It's tricky. Perhaps limiting the criteria of the supermax is an option. Perhaps All-NBA first team and/or a top 5 MVP finish should be it. Still, the team has the choice in the end, right? Otherwise, there's only so much you can do. Should there be salary cap benefits for smaller markets to level the playing field? That seems unfair to the larger market teams who still have an uphill battle in free agency (like ours).
No way does Gobert get remotely that much! Utah would have to be certifiably crazy. Maybe they are. We'll see. Nice find, RR.
Teams have freedom to pay whoever they want. If the want their team to stink and give supermaxes left and right - it's their choice
Personally I would keep it around 35-38 million. Max also around 25-30. It is crazy because Rudy is not really a Superstar, barely a complete player.
Depends. IF he walks they may fall back into obscurity and send a message to Donovan That he won't get it either .. .or they not serious about winning. . etc etc Rocket River
Perhaps. The whole "super-max" concept is crazy, in my opinion. Salaries for top players ballooning to new heights, combined with how the cap is set up now, appears to me to have the potential to put the squeeze on a host of teams. If a team pays one player such huge amounts, how can they afford to surround that player with what they need to be a contending team? Maybe I'm missing something.
I'm in favor of a hard cap with no maximum or minimum contracts. Every team should start each season with the same exact budget as everyone else. Spread the talent out across the league. Make GMs do their job and decide how to allocate their finite number of cap dollars. No need for a rule to keep GMs from overpaying stars or rookies. No need for bird rules, luxry tax, capologists. It would work itself out in the end. Every player would earn what they can negotiate for whatever contract length they agree to. If a GM overpays, then good luck finding complimentary players who will play for scraps.
Do away with limits to player contracts but keep the salary cap. Guys should be able to make whatever they want and teams should be able to pay them if they want to. This would also stop the advent of super teams as teams wouldn’t be able to pay that many players and fit them under the cap. Would also spread out the stars more as players look for the money. Either that, or stars would have to take less to play with better players.
It probably has to do with timing The players already have to be on your roster so you can go over the cap to retain them . If you end up signing a supermax in FA , you better hope that #2 is already on your team and that you have assets to trade for other good players who you can acquire bird rights too
I don’t think being able to pay a player that much is a problem. The problem is too many players think they deserve it and too many teams are some what forced into paying it. Needs to be far stricter criteria to qualify.
It likely does, but if you're a small market team without a billionaire owner, even if you can go over the cap, it's making life difficult for both the owner and the GM, in my opinion. I certainly agree with your last point.
I think he's saying pay a player whatever you want. No limit. No max. No supermax. No rookie max. Anything the player and organization agree to. Then keep a hard salary cap so it is as close to an even playing field as possible for all teams. If the cap is 100 million dollars and you pay KD 95 million then you have 5 million left to fill out your roster. Period. No exeptions. If Klay, Curry, Iggy, Cousins, Green and several scrubs want to divvy up the remaining 5 million then so be it. If you want to trade for a player and the trade will take you over the limit then it's denied, no exceptions. GMs would really have to scrutinize what a player is worth and what the right mix of stars and role players is. Right now they have a safety net that keeps them from really having to negotiate with star players.
