I don't like that there is a maximum a team can pay a player. I don't think most of the NBA likes the idea of super teams and capping the salary perpetuates it. Lebron should get Jordan money at 30-40M per. Capping him at 20M just makes it easier for another superstar to join him. So by taking away the cap, teams would probably have at most 2 studs which allows more teams to have a superstar and create more balance in the league.

I don't know which side wanted to cap player salaries. I can see the players wanting it because it allows more cash to trickle down to the lower guys at the expense of the superstar. The owners wouldn't haven't to invest so much on one player but the small market owners get screwed in my opinion.

In short, the cap sucks and should go away.

If there were no cap, then the Lakers' starting 5 would be Howard, lebron, melo, Chris Paul and kobe.

If you want to see small markets get screwed, remove the salary cap.

quote:

---

If there were no cap, then the Lakers' starting 5 would be Howard, lebron, melo, Chris Paul and kobe.

---

I think he is saying they should do away with individual player "max" contracts, but keep the salary cap. Which I would actually be ok with if that's what they decided to do

Yeah that's what's I'm saying. Keep the Team salary cap but no individual cap.

Yeah I'd be okay with that idea as well. The best 10-15 players in the league would love it because they'd all command in the 30 something million range.

The rest of the players would hate it because then there's less money to spread around to "the others."

This would actually help the small market teams, at least in my opinion, because then they could outbid the larger market teams for the services of a superstar.

I'm guessing the NBA players association would not agree to this. It would be great for maybe the best 20 players in the league, but the other 350 players would get screwed.

quote:

---

I'm guessing the NBA players association would not agree to this. It would be fair to all 370 players in the league, but the bottom feeders wouldn't get their welfare checks.

---

FIFY

Well I think it's meant to protect the teams to some degree. Imagine tying all your money up in 1 guy and then the guy goes down or can't play or whatever. Your team would be done for the remainder of the guys contract. Also, it would make it a lot harder for teams to move "bad" contracts.

I understand if you have the "you made your bed so lie in it" attitude regarding this but teams able to tie up all their money in one guy is a recipe for disaster. For example, Gilbert Arenas, Brandon Roy, etc. comes to mind immediately. These guys were payed and just went to **** afterwards but you still had to pay them.

It also prevents players from "holding out" and demanding more money. They can still do this right now but to a certain extent. If there was no individual cap there would be a lot more of "im worth this, im not playing until I get it".

[This message has been edited by Sher Thing (edited 7/2/2014 8:37a).]

^ Wasn't that the point of the Allen Houston rule?

I could see another looming lockout in the next negotiations. Superstars getting paid 15-20 million, like they did in the early 90s and early 00s is sure to stir up the pot. I don't think there's any real way of preventing Superteams, since this is a fairly new phenomenon. As long as teams have the room to pay, and the stars are ok with getting a paycut, it cant be a prevented.

I don't mind seeing players take a pay cut to add more guys to the team. They get payed enough.

The new CBA is aimed to help the smaller market teams and it's doing such.

I would argue for a full on hard cap tbh, which would really level the playing field and create parity throughout the league.

This years season & playoff (especially the west ) was incredible to follow because of the parity of teams 1-12. That's how it should be.

Before the NBA season started there literally used to be 2 teams that had a legitimate shot at winning it all. Those days are over which is a good thing.

I hate that the stars are teaming together but it would be worse if they weren't penalized in any way for doing so. At least now they have to take less money for it to happen. Makes them think twice about doing it at least.

Miami is just an outlier in all of this, becasue of LeBron. The Clippers have three in their prime guys too. But they play in the Western conference, and none of them are the greatest player of this era. Their Big 3 is better than most of the league. If the teams have the cap space, and the stars are willing to take less i really don't have an issue with the organization itself.

I think they are trying to get around the thing the Bulls did in the 90s. Jordan was only paid like 2-3mm in all his seasons with the Bulls until his last two of the second three-peat when he made over $30mm. The salary cap at the time was 24mm.

That keeps the Spurs from giving Duncan/Parker/Ginobili the vet min then giving each a 50mm contract for a season before they retire.

It was also to protect the owners from themselves with contracts like Gilbert Arenas and Rashard Lewis.

I'm curious, but was Jordan's contract heavily incentive laced? Ive tried looking up his salary before, but Ive wondered he much more he got paid by winning an MVP, Title, and Scoring Champ.

[This message has been edited by Scientific (edited 7/2/2014 3:02p).]

Nope, he kept a pretty low salary throughout his career so that the Bulls could keep surrounding him with quality players. There were less exceptions to the cap back then.

One thing people forget is the "super team" concept was tried before it just never worked until Miami did it. LA did it when they got Malone and Payton to play with Kobe and Shaq and Houston tried it with Hakeem/Barkley/Pippen.

It would be a disaster if they allowed teams to pay players whatever. Some stupid franchises would go out and pay a player $40 mill and then they tank and the team is screwed for years.

quote:

---

One thing people forget is the "super team" concept was tried before it just never worked until Miami did it.

---

KG/Paul Pierce/Ray Allen.

Kobe/Shaq/GlenRice

I like using Tim Duncan's recent deal as an example to other players.

Imagine you have some cocky young player and his sleazy agent trying to squeeze a huge contract out of a team and threatening to leave if they refuse. Imagine a team showing him a picture of Tim Duncan or Dirk and saying do you deserve more money then these guys who by the way are not only MVP's but Final's champions. Plus they took less money to help build a better team.

The "Tim Duncan Value Plan" would work wonders for other teams and keep them out of absurd and idiotic deals. If a team signs away the farm and regrets it later it is their doing....

So the Rockets offer Bosh a stupid max deal, and the report is, he will still turn it down.

So the Rockets offer Bosh a stupid max deal, and the report is, he will still turn it down.