How to stop ring chasing by superstars

[Finkelskyhook]

First off, Karl Malone and Gary Payton were not superstars in 2004.

" If a free agent takes less money to join a team the team must be assigned the amount of money that reflects the free agent's true value on the open market."

this makes no sense. There's no such thing a "true value." First off, the value of a player is the market value, the price someone is willing to pay.

its a free market. The choice for a player if he wants to take a pay cut should always be available. Its a winning mentality, that I respect and look forward to more players doing.

I disagree..Malone was a superstar you do not ever stop being a star. Stars get calls and preferential treatment from referees even when they are 'over the hill'. Malone did take a lot less money to join the Lakers, and it gave the Lakers an unfair advantage. This practice makes players pick winners.

Why dont you address LeBron taking less than MAX you think that does mot give the Heat an advantage when the best player on the planet is playing for less than Max?

Well, there is the notion that Florida is a no-income tax state....So the messiah actually probably is better paid than Stoudemire...Who took the max at the same time.

There's also the notion that since lebron is the NBA'S messiah....His fame and endorsments will go wherever he goes.  So he's losing little or nothing by virtue of signing for less than the max in Miami.

[Boris Badenov]

It really bothered me when Karl Malone and Gary Payton went ring chasing with the LA Lakers back in the day...This allowed the Lakers to field a much stronger team than the salary cap would allow based on the quality of players and the amount they would command on the open market.

How to fix the problem.. If a free agent takes less money to join a team the team must be assigned the amount of money that reflects the free agent's true value on the open market.

That will put an end to the collusion.

This is an excellent idea.

In the interest of achieving greater parity and competitiveness, and improving the NBA product for everyone in the league, I propose these complementary changes:

1. If a player receives equal offers from multiple teams, that player must sign with the team that has the worst record. (Going to a better team would constitute ring-chasing).

2. To equalize pay for performance, each year all players on current contracts will be re-bid and have their contracts adjusted to reflect their value as players. So, if player X is slated to make $10 million and player Y is slated to make $2 million but they perform equally, their contracts are adjusted to be equal for the following year.

3. After each player's rookie year, all players are re-ranked by the GMs and then re-assigned based on teams' records. So, if a player was drafted 10th but ended up being the 3rd best player in the draft, that player gets re-assigned to the 3rd worst team in the league after his rookie season. This will ensure that teams do not possess rookies performing out of line with where they fall on the pay scale.

4. Because players often give up not only salary they could have earned elsewhere, but also time (because they train harder when they are on a winning team), the league shall mandate that all teams practice for precisely the same amount of time each week. Players on contending teams will not be allowed to show up early and get in extra shooting or weight work, in the interest of preserving competitive balance.

5. If a team wins more than one championship in any three-year period, that team must surrender its best player to the team with the worst record in the previous year. This will avoid incentives for players to game the system by destroying competitive balance.

6. "Perks" offered by winning/wealthy teams (better airplanes, food etc.) will be disallowed.

7. The restriction on perks will extend to geographical advantages. If a player plays the regular season for Miami, he must live in Minnesota during the off-season, and vice versa. This will reduce incentives for "weather-chasing" that destroys competitive balance.

[Roy H.]

It really bothered me when Karl Malone and Gary Payton went ring chasing with the LA Lakers back in the day...This allowed the Lakers to field a much stronger team than the salary cap would allow based on the quality of players and the amount they would command on the open market.

How to fix the problem.. If a free agent takes less money to join a team the team must be assigned the amount of money that reflects the free agent's true value on the open market.

That will put an end to the collusion.

This is an excellent idea.

In the interest of achieving greater parity and competitiveness, and improving the NBA product for everyone in the league, I propose these complementary changes:

1. If a player receives equal offers from multiple teams, that player must sign with the team that has the worst record. (Going to a better team would constitute ring-chasing).

