what is the purpose of the salary cap?

[Moranis]

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.

I just don't see it.  Look all the second tier players that get maximum contracts right now because someone has to get paid.  John Wall made the point that he and Reggie Jackson have identical contracts.  I mean should Reggie Jackson really be getting paid what John Wall is getting paid.  The individual player salary cap shrinks the top and because of that lesser players ending making more money then they reasonably should.  I'd much rather see Lebron James make his true salary and if that means guys like Reggie Jackson get less money, then so be it. 

[D.o.s.]

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.

Good posts here.

[PhoSita]

I'd much rather see Lebron James make his true salary and if that means guys like Reggie Jackson get less money, then so be it.

What's it to you, though?

I have no problem with the superstars taking less -- though still making boatloads of cash (literally!) -- in order to subsidize the long term solvency of the lesser players in the league.  Those other guys take the same risks with their bodies and their education as the stars.

I don't like the idea of 90% of the players making what amounts to a pittance while the superstars join the owners in making the vast majority of the money.


Also, you hurt the product that way by giving the second tier players more incentive to (a) spread out across the league instead of joining up with the stars, so we get more mediocre teams and the best teams aren't as good and (b) play overseas for teams willing to pay them 4 or 5 times the new NBA "average" salary.


This is less about the Reggie Jackson contracts and more about the Jae Crowder contracts.

[CFAN38]

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.

It could be interesting to see to a rule change where when a player is unrestricted and signs a contract with a new  team the rest of the league is given a window of time (3-5 days) to counter off at a high percentage increase (50%?). The signing team would then have to match that offer to keep said player but is allowed to do so outside of their cap restrictions. example Clippers sign Smith for 1.5 mill, then the Celtics offer a 50% increase of 2.25 mill, the clippers then either have to match or let him go to boston. This would help some struggling teams bring in B level talent while earning the players more money.

[Moranis]

I'd much rather see Lebron James make his true salary and if that means guys like Reggie Jackson get less money, then so be it.

What's it to you, though?

I have no problem with the superstars taking less -- though still making boatloads of cash (literally!) -- in order to subsidize the long term solvency of the lesser players in the league.  Those other guys take the same risks with their bodies and their education as the stars.

I don't like the idea of 90% of the players making what amounts to a pittance while the superstars join the owners in making the vast majority of the money.


Also, you hurt the product that way by giving the second tier players more incentive to (a) spread out across the league instead of joining up with the stars, so we get more mediocre teams and the best teams aren't as good and (b) play overseas for teams willing to pay them 4 or 5 times the new NBA "average" salary.


This is less about the Reggie Jackson contracts and more about the Jae Crowder contracts.

what is it to you?  I believe in a free market economy and believe whenever you artificially decrease the top or artificially increase the floor it causes a lot more long term problems.  I'd rather have the teams decide if paying Lebron James 50 million (plus all the luxury tax) is worth it to them.  I'd rather have a lot more balance in the league than super teams.  I mean do you think Cleveland would be paying James 50 million, Irving 30 million, and Love 30 million (or whatever).  By allowing teams to pay whatever they want for any individual player, it would create far more parity because the financial burden would be astronomical (I mean look at what the Cavs are going to be paying in luxury tax right now, now imagine there was no individual player cap).   

And I don't believe you would see guys like Jae Crowder getting less.  His salary is exactly what you would expect teams to pay for a player like him.  It is guys like Reggie Jackson that get more than they should in the current system and would thus be harmed by eliminating the individual player max. 

[D.o.s.]

How would you determine a luxury tax with no salary cap, which is effectively what you're promoting when you get rid of the individual player maximum.

It would not lead to more balanced teams, it would lead to more Prokhorov-ing.

[Moranis]

How would you determine a luxury tax with no salary cap, which is effectively what you're promoting when you get rid of the individual player maximum.

There is still a salary cap, luxury tax, etc. with all the same rules, you just don't cap the individual player maximum.

So instead of being limited to 30% of the cap you have no limit on player salary, but you can still only offer free agents, other than your own, the cap space you have.  You still have to match salaries on trade, etc.

I think this would create a situation where a team is much more likely to keep its own free agents (because they can offer so much more), but would also limit the super teams because of the massive tax consequences, which would create a lot more parity in the league. 

[D.o.s.]

Right, I see what you're saying, and I'm still on my first cup of coffee so bear with me, but doesn't this assume that all teams (and all team ownership) is working from similar coffers? I can't see a situation where Proks or Ballmer or another whale in a pond of large fish doesn't just go



And outspend the rest of the league, particularly if you're leaving the salary cap unchanged beyond eliminating the idea of a max deal.

Anyway, the Jackson/Wall comparison was made by a player who maybe doesn't understand how the salary cap is going to change the contract game in the future.

[Moranis]

Right, I see what you're saying, and I'm still on my first cup of coffee so bear with me, but doesn't this assume that all teams (and all team ownership) is working from similar coffers? I can't see a situation where Proks or Ballmer or another whale in a pond of large fish doesn't just go



And outspend the rest of the league, particularly if you're leaving the salary cap unchanged beyond eliminating the idea of a max deal.

Anyway, the Jackson/Wall comparison was made by a player who maybe doesn't understand how the salary cap is going to change the contract game in the future.

They might, but if Philly offered Lebron James 50 million dollars a year because they have cap room, it would force Cleveland's hand, which in turn might force them to not re-sign Kevin Love, or maybe they don't even trade for Kevin Love to begin with and keep the cost controlled Wiggins (I'm fine with the rookie scale) because they are paying James 50 million (or anticipate doing so).   

