I believe that poster was Brian Scalabrine.

I wish.

My idea of the "super max" would definitely prevent super teams as superstars would all strive for a "super max" contract, which are scarce by virtue of each team only having one such designation (i.e., the player's salary does not count towards the cap and there is no cap on how much you can pay him).

Some may argue it will create inequity between small market and big market teams, but generally the biggest superstars are in the biggest markets no matter what you do (For example, Shaq going from Orlando to Los Angeles). That said, in our age of the Internet that may not be the case. I mean, Cleveland is a relatively small market compared to New York and Los Angeles, but they would probably still be able to offer LeBron a "super max" by virtue of all his jersey sales, etc. Then again, perhaps New York or Los Angeles would be able to make an offer that Cleveland simply could not touch. It is hard to say.

I suspect most owners would hate this idea since it would be more money in the pockets of players (albeit only the very best players). Then again, perhaps every team would love the idea of roughly the top 30 players all being on 30 different teams. There is no guarantee every team would land a superstar, of course, but no doubt we would see a great dispersion of superstars.

I don't think it needs to be a non-max contract. It could be, for example, between 45 and 70% of the cap, but it doesn't count against the cap.

All of the NBA salary is determined by actual income.  The owners don't pay out of pocket.  So I can't see how this "1 exception" contract could work in the system.  Also don't forget the players are in a union. The top stars would just represent a minority of the union.  Can't see the majority giving the minority a bigger piece of pie while also knowing those stars make a lot more with endorsements outside of the NBA/union salary.

If you were to have a completely free market for player services such as in European soccer, I think it would cause many teams to fold.  The system as-is only works because teams like the Bucks and Magic are financially supported by the Lakers, Knicks, Bulls, Celtics with the shared revenue system.

Wouldn't GS still have happened under this scenario?  Steph is on a bargain less than max contract because he had injury question marks when he signed it years ago.  Klay's "max" extension came in 2014 long before any other team would have deemed him good enough for their team's sole "super max".  Would Draymond last summer, after just one season as a starter with zero career all-star appearances and averaging 13 ppg, 9.4 rpg, and 4.2 apg, drawn a team's lone "super max" offer?  I feel confident saying that would have been highly unlikely at that time.

So in your idea, GSW would still be able to give Kevin Durant the "super max" and spend whatever they please on it since it wouldn't go against their cap.  And with their current revenues, they'd probably be willing to pay a higher super max than any other team.


Here's a question for your idea -- consider OKC before Durant left.  Would you allow a second "super max" to be signed with bird rights?  For example, suppose OKC gave Durant their super max at $40 mil/yr this offseason and he stayed.  Now next offseason, LAL offers Westbrook a "super max" of $40 mil/yr.  Is OKC allowed to match/exceed that offer or do they essentially just lose their home-grown player?

Curry is a free agent next year.  So GSW giving Durant super max would mean they'd probably lose Curry next year. 

Wouldn't GS still have happened under this scenario?  Steph is on a bargain less than max contract because he had injury question marks when he signed it years ago.  Klay's "max" extension came in 2014 long before any other team would have deemed him good enough for their team's sole "super max".  Would Draymond last summer, after just one season as a starter with zero career all-star appearances and averaging 13 ppg, 9.4 rpg, and 4.2 apg, drawn a team's lone "super max" offer?  I feel confident saying that would have been highly unlikely at that time.

I think Green may have scored a "super max" last summer with a team. He was that good in 2014-2015.

So in your idea, GSW would still be able to give Kevin Durant the "super max" and spend whatever they please on it since it wouldn't go against their cap.

Yes, but here is the kicker: Curry would not be able to get a "super max" next offseason because the designation would already be tied up on Durant, so by giving Durant the "super max" this year, they would all but guarantee Curry's departure next offseason. Of course, Golden State would have instead chose to wait until next year to give the "super max" to Curry.

Here's a question for your idea -- consider OKC before Durant left.  Would you allow a second "super max" to be signed with bird rights?  For example, suppose OKC gave Durant their super max at $40 mil/yr this offseason and he stayed.  Now next offseason, LAL offers Westbrook a "super max" of $40 mil/yr.  Is OKC allowed to match/exceed that offer or do they essentially just lose their home-grown player?