2. To equalize pay for performance, each year all players on current contracts will be re-bid and have their contracts adjusted to reflect their value as players. So, if player X is slated to make $10 million and player Y is slated to make $2 million but they perform equally, their contracts are adjusted to be equal for the following year.

3. After each player's rookie year, all players are re-ranked by the GMs and then re-assigned based on teams' records. So, if a player was drafted 10th but ended up being the 3rd best player in the draft, that player gets re-assigned to the 3rd worst team in the league after his rookie season. This will ensure that teams do not possess rookies performing out of line with where they fall on the pay scale.

4. Because players often give up not only salary they could have earned elsewhere, but also time (because they train harder when they are on a winning team), the league shall mandate that all teams practice for precisely the same amount of time each week. Players on contending teams will not be allowed to show up early and get in extra shooting or weight work, in the interest of preserving competitive balance.

5. If a team wins more than one championship in any three-year period, that team must surrender its best player to the team with the worst record in the previous year. This will avoid incentives for players to game the system by destroying competitive balance.

6. "Perks" offered by winning/wealthy teams (better airplanes, food etc.) will be disallowed.

7. The restriction on perks will extend to geographical advantages. If a player plays the regular season for Miami, he must live in Minnesota during the off-season, and vice versa. This will reduce incentives for "weather-chasing" that destroys competitive balance.

These ideas sound like they come from an evil character in an Ayn Rand novel. 

[LooseCannon]

Give bad teams extra cap space and a bigger maximum than good teams on the size of contracts they can offer to free agents.

[nickagneta]

Didn't Rondo and KG sign below market value contracts with Boston the last time they signed contracts?

[Boris Badenov]

It really bothered me when Karl Malone and Gary Payton went ring chasing with the LA Lakers back in the day...This allowed the Lakers to field a much stronger team than the salary cap would allow based on the quality of players and the amount they would command on the open market.

How to fix the problem.. If a free agent takes less money to join a team the team must be assigned the amount of money that reflects the free agent's true value on the open market.

That will put an end to the collusion.

This is an excellent idea.

In the interest of achieving greater parity and competitiveness, and improving the NBA product for everyone in the league, I propose these complementary changes:

1. If a player receives equal offers from multiple teams, that player must sign with the team that has the worst record. (Going to a better team would constitute ring-chasing).

2. To equalize pay for performance, each year all players on current contracts will be re-bid and have their contracts adjusted to reflect their value as players. So, if player X is slated to make $10 million and player Y is slated to make $2 million but they perform equally, their contracts are adjusted to be equal for the following year.

3. After each player's rookie year, all players are re-ranked by the GMs and then re-assigned based on teams' records. So, if a player was drafted 10th but ended up being the 3rd best player in the draft, that player gets re-assigned to the 3rd worst team in the league after his rookie season. This will ensure that teams do not possess rookies performing out of line with where they fall on the pay scale.

4. Because players often give up not only salary they could have earned elsewhere, but also time (because they train harder when they are on a winning team), the league shall mandate that all teams practice for precisely the same amount of time each week. Players on contending teams will not be allowed to show up early and get in extra shooting or weight work, in the interest of preserving competitive balance.

5. If a team wins more than one championship in any three-year period, that team must surrender its best player to the team with the worst record in the previous year. This will avoid incentives for players to game the system by destroying competitive balance.

6. "Perks" offered by winning/wealthy teams (better airplanes, food etc.) will be disallowed.

7. The restriction on perks will extend to geographical advantages. If a player plays the regular season for Miami, he must live in Minnesota during the off-season, and vice versa. This will reduce incentives for "weather-chasing" that destroys competitive balance.

These ideas sound like they come from an evil character in an Ayn Rand novel. 

I was wondering whether anyone would read all the way to the end...

[guava_wrench]

It really bothered me when Karl Malone and Gary Payton went ring chasing with the LA Lakers back in the day...This allowed the Lakers to field a much stronger team than the salary cap would allow based on the quality of players and the amount they would command on the open market.