I just think it would add a lot more parity and a lot more intrigue.  For example, you are the GM/Owner of a team and you have a great player.  You know he is probably worth 40 million a year, but you also know the most he can get from any other team is 25 million a year, so do you offer the 40 million or do you offer something like 30 million?   

[D.o.s.]

That's more or less the situation we have now, though, just with different numbers attached (this was more true under the second most recent CBA, but then Pat Riley messed everything up). If you're interested in seeing more stuff like that I think the rise of Chandler Parsons-y deals will do more to that account than just eliminating a player max.

You're also ignoring one of the primary aspects of the CBA -- other posters have already brought this up -- but it exists to protect owners from themselves, which an uncapped player market decidedly does not do. Has no real place in this specific discussion, but is probably worth mentioning(?)

[Moranis]

That's more or less the situation we have now, though, just with different numbers attached (this was more true under the second most recent CBA, but then Pat Riley messed everything up). If you're interested in seeing more stuff like that I think the rise of Chandler Parsons-y deals will do more to that account than just eliminating a player max.

You're also ignoring one of the primary aspects of the CBA -- other posters have already brought this up -- but it exists to protect owners from themselves, which an uncapped player market decidedly does not do. Has no real place in this specific discussion, but is probably worth mentioning(?)

Yes, but those different numbers are what is key?  You can't have 3 "max" players if there is no individual cap without paying hundreds of million dollars in luxury tax. 

You shouldn't have to protect owners from themselves.  They are business men.  Sometimes you win sometimes you lose in business.  The market will work itself out.  Teams aren't just going to pay lesser players huge dollars in that type of market.  It just doesn't make sense.

[D.o.s.]

But, again, we have documented evidence of at least one obscenely wealthy owner looking at a massive luxury tax bill and shrugging his shoulders.

As for your idealized version of the NBA market... I mean these are the guys who pay Rashard Lewis and Gilbert Arenas $100 million dollar deals. Just because you're rich doesn't mean that you're smart, even if some like to think otherwise, and saying something won't happen because "it just doesn't make sense" seems like a leap of faith I'm not willing to take with you.

Beyond that, you're utterly devaluing what a normal NBA player is worth on behalf of the owners, who are a relative constant in the NBA (if one leaves another will take his place) and have a smaller direct effect on the project on the floor -- Not a particularly fair working environment, particularly when so much depends on the overall standard of play.

I would much rather see Reggie Jackson making John Wall money than watching every team nickel and dime 14 of their rostered players in an effort to throw 50-60 million at LeBron. That's just me.

[Moranis]

But, again, we have documented evidence of at least one obscenely wealthy owner looking at a massive luxury tax bill and shrugging his shoulders.

As for your idealized version of the NBA market... I mean these are the guys who pay Rashard Lewis and Gilbert Arenas $100 million dollar deals. Just because you're rich doesn't mean that you're smart, even if some like to think otherwise, and saying something won't happen because "it just doesn't make sense" seems like a leap of faith I'm not willing to take with you.

Beyond that, you're utterly devaluing what a normal NBA player is worth on behalf of the owners, who are a relative constant in the NBA (if one leaves another will take his place) and have a smaller direct effect on the project on the floor -- Not a particularly fair working environment, particularly when so much depends on the overall standard of play.

I would much rather see Reggie Jackson making John Wall money than watching every team nickel and dime 14 of their rostered players in an effort to throw 50-60 million at LeBron. That's just me.

But I can't see a team nickel and diming 14 rostered players because they will just leave and surrounding Lebron James with undrafted rookies, is not the way you build a winner (which a guy like James is going to want).  A free market will work itself out. 

Football has a hard cap, but you see what a free market could look like (I get that they can cut bad investments, but that is because there is a hard cap).  Baseball has no cap (though does have some taxing) and no limits.  The market in both those sports works out.  NHL is pretty similar to the NBA but at lower dollars, yet they seem to make it work.  I don't think you are giving the NBA enough credit.  It would work itself out and sure there will be bad contracts, but those exist in all sports and basically all business.

[D.o.s.]

The NFL has so many restrictions on player movement that it is laughable to use the phrase 'free market' in the same sentence -- and if a 'free market' involves teams colluding to keep contracts nearly equal, then it's a sham and a shell of the phrase.

You keep saying "the market will work itself out" but that seems to be a leap of faith, and I don't think it's reasonable to hang your hat on that sort of hypothetical sloganeering for the reasons I've already detailed.

We may be approaching the point of no return on this argument.

[LooseCannon]

That's more or less the situation we have now, though, just with different numbers attached (this was more true under the second most recent CBA, but then Pat Riley messed everything up). If you're interested in seeing more stuff like that I think the rise of Chandler Parsons-y deals will do more to that account than just eliminating a player max.

You're also ignoring one of the primary aspects of the CBA -- other posters have already brought this up -- but it exists to protect owners from themselves, which an uncapped player market decidedly does not do. Has no real place in this specific discussion, but is probably worth mentioning(?)

Yes, but those different numbers are what is key?  You can't have 3 "max" players if there is no individual cap without paying hundreds of million dollars in luxury tax. 

You shouldn't have to protect owners from themselves.  They are business men.  Sometimes you win sometimes you lose in business.  The market will work itself out.  Teams aren't just going to pay lesser players huge dollars in that type of market.  It just doesn't make sense.

I think you're wrong to have faith that the market will work itself out.