They would not be able to match the "super max" since it is already used on Durant, so if Westbrook wanted a "super max" designation he would have to go elsewhere.

This would guarantee dispersion of superstars, which would lead to greater parity since the league is driven by superstars more than any other. Dispersion of superstars would lead to a greater emphasis on team ball, too, not to mention putting an even greater premium on coaching.

Quote from: meangreenmachine on July 06, 2016, 07:24:08 PM

Quote from: Ilikesports17 on July 06, 2016, 11:48:20 AM

I believe that poster was Brian Scalabrine.

I wish.

My idea of the "super max" would definitely prevent super teams as superstars would all strive for a "super max" contract, which are scarce by virtue of each team only having one such designation (i.e., the player's salary does not count towards the cap and there is no cap on how much you can pay him).

Some may argue it will create inequity between small market and big market teams, but generally the biggest superstars are in the biggest markets no matter what you do (For example, Shaq going from Orlando to Los Angeles). That said, in our age of the Internet that may not be the case. I mean, Cleveland is a relatively small market compared to New York and Los Angeles, but they would probably still be able to offer LeBron a "super max" by virtue of all his jersey sales, etc. Then again, perhaps New York or Los Angeles would be able to make an offer that Cleveland simply could not touch. It is hard to say.

I suspect most owners would hate this idea since it would be more money in the pockets of players (albeit only the very best players). Then again, perhaps every team would love the idea of roughly the top 30 players all being on 30 different teams. There is no guarantee every team would land a superstar, of course, but no doubt we would see a great dispersion of superstars.

Unfortunately the NBA doesn't have anywhere close to 30 superstars.

We would still see roughly the top 30 players all being on 30 different teams simply because money talks. Of course, only 5-10 of those top 30 players are really superstars, but still.

And some of them are still on their rookie or follow-on contracts which are already team friendly.  Besides Lebron and Durant, who else would be a super max player this year?

Horford, as one of the best 30 players in the league, probably would have garnered a "super max," just probably not from us since Danny takes the long-term view on matters.

Bear in mind that teams could still be free to trade their "super max" for draft picks or another "super max." so, for example, say a team had a "super max" tied up in an aging veteran, but along came to the new hot thing on a rookie contract coming to an end. In order to avoid losing that new hot thing, said team could move the aging veteran for draft picks and then use their "super max" designation on the new hot thing.

The super max contracts would need to be somehow tied to the cap or the luxury tax.  Otherwise a really big market team could just alternate giving an extremely large 1 year super max contract across 2 or 3 superstars.

Here is the thing: The nature of the "super max" would lead to players wanting multi-year deals, not one-year deals. Yes, a really big market team could throw more money than is profitable at a superstar, but now they will no longer be profitable. On top of that, they will also not be able to field a super-team since they would have to use prudence in who they surround their superstar with. It could become a losing proposition if the superstar is not able to carry the team on his own, as is usually the case.

All of the NBA salary is determined by actual income.  The owners don't pay out of pocket.  So I can't see how this "1 exception" contract could work in the system.  Also don't forget the players are in a union. The top stars would just represent a minority of the union.  Can't see the majority giving the minority a bigger piece of pie while also knowing those stars make a lot more with endorsements outside of the NBA/union salary.

If you were to have a completely free market for player services such as in European soccer, I think it would cause many teams to fold.  The system as-is only works because teams like the Bucks and Magic are financially supported by the Lakers, Knicks, Bulls, Celtics with the shared revenue system.

I think the way it would have to work is for the "super max" to count as a regular max salary with a bonus. The bonus would not count against the Salary Cap and would not be directly tied tied to revenue. For Cap purposes, it would only count as a regular max salary (because it will always exceed the regular max).

I actually think other players would be fine with this as long as it didn't take away from their cut of the revenue. Only the regular max portion would come out of the revenue split.

So the trick is convincing the owners to be willing to spend a little extra each year (maybe 15-30 mill per team) for the sake of giving each team a shot at a "super max" player. They could still even cap the super max to protect themselves too.

The main problem is that there are not enough super max players in the league. There may only be like 10 guys worth it, but you know 28 or 29 teams would be giving it out and regretting it every year. Which would probably lead them to insisting that the super max become tied to revenue and it would cycle all over again.