Kevin Durant wants a Have's, Have Not system, Cuban agrees.

Meh, players need strive for the MLB model. Ignore the NFL completely. Cuban already bad mouths the NFL so don't bring its blueprint. I don't see it eliminating disparity either, you'd probably have something resembling soccer.

 

With that logic, scrubs should be paid minimum wage. They don't bring any money into the franchise.

 

Cuban likes the idea of no max contracts because he can use this as leverage against the players' union. Like, "we gave you what you wanted, now give us something", when in reality no owner should give a damn whether or not there are max contracts, just so long as the TOTAL team salary does not increase, ergo the percentage of income from NBA franchises that is earmarked for the players does not increase.

No max contracts is just the great players taking money away from the mediocre ones. Athlete on athlete crime.

 

If the league had a desire to create parity this is the way to go... I've always been for a hardcap and against max contracts....

Cuban favors it because his 'team chemistry' can't attract a superstar, whereas these moves would allow his deep pockets to 'buy' a superstar...

 

I think the problem is, players assume "well I bring in $200 mil in revenue, so that is what I should be paid". It doesn't work like that. The max contracts also keep owners from hurting themselves and signing Alan Houston type deals. Maybe the league could look to bring in a designated player exception where if you meet certain marks (MVP, all-star ballots, scoring leader, etc.) you can bypass the max entirely and command what you want from a team that has the cap space.

 

What's wrong with Durant ensuring that not only he would be financially secure, but also his children and his children's children. Nothing wrong with taking advantage of a time that uniquely lengthy limbed people are handsomely paid and desired for the chance to change the trajectory of your progeny.

 

This.

Although there's an argument to be made that superstars anyway earn a disproportional amount of money, so the calculation "sign a lower contract in order to play with better teammates, win championships and get more endorsement money" might still end up as a net positive for guys like Lebron or Durant.

 

^^ I meant "a disproportional amount of money *via endorsements*"

 

I am all for a hard cap and no max salary - or in essence the max salary is basically all of the hard cap (but that cant ever happen of course unless you get like 11 scrubs willing to play for 10k each or something)


if the league wants parity this would be it - teams can pay a guy like Anthony Davis 30 million a year and then figure out how to field a competitive team around him then. It would hurt the lives of the median player as they would not get the large salary they are getting now.

In turn though it may help them realize that instead of getting paid 6mil/year they are only going to get 2 mil so they are going to be smarter with their money (at least I hope)


In reality though the stars make the team money - I dont go to a NBA game to see the likes of Ryan Hollins, Patty Mills, Steve Blake etc. I go to see LeBron, Kobe, Durant, Harden etc play. Those are the players whose jersey sell, the players who are on the posters and t shirts that get bought. They should get paid more for all of that.

I am sure agents would some how block this though. There are only so many stars in the league and far more "role players" and the majority of agents will lose a lot of money if they arent representing a big star

 

Theoretically, if we believe in a market driven system, then star players who demanded big money to the effect that the team could not field a competitive roster would not be attractive. That in turn would drive down their market value.

For example, let's say a top tier star (LeBron, Durant) is worth 45M a year, and a second tier star (Harden, Griffin) is worth 30M. But teams can't have much more talent after they pay 45M to one player. So they would rather have the 30M guy. And the 45M guy would have to lower his asking price in order to be signed.

This would probably be the same with the role players too. (Look at the Parsons-Ariza comparison.) Eventually, teams would adjust the salary structure to maximize overall values of the whole team. What it would look like I don't know. But I think it would foster more parity and reward the smart front offices.

Do you want a team with 45 + 5 + 5 + 1 + 1 etc. or do you want a team of 20 + 20 + 5 + 5 + 5, or some other combinations?

But seeing past history, it seems that front offices need max contracts to protect themselves from doing stupid things.

 

The thing is, the Players Association has to vote on any CBA before it goes into effect. This vote is done on a one player one vote system. There are not enough Durant's out there who would benefit from this rule to vote for it.

As long as there is a cap on total team salary, the Players Association is unlikely to vote in a way that will change the current system in favor of a small minority and against the majority. Each player is running his own business. In business, self interest tend to win out.

Also, the hypothetical $ that a Durant or Chris Paul would make in a "free market" is really not all that relevant. Professional hoops in America just isn't this kind of "free market" even outside the max individual salary. The rest of the NBA bylalw and the CBA also restrict and manipulate the market in all kinds of ways.

A "free market" system would not have a draft. It would not have a cap on how many $ a team can spend on its roster. It would not restrict teams from moving from one city to another.