what is the purpose of the salary cap?

[BballTim]

I have no real issue with a salary cap the one that bugs me is the individual player cap.  If I want to spend 75% of the cap on one player I should be allowed to.

While this makes sense from a market value standpoint, if things worked that way, 90% of the players in the league would make very little despite risking their present and long term health just as much as the very best players.

I can understand why the player's union is not OK with LeBron making $55 million a year while the average player makes $100-250K.  It's a star's league, but it is still a team sport.



Also keep in mind that technically the NBA is one employer.  In that sense, it's not uncommon for an employer to "cap" how much it will spend overall on its general workforce as an expected expenditure

  It would make the league a lot more interesting. On Cleveland, LeBron would make a fortune and the team would have to load up on fodder to put on the court with him. Other teams not paying LeBron $55M would be able to counter the "LeBron and fodder" team with a group of 2-3 lesser stars or 1-2 stars and much better role players. You'd have a wider pool of teams that could win a title, and the better players would be spread out to more teams.

[notthebowler]

It exists as a way for employers to screw their employees and not pay them as much as they are worth.

good call. though i think another point to it is to prevent an especially idiotic but rich owner from simply paying $1,000,000,000 (thats what the number one billion dollars looks like) and scooping up lebron, durant, cousins, curry, et al into a super team and making the nba a joke of a product. great for the owner, but the end of the nba.

another subsidiary "benefit" is it keeps owners from possibly spending themselves into oblivion by overpaying for talent. the opposite of your point, but a valid one nonetheless.

This is what collective bargaining is all about. People want to focus on the salary cap but that is just one part of an overall salary structure. There is a cap on the high end, but also an artificial floor in the bottom end.

In a true free market, there would be no minimum salary. Owners could tell the last 3-4 guys on the roster "if you want a job in the NBA I'll pay you $25,000. Take it or leave it."  Without a collectively bargained minimum roster size, "we only play an 8 man rotation. I'll keep 10 guys on my roster and if someone gets hurt I'll add another later."  Or "your average salary is over $5mil. Pay for your own healthcare and retirement."  Lots of other similar points. Acting as if the salary cap is just a means for big bad businessmen to exploit the poor frontline worker is silly, and I'm being nice by using that word.

[MBunge]

A salary cap exists in theory to give all teams the same chance to win.  It really only works that way in the NFL.  The NBA may be getting there, though, with the punitive nature of the luxury tax.

Practically, the NBA salary cap has been more about saving owners from themselves.

Mike

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Ogaju, couldn't agree with you more.  TP.

What's also lame is all the exceptions that allow teams to go over the cap (Sorry Larry Bird .. and the exception named after you).  They need to have a flat salary cap with no exceptions - like the NFL.

The problem with the NFL (in my view) is that teams can sign a player for X number of dollars, but maybe only a third or half of that money is guaranteed. There's no way that any of these teams is ever going to pay all that money, so why do the players sign these silly deals, especially when they know the big numbers are going to end up getting them cut from the team sooner or later?

[libermaniac]

Ogaju, couldn't agree with you more.  TP.

What's also lame is all the exceptions that allow teams to go over the cap (Sorry Larry Bird .. and the exception named after you).  They need to have a flat salary cap with no exceptions - like the NFL.

I'd hate having a hard salary cap with no exceptions.

Why?  It's the way any fantasy league works.

[LooseCannon]

Ogaju, couldn't agree with you more.  TP.

What's also lame is all the exceptions that allow teams to go over the cap (Sorry Larry Bird .. and the exception named after you).  They need to have a flat salary cap with no exceptions - like the NFL.

I'd hate having a hard salary cap with no exceptions.

Why?  It's the way any fantasy league works.

Real sports would be horrible if they were run like fantasy sports.

[PhoSita]

I have no real issue with a salary cap the one that bugs me is the individual player cap.  If I want to spend 75% of the cap on one player I should be allowed to.

While this makes sense from a market value standpoint, if things worked that way, 90% of the players in the league would make very little despite risking their present and long term health just as much as the very best players.

I can understand why the player's union is not OK with LeBron making $55 million a year while the average player makes $100-250K.  It's a star's league, but it is still a team sport.



Also keep in mind that technically the NBA is one employer.  In that sense, it's not uncommon for an employer to "cap" how much it will spend overall on its general workforce as an expected expenditure

  It would make the league a lot more interesting. On Cleveland, LeBron would make a fortune and the team would have to load up on fodder to put on the court with him. Other teams not paying LeBron $55M would be able to counter the "LeBron and fodder" team with a group of 2-3 lesser stars or 1-2 stars and much better role players. You'd have a wider pool of teams that could win a title, and the better players would be spread out to more teams.

I'm all for parity, but that sounds like it'd lead to bad basketball to me.  Plus, more likely it just forces role players to take very little money, and makes it more likely that small market teams will wildly overpay a handful of second tier guys just for a chance to reach the middle.

[freshinthehouse]

Real sports would be horrible if they were run like fantasy sports.

This.

And a hard cap works in the NFL because contracts aren't fully guaranteed.  A hard cap with guaranteed contracts (like the NBA has) would be very difficult.  Making NBA contracts conditionally guaranteed would possibly make a hard cap work, but that's a whole other discussion.

[Ogaju]

I have always wondered about the real purpose of the salary cap. Is it to enhance parity in the league or is it merely to protect the owners from themselves. If the purpose of the salary cap is to foster competition by promoting parity then the league should do something about a situation like Josh Smith were his real earnings in the NBA is what the Pistons are paying him and not what the Clippers are paying him. His CAP HIT for any team he plays for should be his NBA contract earning for that year even if the money is from another team.

