I think an easy fix to the NBA is allowing each team to have one super max contract that can pay up to $45 mil a year. That away Lebron... Curry... Harden can make what they are worth and it keeps these stars from joining up like they do. Think about it. A star will go sign with the Kings... or the Hornets because their will only be 30 super max contracts to be had.
Yes, this would work to make the playing field more level. But it would never pass as it means less money for the majority of NBA players. Another option would be to increase the number of rosters spots and force the min vet salary to count towards the cap. That would spread the money out a little more and the players might go for it since it increases the number of jobs which will help their job security.
Every Team has a SUPERMAX but they don't have to use it. Make it so if you going to be a Superteam . . someone is going to take a MAJOR pay cut I still think Nike etc will work around it Rocket River
I'd be in favor of implementing franchise tags like the NFL does. And if you are signed to a franchise tag you are paid 10% over max.
JVG had the solution. Hard cap, but no maximum on individual contracts. that way, a guy like lebron should be taking up the majority of the cap space. Because players like Lebron should be paid what they are really worth for the team.
This concept of super teams or dynasty is not new. Except now they are being forced by the players instead of organically grown by organizations. The Spurs dynasty has been operating for over a decade with no backlash. It's because the perception is that it was done the "right way." Even when LA signed last year. It's just a matter of degree. Smaller markets or less desirable destinations will always be at a disadvantage no matter what conditions exist. They have to focus on acquiring the best front office personnel that can (1) get lucky with drafting that foundational piece and (2) find the right pieces within that 9 year window to hit championship paydirt. In my opinion, trying to force parity or control free agents is just as bad as "strength in numbers."
Keep the hard cap at whatever the F they want, take away max contracts. I don't want to see guys like Solo man hill making $ 12 million a year just because the there is a max restriction on their best player. If the cap is $90 million and Anthony Davis wants to have $60 million of it, so be it. He is their best player and deserves so. Let the others fight over the remaining $30 million
I think having a supermax mean all the other players get paid less. What I would propose would be that a team can pay "one" player an additioanl up to 20% of his salary outside the salary cap if it choose to, and up to an additioanl 20% outside the salary cap for all players that have stayed with one team for over 10 years. But in addition, you need the 10 least paid players on your team to make up say 35% of total salaries paid or salary cap. Ie you cant top load your whole salary cap on a few players and pay vet min or rookie scale contract etc on the rest. And if this is not met, large tax penalties. Basically that means you can get only "one" star, and you can retain home grown talent with some assistance outside the cap, buy you cant spent 80%of your salaries or salary cap on just 3-4 players.
What they need is a franchise tag, ala the NFL, in which if you deem a player a franchise player, he cannot leave your organization, but you have to pay him the max for as many years as he likes. Also the player can choose how many years up to 5 years and also he can choose to have player option. But you can franchise the player for has many years as you like. Give each team two of these tags per year.
This is so obviously the solution for max guys and for bringing sanity back to players' contracts. However, I don't think the NBPA will ever endorse this because those who stand to benefit the most from having "max contracts" are those mid-tier guys like Parsons and Conley, and they have a much larger voting bloc than do superstars like LeBron and KD.
No need to beat a horse to death. Removing max contracts will not work because players association will veto it. Having a separate cap reserved for super stars will not work either because most players would like a piece of that pie as well. Franchise tag takes away from the free market aspect and if it's like the NFL, it would be for one year only and super stars would veto it in the case of a career ending injury. Increasing roster size will bypass most of those issues and limit the number of max contracts a team can afford
NBA will NEVER get a franchise tag because of the union. It's a complete non-starter. The idea of increasing the % of the cap for max salaries could be just what the doctor ordered. Maybe raise it from 35% to 50% or 60%. That should be enough to prevent superteams.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Pat Riley wants two rule changes in the league's CBA:</p>— Jason Lieser (@JasonLieser) <a href="https://twitter.com/JasonLieser/status/754374937800998912">July 16, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">1. There should be a "franchise tag" that allows you to pay 1 player however much you want and it doesn't count vs. the cap.</p>— Jason Lieser (@JasonLieser) <a href="https://twitter.com/JasonLieser/status/754375089521565696">July 16, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">2. If you give up a pick in a sign-&-trade and the acquisition leaves your team before the pick comes due, you get the pick back.</p>— Jason Lieser (@JasonLieser) <a href="https://twitter.com/JasonLieser/status/754375410574565377">July 16, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I like the super max idea. It should be at least $10-15milion above the next available contract. In addition, I would allow the original team to go two extra years instead of one. It would discourage these guys from running to the same team.
Why say it doesn't count against the cap. That heavily favors the richer teams,,,Riley is so transparent Of course any No Max should still apply to cap. That's the whole point of the BRI % negotiations that cause lockouts and the owners arguing over fairness to small market teams. smdh at Riley
The problem is there's two many teams. Talent is spread too thin. Make it like 26 teams and you'll see a lot more competition.
