NBA Cap stifles competition

[LooseCannon]

how about longer rookie contracts with periods during the contract where the player is eligible for arbitration where someone can determine what the players market value is and the team is required to pay.  If the team is unwilling to pay the players market value determined by the arbitrator then the player is eligible to become a unrestricted free agent.

I also think the NBA needs to adopt the NFLs franchise tag rules.  Multiple first round picks coming back to the team that the franchise player loses.....obviously if the first suggestion is used then the franchise tag rule doesnt apply.

Having arbitration create unpredictable increases in payroll would be horrible for teams trying to manage luxury tax.

Franchise tags won't work in the NBA because of the relative size of the roster and number of draft picks.

[puskas54_10]

how about longer rookie contracts with periods during the contract where the player is eligible for arbitration where someone can determine what the players market value is and the team is required to pay.  If the team is unwilling to pay the players market value determined by the arbitrator then the player is eligible to become a unrestricted free agent.

I also think the NBA needs to adopt the NFLs franchise tag rules.  Multiple first round picks coming back to the team that the franchise player loses.....obviously if the first suggestion is used then the franchise tag rule doesnt apply.

It looks you are the kind of person who likes when other people tell you where you can work what you can do.

If I'm a talented athlete with skills to play in the nfl, nba or mlb then there is no way I choose the NFL. Worst salary, anytime they can get cut you, serious sometimes life threatening injuries. No thanks. The NFL exploites the players the most while making the biggest profit. I think players will fight against the franchise tag in the next bargaining agreement.

[puskas54_10]

You are way off about everything.
The new salary cap makes it harder to spend because of the increased luxury tax implications. The other thing is: the players are not slaves, go back to the 19th century. You are just a bitter fan who knows the celtics will suck so you want a system that serves your team better (at least you think it would).

You know what I mean...
Your idea is not plausible and totally unrealistic.

I didn't get the slave reference since my proposal is actually pushing for players to get what they are worth, or to scrap free agency altogether.

I also don't understand the bitter Celtic fan reference since this proposal applies to all teams without exception.

I think you should not restrict players any more then they are now. Stars after drafted play circa 8 years for their respective teams, because financially that's the best for them. After they set, they are starting to think in other options. If a team can't show during a 7-8 years stint that it's worth staying, then there is nothing else to blame than themselves. You can't force players to play for crappy teams while they are worth big money. You can't tell players what's best for them. They decide when they can what they want.

I think the celtics are in a disadvantage position. If everything equal, then there is a couple of teams that the celtics just can't beat out for free agents. Your system gives the celtics a little bit more leverage.

[Ogaju]

you are right that a strict enforcement of the salary cap will give teams that are generally not a favorable destination for free agents equal access. I don't think it gives them more leverage. Why not just scrap the cap, and let the teams that really want to win compete for the players. This way teams that have a location disadvantage can compensate the players with more money and balance the playing field. Forcing two teams to the same cap restrictions when team A already has a location advantage or tax advantage is actually not playing on a even playing field.

[puskas54_10]

you are right that a strict enforcement of the salary cap will give teams that are generally not a favorable destination for free agents equal access. I don't think it gives them more leverage. Why not just scrap the cap, and let the teams that really want to win compete for the players. This way teams that have a location disadvantage can compensate the players with more money and balance the playing field. Forcing two teams to the same cap restrictions when team A already has a location advantage or tax advantage is actually not playing on a even playing field.

This no salary cap idea is actually better than your other idea. However it would be disastrous for more than half the teams. If you think that now there is not enough parity, then just wait when there is no cap. I think the salary cap is a good thing. At least on paper teams have similar resources to use. If no cap then Brooklyn can buy anybody anytime.

[Ogaju]

but the cap gives the marquee teams a decided advantage that other teams cannot overcome. if LA and Utah HAVE only 20 million to spend on a player LA probably always gets that player. What if Utah can pay that player 30 million? Maybe he goes there instead of LA.

[wdleehi]

I would love the NFL model. 


Easy enough to get rid of a player not playing up to his contract.



It would also encourage teams to take bigger chances.  Take the chance and overpay a guy.  If it works, great.  If it doesn't, get rid of them in the future.




The amount of money payed to the players do not change.  They still have a deal in place promising a % of the revenue to the players.  It doesn't hurt the true talent in the NBA.  It kills the guy that gets to big of a contract and does nothing but eat up salary cap. 

[LooseCannon]

you are right that a strict enforcement of the salary cap will give teams that are generally not a favorable destination for free agents equal access. I don't think it gives them more leverage. Why not just scrap the cap, and let the teams that really want to win compete for the players. This way teams that have a location disadvantage can compensate the players with more money and balance the playing field. Forcing two teams to the same cap restrictions when team A already has a location advantage or tax advantage is actually not playing on a even playing field.

Why not just give a higher salary cap figure for teams you think are disadvantaged and some revenue sharing to enable them to use that extra cap room?

[hwangjini_1]

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.

your basic points are interesting and bear a careful discussion.

however, I did a cursory look at nba salaries compared to endorsements and what i found, at the surface and in a preliminary fashion, does not support the premise the nba players as a whole make a lot more with endorsements than they do through salaries. i am not sure how this affects your argument.

the very top nba players make more through endorsements, yes. but quickly that advantage seems to drop off. for example pau gasol only made $2.5 in endorsements, well below his salary and he is a high profile player in LA.

the top ten nba players averaged about $15.5 million each in endorsements. below are the top 10 endorsement champions of the nba. how many of the TOP endorsement players received more in endorsements than in salary? not that many, and these were to top recepients.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2014/02/17/the-nbas-endorsement-all-stars-2014/

LeBron James: $42 million (Nike)

Kobe Bryant: $34 million (Nike)

Derrick Rose: $21 million (Adidas)

Kevin Durant: $14 million (Nike)

Dwyane Wade: $12 million (Li Ning)

Carmelo Anthony: $9 million (Jordan/Nike)

Amar’e Stoudemire: $6.5 million (Nike)

Dwight Howard: $6 million (Adidas)

Blake Griffin: $6 million (Jordan/Nike)

Chris Paul: $4 million (Jordan/Nike)

now i am certain that these players receive more in endorsements from other sources, but the point remains that for the endorsements for the majority of players does not automatically outstrip their salaries.

