Better parity in the NBA is NOT a Pipe Dream

[BballTim]

2) As for everyone that said to set the max contracts at 35 per annum, or higher than that or just to eliminate max contracts altogether...

Here's the problem with that idea, and why I like my idea (and no, it's not simply because I automatically like my own ideas better)

Let's say you set max contracts at 35 per year. Yes, this would prevent the formation of superteams, and for that reason it would help parity somewhat. But it would still leave half of the league totally and utterly screwed. Why? Let's say you're drafted by the Timberwolves, who are still terrible, and remain terrible all the way up until the expiration of your rookie deal. Now the Timberwolves offer you the max at 35 mil, because you're a max player and they don't have any other max guys. Sure, LA and Miami and NYC can't sign you since they already have their max guys, so no superteams are about to be formed. BUT. You have absolutely zero incentive to stay in Minnesota, since a dozen other teams are offering you the EXACT SAME 35 mil to play in a place that's NOT Minnesota.

This makes no sense. You are assuming that if you raise the individual maximum salary then every all star will get that deal. But they won't.

First of all, it makes complete sense, and nowhere did I assume that everyone will get paid the max. Teams in smaller markets will get screwed under this scenario regardless of what the free agent is worth. If he's a Lebron James type, he's getting paid the max and he'll simply go to NY because of the additional money he'll make off of sponorships, etc. If somebody is only worth 20 million, well guess what? New York will offer 25 because they can afford to spend it. If Minnesota wants that player, they'll have to OVER spend, despite having even LESS money to spend than a team like New York. So they get screwed no matter what. Now, tell me again how that doesn't make sense?

And your scenario is actually irrelevant. If a player can make the same 35 million in Minnesota and New York, and leaves for New York, so what? That doesn't hurt parity. What hurts parity is if New York can sign its second superstar more easily than Minnesota can sign its first.

Actually, by definition, that hurts parity.

There are only a small number of players who are worthy of 20 million plus a year. What hurts parity is not if one of them chooses New York over Minnesota, but if several of them choose New York vs Minnesota.

If the max is 35 million a year, or if there is no max, then New York will get its superstar at a super high salary. But then it won't be able to get the second one.

Add to that the existence of Bird rights and you already have a substantial advantage for teams to keep their superstars. With Bird rights Minnesota can resign its superstar without giving up anything, while New York would have to manage to get 35 million dollars under the cap to sign this player.

As I've already stated, unrestricted salaries would prevent the creation of superteams with 2+ superstars. You just reiterated that point. But what unrestricted salaries would fail to do is give small market teams a chance (translation: they don't help parity as much as the rule I'm advocating), because they 1) small markets don't have enough money to outbid a large market for a superstar 2) small markets can't offer the same promotional advantages or the same quality of living (in the eyes of the players)


So I'll reiterate my point which is that why unrestricted or higher max salaries would help, as you've pointed out, they still leave teams like Minnesota and Milwaukee in the dust. So hey, if you want 10 or so of the teams in this league to continue to resemble the Washington Generals, that's fine. But unrestricted salary caps are NOT the best way to ensure parity.

  Small market teams might not be able to outbid for superstars, but they would be able to field teams that could compete with star laden teams. Think about the difference between, for example, Dwight Howard and Nene. It's significant, more significant than the difference in their salaries. If (just guessing, btw) DH makes $20M and Nene makes $14M, that's not a huge difference. If the cap's around $60M, that would leave ~50M for starters. That gives you $30M to surround DH with players and $36M to surround Nene with players.

  Say, on the other hand, that DH makes $35M and Nene (from inflated salaries) made $18M. That leaves you $15M to fill in the starters around DH and $32M to surround Nene with  talent. You could easily put a team around Nene that Howard's team would be unlikely to beat in the playoffs.

[dlpin]

2) As for everyone that said to set the max contracts at 35 per annum, or higher than that or just to eliminate max contracts altogether...

Here's the problem with that idea, and why I like my idea (and no, it's not simply because I automatically like my own ideas better)

Let's say you set max contracts at 35 per year. Yes, this would prevent the formation of superteams, and for that reason it would help parity somewhat. But it would still leave half of the league totally and utterly screwed. Why? Let's say you're drafted by the Timberwolves, who are still terrible, and remain terrible all the way up until the expiration of your rookie deal. Now the Timberwolves offer you the max at 35 mil, because you're a max player and they don't have any other max guys. Sure, LA and Miami and NYC can't sign you since they already have their max guys, so no superteams are about to be formed. BUT. You have absolutely zero incentive to stay in Minnesota, since a dozen other teams are offering you the EXACT SAME 35 mil to play in a place that's NOT Minnesota.

This makes no sense. You are assuming that if you raise the individual maximum salary then every all star will get that deal. But they won't.

First of all, it makes complete sense, and nowhere did I assume that everyone will get paid the max. Teams in smaller markets will get screwed under this scenario regardless of what the free agent is worth. If he's a Lebron James type, he's getting paid the max and he'll simply go to NY because of the additional money he'll make off of sponorships, etc. If somebody is only worth 20 million, well guess what? New York will offer 25 because they can afford to spend it. If Minnesota wants that player, they'll have to OVER spend, despite having even LESS money to spend than a team like New York. So they get screwed no matter what. Now, tell me again how that doesn't make sense?

And your scenario is actually irrelevant. If a player can make the same 35 million in Minnesota and New York, and leaves for New York, so what? That doesn't hurt parity. What hurts parity is if New York can sign its second superstar more easily than Minnesota can sign its first.

Actually, by definition, that hurts parity.

There are only a small number of players who are worthy of 20 million plus a year. What hurts parity is not if one of them chooses New York over Minnesota, but if several of them choose New York vs Minnesota.

If the max is 35 million a year, or if there is no max, then New York will get its superstar at a super high salary. But then it won't be able to get the second one.

Add to that the existence of Bird rights and you already have a substantial advantage for teams to keep their superstars. With Bird rights Minnesota can resign its superstar without giving up anything, while New York would have to manage to get 35 million dollars under the cap to sign this player.

As I've already stated, unrestricted salaries would prevent the creation of superteams with 2+ superstars. You just reiterated that point. But what unrestricted salaries would fail to do is give small market teams a chance (translation: they don't help parity as much as the rule I'm advocating), because they 1) small markets don't have enough money to outbid a large market for a superstar 2) small markets can't offer the same promotional advantages or the same quality of living (in the eyes of the players)


So I'll reiterate my point which is that why unrestricted or higher max salaries would help, as you've pointed out, they still leave teams like Minnesota and Milwaukee in the dust. So hey, if you want 10 or so of the teams in this league to continue to resemble the Washington Generals, that's fine. But unrestricted salary caps are NOT the best way to ensure parity.

As other people have said, you are ignoring the fact that the cap is still on. So teams with Bird rights will have an inherent advantage, and teams without bird rights who sign players as free agents or sign and trade for them will have less money to fill out the team.

Last year Lebron would have either signed with the Cavs for 30 million plus, or, if he left for a team with cap space like Miami, he would have been the only superstar they could have afforded.