DM on AD

[LogGrad98]

Is there a better way to do a hard cap than they used in the 1980s?

I'm not a professional cap-ologist but I've built my career on finding better ways to do things, especially when people say it can't be done. I'm sure there are other ways to look at it, even if it's a semi-hard cap. Maybe a tiered cap, or a stiffer luxury tax, maybe stronger incentives for longevity, for both the players and the franchise. I'm sure we could toss around a dozen ideas for other ways to approach it. But saying "welp it didn't work in the 80's" is just kind of lazy thinking.

 

[LogGrad98]

It might be. We don't know how high the limit for a hard cap would be, and the sorts of prices Gobert and Mitchell would command. I agree it's not certainly true, but it would be a danger.

Every money model carries risk, it's just the nature of money and business. The question is, can we find one that minimizes those risks while maximizing the benefits, again the very foundation of all business. Look at Amazon, one of the biggest knocks on the company was that every internet venture that didn't turn a profit within 18 months was doomed to fail, but Bezos ran under the revenue growth+market share>profit model, thereby reporting loses for the better part of 2 decades, in chasing revenue and market share, and he turned conventional wisdom on it's head. With the new money the league found a few years ago and the new agreements for profit sharing, without understanding the ultimate repercussions to parity, they created the current climate of players dictating where they will play and risking stifling competition in the long run. We need a new money distribution system to re-balance the equation now.

 

[One Brow]

I'm not a professional cap-ologist but I've built my career on finding better ways to do things, especially when people say it can't be done. I'm sure there are other ways to look at it, even if it's a semi-hard cap. Maybe a tiered cap, or a stiffer luxury tax, maybe stronger incentives for longevity, for both the players and the franchise. I'm sure we could toss around a dozen ideas for other ways to approach it. But saying "welp it didn't work in the 80's" is just kind of lazy thinking.

I agree that maybe there are better ways to do things (better revenue-sharing from box office receipts, for example). I find it unlikely to be a hard cap, since NBA owners always seem to be pushing to soften the cap.

 

[LogGrad98]

I agree that maybe there are better ways to do things (better revenue-sharing from box office receipts, for example). I find it unlikely to be a hard cap, since NBA owners always seem to be pushing to soften the cap.

It probably is unlikely, but imo that is more likely to be vetoed by the players than the owners. A version of a hard cap would help owners control cost in the long run, since it could eliminate discussions around luxury tax and give them a known payroll. But it would also limit money to the players somewhat, which the players Union would vote against every time. And in the end anything like this has to go through both groups, so obviously we are just engaging in fan speculation. I don't think a single person here expects the league to do any of these things realistically, it's just what we arm-chair GMs think they should do.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Ok? Your company cant trade you to another company either, so why do this stupid analogy?

They can transfer you to another division.

 

[framer]

It might be. We don't know how high the limit for a hard cap would be, and the sorts of prices Gobert and Mitchell would command. I agree it's not certainly true, but it would be a danger.

Pffffft- Mitchell and Gobert aren't even all stars. How are they going to be demanding these top salaries?

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I honestly don't know if there is an answer to helping the small markets here. The stuff they give them seems to hurt more than it helps. Like the megamax contract to stay... the megastars don't care as much and fringe superstars like Wall and Cousins will demand it to stay... teams will pay or trade the guy prior to having to unload the brinks truck.

If there was a non-cap allocation that can be given by the team that drafted a player then it wouldn't hurt as much... like DM can sign a $25M max somewhere else, but he can get $30M by staying put... but the franchise doesn't have to take the additional $5M out of the cap. You can't completely level the playing field... just can't. NBA just needs to make sure the 25 other teams don't become feeder teams for 5 super teams. Short term they like the ratings... long term it could have negative effects.

Its really hard to find a solution that doesn't have negative unintended consequences. I can see the next CBA negotiations getting ugly... small markets vs. large markets a sub-fight of the players vs. the owners.

