Taking less money defeats the purpose of Salary Cap?

not much because not every nba team makes alot of money like the NFL teams and this isnt baseball

 

The NBA isn't like MLB or even the NFL. The entire power structure of the league is decided by less than a dozen stars, and parity becomes a parody if those stars accept less money to play together.

 

But I'm sure every team could set aside a good amount for those few superstars. At least for one superstar. I would imagine a Knicks team could set aside 100 mil for the likes of LerBon or Wade. Isn't that how much they spend in soccer for their superstars?

 

First I acknowledge that this isn't an argument...I'm just equally confused by the criteria of taking less money in your OP.

Any time a superstar refuses their Bird rights with their current team and sign with another they give up a huge amount of money. It is a huge loss for them. They choose to leave to play for someone else. That's what Lebron did...but Bosh did a SnT.

SnT should be abolished for reasons of competitive balance. It allows an over the cap team to get a superstar. Right?

The biggest spending owner in the history of the NBA just won the title last year...beating the Heat. So the idea of preventing the Yankees failed.

Regarding the Heat's bench. Do you think a Fantasy League could ever create Wade, Lebron and Bosh on the same team.

You are thinking in Fantasy League Salary Cap rules but forgetting that no Fantasy League in existence could ever produce Wade, Lebron and Bosh on the same team.

you know why? because fantasy leagues are about being a GM....not a player. There is no Fantasy League that allows a player to be a player with an agent...they are merely assets.

In real life, superstars will go anywhere they want. And the NBA is all about winning based on a select few superstars and where they decide to play.

The salary cap has not and will never prevent superstars from playing where they want.

Oh, and I wanted to mention the irony of the most important Salary Cap Exception ever created...the Bird Exception....it wasn't created for "competitive reasons' it was created to keep Bird a Celtic.

 

I agree. miami without a salary cap would be insane.

 

so you don't think they are already "insane?" It took the NBA equivalent of Steinbrenner (Marc Cuban) to out spend everyone and beat the Heat last year.

The notion that the NBA salary cap prevents the Yankees is weird. Miami has 60% of their starting roster at max salary. Yankees never achieved that...not even close.

not the same sport.

 

The Red Sox had more money sitting on the DL than 8 MLB spent on their entire roster.

Imagine that in the NBA. Wouldn't work. The prospect system isn't the same.

 

quit talking about baseball or you will make me state the only team in the history of baseball that won with essentially two players and role players.

The NBA doesn't operate this way. It only takes one superstar to win (and the salary can't prevent it)....MLB is not like this.

shut up with sports comparisons that aren't about a league where a select few superstars win always. NBA is unique.

 

I think they should have gotten rid of "max" contracts. That way Lebron would be making 30 million a year, Wade would be making 25 million, and Miami would have to find 10+ guys willing to play for the remaining 15 million before they go into the luxury tax territory.

 

Would you take less money to work a job some people want you to do? That's what I thought; I don't think it will be a problem.

 

Exactly. The NBA is a superstar league. Imagine if you could pay for role players around those superstars if you had more financial flexibility.

Instead of having 15 million to build around Lebron, Wade and Bosh what if the Miami Heat had 30 million?

They would be unstoppable.

 

Well, with no salary cap, Lebron would be paid that entire $30 m extra, no?

they might already be. we shall see.

 

Only if there was not max contract.

 

we agree. you were a big advocate of this during the lockout.

"Salary Cap, but no Max Salary"

 

Well, this thread assumes they would take less money haha.

So if they take 10 million instead of 15 million. 3 superstars, that's an extra 15 million a year.

 

This is correct, and the reason why a cap exists in the first place.

The other posters talking about how LBJ would be worth 30M isn't talking about the cap, they're talking about the Salary structure of the NBA. Its a totally separate thing, the CAP limits what NBA players can spend total, the salary structure limits what a player can make. You can actually have a cap but without a structure in place, like when Minny tied up 70% of their cap to KG alone lol.

 

That's not what happened. Please do not make up lies.

 

The problem here is you'd have a ton of teams overpaying on guys, and it won't just be Lebron and Wade. For example OKC would have to spend roughly the same amount on KD and WB, Bulls would be tied up with Rose and Boozer, Lakers with Kobe and Gasol etc. etc.

What would happen is each team would have 2 good guys and a bunch of no names, while the rest of the NBA would divided into MAX guys and minimum guys, with almost no in between. Also with such high salaries their would be almost no movement or trades between team, unless its one max guy swapped for another max guy. I'm not sure I want to see that kind of league.