How to fix the problem.. If a free agent takes less money to join a team the team must be assigned the amount of money that reflects the free agent's true value on the open market.

That will put an end to the collusion.

This is an excellent idea.

In the interest of achieving greater parity and competitiveness, and improving the NBA product for everyone in the league, I propose these complementary changes:

1. If a player receives equal offers from multiple teams, that player must sign with the team that has the worst record. (Going to a better team would constitute ring-chasing).

2. To equalize pay for performance, each year all players on current contracts will be re-bid and have their contracts adjusted to reflect their value as players. So, if player X is slated to make $10 million and player Y is slated to make $2 million but they perform equally, their contracts are adjusted to be equal for the following year.

3. After each player's rookie year, all players are re-ranked by the GMs and then re-assigned based on teams' records. So, if a player was drafted 10th but ended up being the 3rd best player in the draft, that player gets re-assigned to the 3rd worst team in the league after his rookie season. This will ensure that teams do not possess rookies performing out of line with where they fall on the pay scale.

4. Because players often give up not only salary they could have earned elsewhere, but also time (because they train harder when they are on a winning team), the league shall mandate that all teams practice for precisely the same amount of time each week. Players on contending teams will not be allowed to show up early and get in extra shooting or weight work, in the interest of preserving competitive balance.

5. If a team wins more than one championship in any three-year period, that team must surrender its best player to the team with the worst record in the previous year. This will avoid incentives for players to game the system by destroying competitive balance.

6. "Perks" offered by winning/wealthy teams (better airplanes, food etc.) will be disallowed.

7. The restriction on perks will extend to geographical advantages. If a player plays the regular season for Miami, he must live in Minnesota during the off-season, and vice versa. This will reduce incentives for "weather-chasing" that destroys competitive balance.

Funny stuff. Especially the weather part.

[Eja117]

I don't think you can let the league decide how much stars "should" sign for.  I mean, let's go back to the summer of 2009.  Would the league have said that Rasheed was chasing a ring and taking a below-market deal for Rasheed Wallace?  Should they have voided the MLE contract? 

In terms of your "what if" scenario, I think most players are going to want their contract money *and* their endorsement money.  It will be the rare player who sacrifices $15 million per year to ring chase.

I think this could work on a lower level.

First team all NBA = max

2nd team all NBA = a little less than max

3rd team = a little less than that

all star = a little less than that

all defensive team = a little less than that

then have some formula that takes into account that a younger player is more valuable than an older one.  Like you multiply by a fraction.

But players can sign for whatever they want. They just can't collude via Miami Heat without their team taking the proper cap hit. The current system really really hurts the Milwaukees and Utah Jazz and whatnot.  This would help

[317]

Free agents should have the right to sign wherever they want for as much as they want. There should be no one else involved in the matter outside of player agents and team owners/coaches during the negotiation process.

this is actually what really would eliminate teams being able to sign multiple superstars but maybe not for the reason you think.

you need to eliminate the max salary well maintaining a salary cap. does anyone really think Lebron/Bosh/Wade would have taken there ~$15 million per year contracts if it meant giving up $5-$10 million per year(Bosh/Wade) or $15+ million per year for Lebron?

just think about what else a team would be left with if they used $30 million of there cap space to sign a Lebron tier player.

[indeedproceed]

Free agents should have the right to sign wherever they want for as much as they want. There should be no one else involved in the matter outside of player agents and team owners/coaches during the negotiation process.

this is actually what really would eliminate teams being able to sign multiple superstars but maybe not for the reason you think.

you need to eliminate the max salary well maintaining a salary cap. does anyone really think Lebron/Bosh/Wade would have taken there ~$15 million per year contracts if it meant giving up $5-$10 million per year(Bosh/Wade) or $15+ million per year for Lebron?

just think about what else a team would be left with if they used $30 million of there cap space to sign a Lebron tier player.

So you're saying a hard cap with no max salaries?