 

[framer]

I honestly don't know if there is an answer to helping the small markets here. The stuff they give them seems to hurt more than it helps. Like the megamax contract to stay... the megastars don't care as much and fringe superstars like Wall and Cousins will demand it to stay... teams will pay or trade the guy prior to having to unload the brinks truck.

If there was a non-cap allocation that can be given by the team that drafted a player then it wouldn't hurt as much... like DM can sign a $25M max somewhere else, but he can get $30M by staying put... but the franchise doesn't have to take the additional $5M out of the cap. You can't completely level the playing field... just can't. NBA just needs to make sure the 25 other teams don't become feeder teams for 5 super teams. Short term they like the ratings... long term it could have negative effects.

Its really hard to find a solution that doesn't have negative unintended consequences. I can see the next CBA negotiations getting ugly... small markets vs. large markets a sub-fight of the players vs. the owners.

There will also be a battle between the high tier stars and the lesser players, especially when some of those "lower" tier players are better than the higher tier "stars." If I were an average player, I certainly wouldn't feel happy with the representation I have received from megamax Chris Paul.

 

[LoPo]

I agree that maybe there are better ways to do things (better revenue-sharing from box office receipts, for example). I find it unlikely to be a hard cap, since NBA owners always seem to be pushing to soften the cap.

In the past, they talked about having the exact same scenario as right now but add a hard cap. So something that sits above the luxury tax. So using this year...

18-19 cap $102ish
18-19 luxury $123ish
18-19 hard cap $140

GS, OKC and Toronto are in that hard cap area.

Seems like a decent addition, but I think there needs to be loss of 1st rounders for repeat offenders.

Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

There will also be a battle between the high tier stars and the lesser players, especially when some of those "lower" tier players are better than the higher tier "stars." If I were an average player, I certainly wouldn't feel happy with the representation I have received from megamax Chris Paul.

Exactly... was going to mention it... issue is the players are generally not as smart when it comes to this stuff. Like they all say " no more max salaries " guess what that means... Lebron and Steph get 70-80M a year and all the guys making $10M go down to 2-3M.

There are unintended consequences of all of these decisions... no easy answers. Honestly if you could "tag" an unrestricted FA and you had to offer full max+ to tag them and the team signing a "tagged" player had to give the first available first round pick for signing that guy... it might soften the blow a little. Would Boston still have signed Hayward? Prolly... at least we get a pick. For guys like AD the home team still wants to keep him so it would suck... but there would be some here that would have preferred a crappy first to signing Hayward to a max. Some sort of comp for losing an all-star would help... IDK... this stuff is hard... just spitballing now.

 

[LogGrad98]

I honestly don't know if there is an answer to helping the small markets here. The stuff they give them seems to hurt more than it helps. Like the megamax contract to stay... the megastars don't care as much and fringe superstars like Wall and Cousins will demand it to stay... teams will pay or trade the guy prior to having to unload the brinks truck.

If there was a non-cap allocation that can be given by the team that drafted a player then it wouldn't hurt as much... like DM can sign a $25M max somewhere else, but he can get $30M by staying put... but the franchise doesn't have to take the additional $5M out of the cap. You can't completely level the playing field... just can't. NBA just needs to make sure the 25 other teams don't become feeder teams for 5 super teams. Short term they like the ratings... long term it could have negative effects.

Its really hard to find a solution that doesn't have negative unintended consequences. I can see the next CBA negotiations getting ugly... small markets vs. large markets a sub-fight of the players vs. the owners.

The problem is the difference in the money isn't enough when you are talking such ridiculously large numbers. What's an extra 20 million when your contract will still be over 100 Mill? It would help to be delineated as a percentage of the cap.

 

[framer]

Exactly... was going to mention it... issue is the players are generally not as smart when it comes to this stuff. Like they all say " no more max salaries " guess what that means... Lebron and Steph get 70-80M a year and all the guys making $10M go down to 2-3M.

This ALREADY happened to players like Lou Williams, who are making peanuts compared to a dude like Porter Jr, even though Lou is probably the better player. The whole rejection of the cap smoothing screwed over a lot of players and made some others richer than they deserved. I fully suspect that the players union did not make the consequences of that deal clear to their members.