[the_Bird]

I would love the NFL model. 


Easy enough to get rid of a player not playing up to his contract.



It would also encourage teams to take bigger chances.  Take the chance and overpay a guy.  If it works, great.  If it doesn't, get rid of them in the future.




The amount of money payed to the players do not change.  They still have a deal in place promising a % of the revenue to the players.  It doesn't hurt the true talent in the NBA.  It kills the guy that gets to big of a contract and does nothing but eat up salary cap.

Player's union won't ever agree to a system that moves from long-term, fully-guaranteed deals to one that's basically all short-term contracts and based around signing bonuses.  Individual players are taking on too much additional risk in that system, it's a non-starter.

What I'd propose, though...  a simple hard cap with VERY limited ability to go over.  No more Bird rights.  No more MLEs and LLEs and biannual exemptions and traded-player exemptions and matching salaries in trades and all that nonsense.

Every team's salary commitment for each year must lie between X (~what, $40M?  $45M?) and Y (~$70M?).

If you're over, you're out of luck; you can add vet-min guys and that's it.

If you're under, you need to pay the balance into a pool that gets evenly distributed among all NBA players.

I'm undecided about whether to cap individual player salaries in my system.  It's easy to imagine a team offering LeBron $50M a year and then fill out the rest of the roster with min-salary guys.  So, maybe cap any one individual player at 30% of the total salary cap.

Keep the rookie-scale deals, those work well.  Afterwards, though...  no other limits.  4-year vet is eligible for the same max-deal as a 10-year vet (why shouldn't he be?  You'd rather pay the young guy, anyway).

Trades; as long as you stay within the overall parameters, you can trade whoever for whoever.   No need to match salaries if you decide to trade Rondo.  Trades become made more based on their basketball merits that just their salary implications.

What's the problem with this system?  More flexibility for teams to build their rosters.  If you set the team-salary floor and salary caps correctly, the players won't lose any revenues.  Could implement additional revenue-sharing behind the scenes that wouldn't impact the simplicity of my proposal. 

[LooseCannon]

Player's union won't ever agree to a system that moves from long-term, fully-guaranteed deals to one that's basically all short-term contracts and based around signing bonuses.  Individual players are taking on too much additional risk in that system, it's a non-starter.

What I'd propose, though...  a simple hard cap with VERY limited ability to go over.  No more Bird rights.  No more MLEs and LLEs and biannual exemptions and traded-player exemptions and matching salaries in trades and all that nonsense.

The players would accept shortening the maximum length of contracts before they would accept a hard cap.

[the_Bird]

I think it depends on how high the cap was, and what the requirements were for teams to pay at least a minimum team salary.  And, require that a certain percentage of basketball revenues go towards player salaries.  It's just a matter of getting those numbers to the right level; the salary floor might need to be closer to $50M (no more letting teams like Philly skirt by and put out a cheap, inferior product).  Average team salary might need to be close to the current median team salary of ~$68M. 

But if the projected total player salaries work out the same under the current system and my, simplified system...  what's to complain about?  Teams in contention will want to be as close to the cap line as they can, just like happens in the NFL.

[Ogaju]

you are right that a strict enforcement of the salary cap will give teams that are generally not a favorable destination for free agents equal access. I don't think it gives them more leverage. Why not just scrap the cap, and let the teams that really want to win compete for the players. This way teams that have a location disadvantage can compensate the players with more money and balance the playing field. Forcing two teams to the same cap restrictions when team A already has a location advantage or tax advantage is actually not playing on a even playing field.

Why not just give a higher salary cap figure for teams you think are disadvantaged and some revenue sharing to enable them to use that extra cap room?

I do not know if you are serious about this, because it is pretty radical but the fact remains that the salary cap affects teams disproportionately. There are after all states with lower taxes than others, and states with higher living expenses than others. Putting all teams on the same salary cap scale puts some states at a decided advantage.

[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.

your basic points are interesting and bear a careful discussion.

however, I did a cursory look at nba salaries compared to endorsements and what i found, at the surface and in a preliminary fashion, does not support the premise the nba players as a whole make a lot more with endorsements than they do through salaries. i am not sure how this affects your argument.

the very top nba players make more through endorsements, yes. but quickly that advantage seems to drop off. for example pau gasol only made $2.5 in endorsements, well below his salary and he is a high profile player in LA.

the top ten nba players averaged about $15.5 million each in endorsements. below are the top 10 endorsement champions of the nba. how many of the TOP endorsement players received more in endorsements than in salary? not that many, and these were to top recepients.

Player endorsement is not a big part of my argument, but I do think it helps some players in the decision to take less salary. A few of those names make a whole lot more from non shoe related endorsements Griffin does a lot with KIA and Paul does a lot with State Farm or is it Farmers? Its not just endorsements that puts players in a position to take less salary than their market value, its overall income they have already earned in their career, the prospect of increasing endorsement value from either winning a championship or playing in a major market, and even the tax code in the state may be a consideration.

[Eja117]

The OP makes fair points. That said things get even more out of whack when you consider the advantage of states with no state taxes vs a place like Toronto.