Pay Players as a % of the Cap

They need to just get rid of max contracts and the salary cap.

If some billionaire owners want to spend all their money building super-teams, why should anyone stop them.

 

He did though. A player can potentially make more money by signing short-term deals, but that comes with risk if you start sucking or get injured. So Harden traded money for security. At the time, neither he nor the Rockets knew if he could be a superstar and carry a team - he had only been a great 6th man at the time. If he had gambled on himself and signed a shorter deal, he could have signed for a gazillion dollars this offseason too.

They also don't restrict the losses for owners. Players wouldn't like losing money to play basketball and chose to collectively bargain guaranteed income.

But the fact that they don't speak up should tell you something. You have twice said you either don't understand or care about the details. That's fair, but it might also be why you're not understanding why your idea doesn't happen.

 

but why have the aberrational event? a cap move that greatly deviates from maximum raises massively distorts the contracts for one particular offseason. i just don't see a need for that when a very simple change could fix it.

anthony davis signed a contract extension last offseason without actually knowing what it would be worth because he had to wait to see what the cap did. every max extension does this. that entailed almost the exact same uncertainty (what the cap will do) as this proposal. in fact, his contract value even had a performance clause (making an all-nba team) that affected his contract by an additional 20%. uncertainty is a part of the current CBA rules.

i don't play fantasy leagues. do they do this?

why would anyone not want to participate in massive revenue increases?

i can't speak for oakdogg, but all of my posts explicitly referenced max contract raises because i agree that flat or declining contracts should still be allowed. apologies if that wasn't clear.

i think an offseason in which contracts are massively inflated because the revenue increase so greatly outstripped the contract increases is a big problem. a comparable event will play out next offseason, just not at this level. in fact, it plays out every season that the cap change deviates from the long-term trend. and just to be clear to everyone, this is not about contracts going up 35% because the cap went up 35%. that's what should happen. this is about contracts for only a specific set of players going up maybe 75+% because all of the 35% cap increase gets applied to only a portion of the league.

i know cap based max raises aren't in the CBA, but i feel like this isn't in the CBA because no one has really cared to analyze it and the status quo is "comfortable enough." but something tells me that if you explained to all of the guys under contract that they could have sacrificed pinpoint accuracy on their future salary for a 35% raise this upcoming season, they probably would want to analyze the situation a little more.

i realize they aren't going to consider it, but if we stop discussing things that don't actually affect anything, then we should probably just shut clutchfans down .

 

it would make those contracts slightly more complicated in that even a decline would have to be at least as big as a decline in the BRI if one occurred, but if there's one thing i think we can all agree on, it's that CBA rules regarding nba contracts are not currently uncomplicated.

 

at least this aberration didn't lead to the unintended consequence of a 73 win team signing the best free agent and possibly imbalancing things in a way the CBA tried really hard to prevent.

 

Thats called having a good General Manager lol

 

Don't change the subject.

Eliminating maximum salaries prevents superteams the best...not relative % contracts with max salaries. OKC would have an enormous advantage with Bird Exception to make an unmatchable bid...Boston can come close...but GSW would not be able to clear $50-60m (and still be as attractive as OKC and Boston).

Not to mention, even with % of Cap contract, superstars can force a SnT just like Riley achieved for Bosh and Lebron, so % of salary contracts won't stop SnTs...since salaries in trades become relative to team total. It's having no max salary with steep luxury tax %s (or a hard cap) that has the best chance to prevent super teams.

Besides, I have a better idea than your % of Cap, which I'll describe later, if you will do me the honor of reading it.

 

i don't think i did. if everybody on an existing contract had their contract increase by 35%, there would be a much more normal amount of cap room across the nba. the warriors would have to actually reduce their talent level to achieve cap room, not just watch the cap spike around their fixed contracts. even with max contracts, moves like this were difficult because there simply were only so many teams capable of creating cap room when the cap moved about the same as max raises.

no doubt. hard cap and no maxes prevents it best. i personally like the soft cap, but i can't argue for it as the best from a parity perspective, although i'm not really a fan of nfl-level parity, just normal nba-level parity where you can at least sign your own players back if you managed to get them all under the cap at some point.

we're talking back and forth across threads now but i responded like this in that thread:

also, i believe the lebron and bosh sign and trades were basically just into empty cap room and just a way to get lebron and bosh slightly more money. they didn't go from no cap room to signing 2 max guys. they went from a record amount of cap room to being slightly helped with the contracts, with a price of future draft picks.

i don't want to prevent superteams. just ones that aren't the rockets .

not sure how much of an honor that is, but i'll read it.