[Yahoo Sports]Stern pushing for hard salary cap

Why change things? Especially when they have numbers that bigger salary does not meant better results. So why try to "level" the playing field when it is already level?

 

Seems like it might be a b**** to implement considering the wide variance in current team payrolls.

 

They could design it like NBA 2k10's franchise mode. :grin:

 

Makes sense to me. A crappy team with a 100 million dollar payroll will still be a crappy team with a 75 million dollar payroll, so why spend the extra money. Save money in the process.

The players that will take a hit are the ones looking for max contracts (excluding Lebron, although he'll have signed a new contract by then) and the players looking for contracts between the MLE and the Max, the numbers for those type of contracts will go down.

 

I never understand why they have to use rules to prevent management from being stupid. These multimillion dollar businessmen don't know how to make sound business decisions?

I'd say just let those dumb franchises that pay a lot of money without winning go bankrupt and die. The only thing they should be protected from is player injury.

 

its to prevent baseball's yankees, a team with a talent advantage bc the owners have deeper pockets, just to make it a level playing field and it makes sense

 

Precisely! WTF. The NBA putting leashes on their own dumbasss GMs. Funny stuff.

 

I can understand this a year ago. But after our government bailed out all our big companies and the entire Wall Street, what's there not to understand?

It's not about leveling the playing field. It's to keep cost under control. Stern doesn't care about competitive balance. His job is to get owners more money.

 

With a hard cap, wouldn't they also have to eliminate guaranteed contracts? Otherwise, it would be almost impossible to have a hard cap because players couldn't be cut to get under the cap when necessary. Even if the owners propose a gradual implementation and take a very hard line, no way the NBA Players Association agrees to it without a prolonged work stoppage.

I suppose another way to create the effect of a hard cap is to make the luxury tax at the threshold very prohibitive. I think this is the route they might take.

IMO, getting rid of 100% guaranteed contracts is just as important as making the salary cap "hard" (or "harder" than it is now). Players that tank after getting the guaranteed money drag the NBA down.

 

If NBA institutes a hard cap, I want to see a hard floor (that would result in penalties for every dollar under it) very much near the cap (maybe $5 Million under it) because as frustrating it is to see players with a ridiculous contracts, it's equally frustrating to see players owners that don't try and put a winning product on the floor.

 

Would you be in support of players holdouts? I think if you take away players guaranteed contracts, in a sport where an injury will end all future earning potential, you have to allow it to be a two way street. I'd be in support of guaranteed contracts if players can also cheaply buy out their contract (maybe an automatic 15% of annual salary buyout on both sides). You can bet players like Brooks or Landry that had a year above their contract would be more than happy to void their contracts after this year and go for the pay day a little earlier. Also allow teams to negotiate with players before their free agency.

 

I don't think player buyouts at a certain percentage should be mandated in every contract, but if a player negotiates voidable years, player options or a buyout in his individual contract, fine. Doing what you suggest would make things far too chaotic, especially allowing teams to negotiate with players before their free agency (unless it's the team he's currently on).

Another way to address the problem is reduce the number of guaranteed years on a contract to a maximum of 3 or 4.

There are a lot of ways to go. The fact is NBA owners will come out in a stronger position than they are in now and I think they should. Just my opinion because of the disgraces that get fat (sometimes literally) and happy once the ink dries.

 

That is not it, when you have people like Cuban who can simply afford to spend more and take the hit, and still be within the rules, it hurts those owners that can not.

I don't know about a hard cap though, maybe narrow the current system would be better.....

DD

 

Here is the thing, for everyone one of those disgraces, there are people like Cassell who signed and is locked into a contract below their worth. The same can be made of Scola, or any super star on rookie contract. I don't think it'd be too chaotic, maybe we shouldn't let teams be able to speak to the player before he buys himself out, but the goal here is to increase movement and force an equilibrium (if the idea is to level out the playing field). We should also do away with max salaries (players like Lebron deserve to make more than Bosh) but with hard caps, teams will make the trade off on how much to dedicate to him.

I also want to get rid of owners that buys a team and just sits there (looking at the Clippers and Grizzlies). NBA teams are a desired limited commodity, they almost always grow in value (look at historical trends) significantly. I remember a quote but forgot the source, paraphrasing: "an owner that complains about loosing money in a season is the same as an owner of a stock with tremendous growth complaining about dividends". If you're going to rein the passionate ones back, you gotta poke the un-passionate ones once in a while.

 

With a hard cap, max salaries are definitely out. For players like Scola (and on the opposite end, the slugs), the max years on a contract should be 3. This 5 or 6 year max contract stuff is idiotic IMO, like playing the lottery. There should be a hard "floor" with the hard cap.

Regarding ownership, I also have strong opinions about owners but can't see how you can force the sorry ones to sell their teams. I think a huge pool of revenue should be created and owners should be paid out of it according to the number of wins in a season, maybe $200,000 per game or whatever. This might discourage tanking for draft picks and "poke" teams like the Clippers and Grizzlies.

 

I agree on contract length. 3 years is a good number. I also feel they should be more incentive based. A hard cap might not be a bad idea. It pains me to think of a possible Kobe, Gasol, Bosh, Artest, Odom lineup.

 

Well, I want to penalize the ones (with financial penalties) under the cap. Like putting 50% for every million under the floor into an escrow account for all teams above the floor (kind of a reverse luxury). Owners that truly can't operate their business will have to sell the team in auction style (Cubs or Washing Redskins sold their team that way, former because the owner is in Bankruptcy and the latter because the son can't paid the inheritance tax).

 

I don't like the idea of a hard cap, the NFL model is tolerable, but I want elite teams to keep their core together and have a dynasty when they're on top. Hard caps force those squads to cut key roster guys or let them walk when they're a FA.

I'm okay with making changes. What I would do, if given totalitarian authority:

1. Lemon Law: player contracts will have a buy out (60% of remaining value for players with under 7 years experience, 70% if over 7 years) that can be exercised after two years (and only then). The buy out option must be done the week before summer free agency. If the player is injured, the buy out will not take effect until the player is healthy (or takes medical retirement). Lemon Law players are removed from the team salary cap after one season. Teams can Lemon Law only one player every two years.

2. Double Luxury tax system: Right now, the lux tax line is roughly 21% of the cap. I would move the tax line to 18% and the 2x line to 36%. Teams barely over the tax line get forgiveness unless they were over the line the year before as well (do not pay tax, but do not receive tax distribution payouts).
This year: cap set at $58M, tax line set at $70M
My system: cap set at $58M, tax line at $68M, tax forgiveness if between $68M and $70M, 2x line at $79M.
Change: Chicago would cross but be "forgiven", 8 teams in double tax territory and roughly $34M more in tax revenue (another $1.4M to each of the 21 non-tax teams).

Result? The "Haves" are forced to triple consider handing out massive contracts to the likes of Andrew Bynum, Jason Terry, Rashard Lewis. Elite teams are allowed to make a big push for a title and keep the team together for a few years. The 2x tax significantly adds to the the subsidy revenue sharing to keep small market teams like the Bucks afloat.

It's a "harder" cap, but allows for leeway.

 

Sounds like a reasonable proposal to me.