What's new
By:
Filters

Hard Salary Cap?

M

Med_Phys

Member
What if the Jazz are waiting/hoping for a hard salary cap with the new CBA? Many around here, including myself, would love to see some bold moves by the Jazz FO. However, ideas being thrown around like trading for Brand or Maggette add long term salary as do almost all sign and trades for Boozer. IF there is a hard salary cap with the new CBA, I can't fault the FO for not wanting to take on long-term salary. Taking that into consideration, maybe the best moves we as fanz can hope for are ones similar to the following:
AK for Hinrich (only has one year under the new CBA) and filler (on cheap and/or expiring contracts)
Booze (S&T) for Dampier (wholly unguaranteed for next year) and Beaubois

Given that the Jazz have essentially operated under a hard cap (luxury tax) the last several years (except this year), I really like the Jazz' chances of winning on an equal playing field that the hard salary cap would bring. Thoughts?
 
I'm all for a hard cap. I guarantee we'd have better dispertion of titles.
 
ElRoach0 said:
I'm all for a hard cap. I guarantee we'd have better dispertion of titles.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I read that totally wrong.






...





As for the cap. Possibly the Jazz are waiting, but I would expect it's business as usual since the Jazz aren't out to be financially irresponsible anyway.
 
No way the Players Association ever allows a hard cap. They'll happily lockout over that. The owners would have to have irrefutable evidence that like half the franchises will be insolvent without one. They can't substantiate that claim. Like any labor relation, they'll compromise on a 'harder' soft cap. As GVC formerly stated, the Alan Houston Amnesty provision could be revisited.
 
I would think making all contracts only guarranteed for 2 years is going to be a bigger push.
 
Qman said:
I would think making all contracts only guaranteed for 2 years is going to be a bigger push.
Click to expand...


....I'm hoping for a long, hard LOCKOUT.....that bring down salaries to about 5 million per year for the most talented players....but your guaranteed for only 2 years makes alot of success, too!
 
Lockout question. If the players lockout, they don't get paid right? There are many mid level NBA players who would be in a lot of trouble maintaining their current lifestyle if they missed a full year worth of salary. I don't know if they would all be willing to do that. I am all for a hard cap, but then again the compromise for the players would likely be signing bonuses. That would leave teams like LA, NY, and Boston still in the drivers seat with the additional money to throw around. Plus if signing bonuses wouldn't have to be matched like the luxury tax, there would be some insane bonuses.
Realistically, I would like to see partially guaranteed contracts so teams don't get stuck with Brand or Arenas.
 
I think a hard cap would just make it easier for large markets to get players. The more you will be depending on marketing for income, the bigger teh market you wnat to go to.
 
One Brow said:
I think a hard cap would just make it easier for large markets to get players. The more you will be depending on marketing for income, the bigger teh market you wnat to go to.
Click to expand...
But those same teams can get those players now (the hard cap wouldn't affect marketing possibilities, I assume), get more of them AND pay them more. I don't get your argument here at all.
 
TICC said:
But those same teams can get those players now (the hard cap wouldn't affect marketing possibilities, I assume), get more of them AND pay them more. I don't get your argument here at all.
Click to expand...

With a soft cap, teams can at least pay their own players more than they can be signed for as free agents. When you are the 3rd-4th best player on a team, the team can pay to retain you.

A true hard cap would allow every team 1-2 max players, and a lot of low-salary players that are comming off the waiver wire. If you're one of the best players on the waiver wire, and you can sign for about the same amount in Chicago or in Utah, your finances improve greatly by signing in Chicago.
 
I guess I had the NFL model in mind when I was thinking hard cap. Draft well, don't overpay for free agents and you can build a winner. I just thought the Jazz could be very successful with the hard cap in place given their relatively good drafting and mostly not overpaying for free agents. Just thinking out loud as to why the Jazz might want to wait until the next CBA to make serious changes to the roster.
 
One Brow said:
With a soft cap, teams can at least pay their own players more than they can be signed for as free agents. When you are the 3rd-4th best player on a team, the team can pay to retain you.

A true hard cap would allow every team 1-2 max players, and a lot of low-salary players that are comming off the waiver wire. If you're one of the best players on the waiver wire, and you can sign for about the same amount in Chicago or in Utah, your finances improve greatly by signing in Chicago.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think this might be the answer: a hard cap, but with your own players counting at a reduced rate against the cap. Like, if a player has been with you 1 year, only 95% of his salary counts against the cap. If a player has been with you 2 years, only 90% of his salary counts against the cap. If a player has been with you 3 years, only 85% of his salary counts against the cap. (The numbers might need to be tweaked, but I think the concept is good.) I invented this idea a couple of years ago. I think it has the best of both the hard cap & soft cap worlds, with not too many drawbacks (unless I'm overlooking something...).
 
billyshelby said:
No way the Players Association ever allows a hard cap. They'll happily lockout over that. The owners would have to have irrefutable evidence that like half the franchises will be insolvent without one. They can't substantiate that claim. Like any labor relation, they'll compromise on a 'harder' soft cap. As GVC formerly stated, the Alan Houston Amnesty provision could be revisited.
Click to expand...

IAWTP. I doubt even the owners would agree on a hard cap. The league is set up so the big market teams can dominate. Of course some owners/GM's/coaches have been idiots (like NY) and some "smaller-than-big-market" teams have had incredible FO and coaching (San Antonio).

But it is in the league's best interest to have a few super-teams like LA, Boston, the Knicks (or Nyets). Stern has a global vision. I could see in 15 years, the NBA champion taking on Real Madrid or the Beijing Dragons for the World Title.

Whatever is done in regards to lowering the cap and salaries, there probably will be a one-time exemption. Maybe you take your highest salary and it only counts 50% against the cap over the remaining 4 years or whatever.

A lockout is almost assuredly guaranteed. And with Derek Fisher as president of the players association, Stern ought to hire the "Fisher Lied" chicks as the NBA's official media relations staff.
 
The league needs to go with a hard cap and fully non-guaranteed salaries. Let the players strike, hire scabs and play until the players come begging back like they did in the NFL years ago.
 
gregbroncs said:
The league needs to go with a hard cap and fully non-guaranteed salaries. Let the players strike, hire scabs and play until the players come begging back like they did in the NFL years ago.
Click to expand...

lol, why stop there? Lock 'em out until they give up free agency.

:rolleyes:
 
Darkwing Duck said:
lol, why stop there? Lock 'em out until they give up free agency.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I know it won't happen right away. But the players in the NBA have little incentive to play hard once they sign on the dotted line. I could live with the current cap situation if the contracts of some of these player's was not guaranteed.

It works in the NFL. They have a lot more player's to deal with but still there is a reason it's top dog in the sports world.
 
I personally like the non-guaranteed contract aspect. A team could still choose to guarantee a certain percentage of the contract, or a certain time period of it. Much like the NFL (like gregbroncs wrote). If I were an owner, that's what I would be pushing for. I'd bet Washington is wishing that were the case right about now.
 
catratcho said:
I personally like the non-guaranteed contract aspect. A team could still choose to guarantee a certain percentage of the contract, or a certain time period of it. Much like the NFL (like gregbroncs wrote). If I were an owner, that's what I would be pushing for. I'd bet Washington is wishing that were the case right about now.
Click to expand...

The NBA has non-guaranteed contracts. Players can just choose not to sign them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top