By allowing Smith to earn an amount that is not applied to Clippers cap is giving the Clippers an undue advantage.

I made a similar argument when Malone went ring hunting with the Lakers and took way less money than he was worth just to get on that team. I believed then and still do that the Lakers should have been hit with the true value of Karl Malone that year, and that value should be measured by an objective criteria such as the highest he commanded on the free agent market.

  Then Smith would be virtually unsignable because  few if any teams would be interested in picking up that cap hit.

the corollary is that he would be more attractive because teams can use him to circumvent the salary cap.

[libermaniac]

Real sports would be horrible if they were run like fantasy sports.

This.

And a hard cap works in the NFL because contracts aren't fully guaranteed.  A hard cap with guaranteed contracts (like the NBA has) would be very difficult.  Making NBA contracts conditionally guaranteed would possibly make a hard cap work, but that's a whole other discussion.

Or, if they gave injury exceptions.  If a team signs a bust to a long-term deal - like the Sox appear to have done with fat Panda - then that's on them.  But, if a guy blows out a knee, his $$ should come off the books.

[mqtcelticsfan]

It exists as a way for employers to screw their employees and not pay them as much as they are worth.

This is the only accurate answer to this question. It's the same reason the draft exists.

[CelticsFanFromNYC]

It exists as a way for employers to screw their employees and not pay them as much as they are worth.

good call. though i think another point to it is to prevent an especially idiotic but rich owner from simply paying $1,000,000,000 (thats what the number one billion dollars looks like) and scooping up lebron, durant, cousins, curry, et al into a super team and making the nba a joke of a product. great for the owner, but the end of the nba.

another subsidiary "benefit" is it keeps owners from possibly spending themselves into oblivion by overpaying for talent. the opposite of your point, but a valid one nonetheless.

I agree with this. and if owners aint doing it. Organizations are funding the owners

[crimson_stallion]

I have no problem with players staying with their teams for less money. It is the players that go ring hunting that violate the spirit of competition expressed in the salary cap.

I should not have mixed the issues, but the point is Smith getting paid 12 million and only counting as a league minimum to the Clippers is a JOKE!!! Has nothing to do with how well run the Clippers are it is just plain wrong.

I do agree with this.

I'm not sure how it works in other counties, but here in Australia if you buy a second hand car off another person, there is a 'transfer of registration' fee you need to pay which is basically 3% of either what you paid for the car, or the car's market value (whichever is higher).  The idea of this is that specifying the minimum 'market value' stops people from dodgying costs by putting a lower sale price on the papers (e.g. selling the car for $10,000 and saying they sold it for $5,000 so they only pay 3% on $5k rather than 3% on $10k).   

I kinda feel like the NBA needs something like that as well - some type of minimum 'market value' that needs to be put on to players based on their level of experience, their production, etc. 

For example, the whole idea of the Salary cap is that when Miami built the big three and spent all their cap on three guys, then they should have been very limited as to what talent they could put around those three guys - hence creating a level playing field.  Going for a top-heavy team at the expense of depth.  But this didn't work because once Miami got those three guys, pretty much every quality vet imaginable was all the more happy to join the team on vet min contracts...of which you can pretty much add however many you want.

If the league wants to genuinely balance things out, then there should be a minimum cap in individual players.  Team's who are stacked and over the cap shouldn't be able to go signing veterans who were All-Stars a year or two earlier (e.g. Ray Allen in Miami) for MLE and Vet min money.

The league already has a rule in place that allows exceptional young players (e.g. Paul George, Derek Rose) to earn more than other young players can...so why not have a similar rule that determins player X has a min market value of $Y?

[crimson_stallion]

It exists as a way for employers to screw their employees and not pay them as much as they are worth.

This is the only accurate answer to this question. It's the same reason the draft exists.

I wouldn't say that about the draft.

If you think about any organisation out there, any business, new graduates always make less money than experienced staff.

An IT person fresh out of uni is typically going to make a lot less money than an IT professional with 5 years of experience and numerous certifications.  If that wasn't the fact, then nobody would hire the graduates - why would you if you can get a more experienced employee who is more productive for the same money?

The Draft gives guys like Jordan Mickey and Terry Rozier a chance to earn themselves a spot on a roster, and build themselves a career portfolio.  Without Rookie scale contracts, you'd be lucky to see 1/4 of all the upcoming rookies make NBA rosters.

[RAAAAAAAANDY]

I have always wondered about the real purpose of the salary cap. Is it to enhance parity in the league or is it merely to protect the owners from themselves. If the purpose of the salary cap is to foster competition by promoting parity then the league should do something about a situation like Josh Smith were his real earnings in the NBA is what the Pistons are paying him and not what the Clippers are paying him. His CAP HIT for any team he plays for should be his NBA contract earning for that year even if the money is from another team.

By allowing Smith to earn an amount that is not applied to Clippers cap is giving the Clippers an undue advantage.

I made a similar argument when Malone went ring hunting with the Lakers and took way less money than he was worth just to get on that team. I believed then and still do that the Lakers should have been hit with the true value of Karl Malone that year, and that value should be measured by an objective criteria such as the highest he commanded on the free agent market.

  Then Smith would be virtually unsignable because  few if any teams would be interested in picking up that cap hit.

the corollary is that he would be more attractive because teams can use him to circumvent the salary cap.

He counts against the Clippers cap by the amount he's being paid from the team.

You want to penalize teams for other front offices making stupid signings?

This point makes no sense.