDE AS WHEN YOU SIGNED HAPPILY SIGNED HIM!!!!! NOW IT'S AN ALBATROSS CONTRACT?!?!?!?!?

Or even other "overpaid" players, like emeka okafor. What did they expect? How did he not live up to his contract? He gives you 10/10, very good defense, has been very healthy lately, is a hard worker, smart, and a stand up guy. But he's considered a bad contract and would probably be voided if allowed. what?

Although I agree with a contract is a contract, what is happening to the league is that these contracts are hurting the fans. 

Yes, the owners and GM's are stupid for signing these deals.  But ultimately it's the fans who suffer.

For example, I'll use New Orleans and Emeka Okafor as an example.  He is overpaid.  Everyone knows it.  Is this Emeka's fault?  Is it the fans fault?  No, it's the GM and owners fault.  However, who pays the price?  The fans. 

How? 

Right now, the biggest thing that is being talked about is trading one of the top 5-7 players in the league (CP3), just to get rid or Emeka's contract.  Is this fair to the fans?  No.  They have invested many millions of dollars in CP3 jersesy's, tickets to games, only to lose him mainly due to bad contracts that the team has no ability to get rid of.  But if New Orleans could suddenly cut Okafor, Posey and Peja, they would be around 21.5 million under the cap.  Maybe they could have signed LBJ, and New Orleans fans would be happy, and their investment in the franchise would be rewarded.  Now?  They just have to worry about losing one of the top PG in the game.

I understand that logic.

However, in such a situation, if the fans are that hurt they should stop attending games. THis is actually where revenue sharing is a bad thing; if fans stop attending a poorly run franchise, the franchise is somewhat protected.

They say that non-guaranteed deals are to protect the fans, but it's really to protect owners who want things both ways. I have no problem with that as long as you can build in the same protections to players who may have bad agents or whatever circumstance that has them really underpaid.