NBA Cap stifles competition

[Ogaju]

NBA Salary Cap is a joke because it is easy to circumvent and manipulate.

Any league that can be so manipulated by one player is not steeped in competition, but is rather a joke.

I have said and continue to say, that there is enough information out there to place a value on veteran players that teams must assume against the cap. That will stop ring chasing. Either you do that or you eliminate the farce that is the salary cap altogether.

This idea that players that have made enough money can go and play elsewhere for less than their true value is detrimental to competition and goes against the spirit of the salary cap.

In this day and age where sponsorship money at timed dwarf the players contract money, the astute player would always manipulate his way into a large market team by taking less money with the guarantee that said player will make more endorsement money with a winning team in that large market. There has to be a better cap system that considers this reality, otherwise small market teams will be forever doomed well unless they happen to harbor the hometown of the best player in the world, or the hometown of the wife of the best player in the world.

[Clench123]

I agree with almost everything you said.  However, eliminating salary cap would only make the current problem worse.

[Who]

Agreed -- needs a drastic overhaul.

[JBcat]

I wouldn't mind taking a page out of baseball's book.  A team can off pending free agents a qualifying offer which would be the equivalent of the league average pay.  Say it's 8 million.  A player can either take the qualifying offer, or if he signs with another team, the team he leaves gets a first round pick(or sandwich pick after the first round).  I think it will help teams that lose high value players at least get compensated.

[indeedproceed]

Yeah, I do think there is a real issue with competitiveness if you assume the position that all teams should, factoring in GM competence, and luck as a thing that evens out, in a fair time-frame (like..20 years) have an equal ability to win a NBA championship.

And that's obviously not the case. There are outliers (San Antonio...pretty much just San Antonio, Dallas and Detroit, kind of), but by and large attractive markets win championships.

But I don't think that's a CBA thing, and its absolutely not a salary cap thing, that's a player movement thing. It all stems from players getting to choose where they want to play at critical junctures within their career.

And if they just want to severely constrict player movement (not saying that's a goal here), that would come with its whole other can of worms.

Without a cap, teams with the biggest pockets would take whomever they wanted until the salaries became unprofitable, or untenable. And the teams with the biggest pockets are usually in the best places to play. So double-trouble.

[Ogaju]

Yeah, I do think there is a real issue with competitiveness if you assume the position that all teams should, factoring in GM competence, and luck as a thing that evens out, in a fair time-frame (like..20 years) have an equal ability to win a NBA championship.

And that's obviously not the case. There are outliers (San Antonio...pretty much just San Antonio, Dallas and Detroit, kind of), but by and large attractive markets win championships.

But I don't think that's a CBA thing, and its absolutely not a salary cap thing, that's a player movement thing. It all stems from players getting to choose where they want to play at critical junctures within their career.

And if they just want to severely constrict player movement (not saying that's a goal here), that would come with its whole other can of worms.

Without a cap, teams with the biggest pockets would take whomever they wanted until the salaries became unprofitable, or untenable. And the teams with the biggest pockets are usually in the best places to play. So double-trouble.

I believe the CAP could work if you do not have players undermining the cap by taking less money than they are worth. If the cap is strictly enforced then you probably will not be able to get more than one or two max players on a team. What determines a max player you might ask, and I will answer the market does. If a player is offered a max contract by any team then that dictates his value. He does not have to sign with that team, but any team he signs with gets a max hit against the cap. That will even things out.

[SHAQATTACK]

Agreed -- needs a drastic overhaul.

+1

[JBcat]

I wouldn't mind taking a page out of baseball's book.  A team can off pending free agents a qualifying offer which would be the equivalent of the league average pay.  Say it's 8 million.  A player can either take the qualifying offer, or if he signs with another team, the team he leaves gets a first round pick(or sandwich pick after the first round).  I think it will help teams that lose high value players at least get compensated.

Just add to what I was saying earlier I have no problem if a player signs for less than market value to play for a contender.  No system is really going to stop that, and I actually think it's good for the game.  Shows it's not all about money, and winning matters.

Anyway what I saying earlier if a team is considering signing a player it might think twice if they were to lose a draft pick.  I think this type if strategy will make things a little more fair during the free agency period.

[indeedproceed]

Yeah, I do think there is a real issue with competitiveness if you assume the position that all teams should, factoring in GM competence, and luck as a thing that evens out, in a fair time-frame (like..20 years) have an equal ability to win a NBA championship.

And that's obviously not the case. There are outliers (San Antonio...pretty much just San Antonio, Dallas and Detroit, kind of), but by and large attractive markets win championships.

But I don't think that's a CBA thing, and its absolutely not a salary cap thing, that's a player movement thing. It all stems from players getting to choose where they want to play at critical junctures within their career.

And if they just want to severely constrict player movement (not saying that's a goal here), that would come with its whole other can of worms.

Without a cap, teams with the biggest pockets would take whomever they wanted until the salaries became unprofitable, or untenable. And the teams with the biggest pockets are usually in the best places to play. So double-trouble.

I believe the CAP could work if you do not have players undermining the cap by taking less money than they are worth. If the cap is strictly enforced then you probably will not be able to get more than one or two max players on a team. What determines a max player you might ask, and I will answer the market does. If a player is offered a max contract by any team then that dictates his value. He does not have to sign with that team, but any team he signs with gets a max hit against the cap. That will even things out.

I don't know how that works. Even if you force players into a weird mutated version of restricted FA, so what? Teams will just have to be more thorough in clearing the books. They'll still be able to afford 2 max agents and a Paul Millsap or something. Plus the room exception. And if they acquired the players via trade, they'd have the MLE and BAE at their disposal.

[indeedproceed]

I wouldn't mind taking a page out of baseball's book.  A team can off pending free agents a qualifying offer which would be the equivalent of the league average pay.  Say it's 8 million.  A player can either take the qualifying offer, or if he signs with another team, the team he leaves gets a first round pick(or sandwich pick after the first round).  I think it will help teams that lose high value players at least get compensated.

Just add to what I was saying earlier I have no problem if a player signs for less than market value to play for a contender.  No system is really going to stop that, and I actually think it's good for the game.  Shows it's not all about money, and winning matters.

Anyway what I saying earlier if a team is considering signing a player it might think twice if they were to lose a draft pick.  I think this type if strategy will make things a little more fair during the free agency period.

I think this is valid. But even then, if you assume, and it follows, that the teams stealing max level guys are going to be picking in the mid to late 20's, best case scenario late teens, I don't think teams balk too much at the prospect of acquiring a guy they're willing to pay 20 million plus per year. Not when they can buy another 2nd or even a late 1st if they really want to.

[Ogaju]

The most egregious examples I can think about in recent memory are when

Karl Malone and Gary Peyton joined the LA team that already had Shaq and Kobe, but for injury that team would have pretty much bought an NBA championship  because Karl and Gary took less money.

Second, LeBron Wade and Bosh, three max players that took less money to buy four trips to the finals, and two championships.

Without stars taking less money neither of those two teams happen.

[BballTim]

  I've always favored keeping the cap and getting rid of max salaries, or making them much higher than they are. It would make the league more competitive. I'd guess the league really doesn't want a competitive league, they'd rather have a league where the top players are on the best teams.

[Moranis]

The most egregious examples I can think about in recent memory are when

Karl Malone and Gary Peyton joined the LA team that already had Shaq and Kobe, but for injury that team would have pretty much bought an NBA championship  because Karl and Gary took less money.

Second, LeBron Wade and Bosh, three max players that took less money to buy four trips to the finals, and two championships.

Without stars taking less money neither of those two teams happen.

James, Wade, and Bosh all took less money so they could sign Haslem and Miller, neither of whom really was an essential component of their run.  They all could have signed for the max with the Heat.

And I really question what you are getting at.  I mean you are advocating paying players that will play for less, more.  Doesn't make sense.  I also don't recall seeing posts like this when guys like Rasheed Wallace and PJ Brown were signing with the Celtics. 

[indeedproceed]

The most egregious examples I can think about in recent memory are when

Karl Malone and Gary Peyton joined the LA team that already had Shaq and Kobe, but for injury that team would have pretty much bought an NBA championship  because Karl and Gary took less money.

Second, LeBron Wade and Bosh, three max players that took less money to buy four trips to the finals, and two championships.

Without stars taking less money neither of those two teams happen.

Not Bosh, but the Malone/Payton thing, why not? Karl Malone was 40 years old then. He didn't get any max offers. Malone could've made more money, and Payton was 35 years old at the time, I don't recall him getting any max offers.

Would you also say that every free agent has to have bids officially logged? Then, they can only sign with teams who will pay commiserate with the top bid?

[jambr380]

  I've always favored keeping the cap and getting rid of max salaries, or making them much higher than they are. It would make the league more competitive. I'd guess the league really doesn't want a competitive league, they'd rather have a league where the top players are on the best teams.

TP - this would be the simplest way to keep things competitive without changing around all of the other exceptions. If a team had to spend 60 million a year to sign Durant, then let them, but it will totally limit the rest of their options.

I understand that this doesn't take into consideration Bird Rights or other players taking less to play with a super-team, but it at least ensures that Rudy Gay doesn't make more than Lebron James.