PDA

View Full Version : Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)



vnzla81
09-29-2010, 06:12 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5629666

FAIRFAX, Va. -- Washington Wizards majority owner Ted Leonsis told local business leaders Wednesday that he expects the NBA soon will have a hard salary cap similar to the NHL's model.

Leonsis, who also owns the Washington Capitals, spoke to a group of Northern Virginia business leaders before the Wizards' daily training camp session. He told them that the more fans a team has, the more they spend on the team, and the more the team has a chance to get and keep good players.

"In a salary-cap era -- and soon a hard-salary cap in the NBA like it is in the NHL -- if everyone can pay the same amount to the same amount of players, it's the small nuanced differences that matter," he said.

Asked after the speech to clarify his remarks, Leonsis pulled back from the comment, saying he was not authorized to speak about the ongoing NBA labor negotiations, but said he believed the NHL's system "is a good one."

"It's working," he said. "The teams are very, very competitive. There is no way that big markets teams can outspend small market teams. So when the season starts everyone thinks their team can compete for the Stanley Cup."

Cactus Jax
09-29-2010, 06:24 PM
Must be easy when you got a top superstar in the NHL. The cap may work but the TV contract and other things are total garbage amongst the NHL.

travmil
09-29-2010, 08:30 PM
Mr. Leonsis is talking a good game here, saying things about competition and small market teams being able to spend the same as the big market teams. But allow me to paraphrase what Mr. Leonsis is really saying here.

"The NHL salary cap model allows me to make more money on the Washington Capitals than I make on the Washington Wizards."

If you don't think it boils down to money for these owners you're fooling yourself.

Larry Staverman
09-29-2010, 08:41 PM
If you don't think it boils down to money for these owners you're fooling yourself.

I'm sure owning a team is a giant ego trip, makes for nice talk on the cocktail circuit and helps to pull hot women but when you lay out 300 to 400 million for a business making a profit is reasonable expectation.

travmil
09-29-2010, 08:50 PM
I'm sure owning a team is a giant ego trip, makes for nice talk on the cocktail circuit and helps to pull hot women but when you lay out 300 to 400 million for a business making a profit is reasonable expectation.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be. But at least be upfront about it. He shouldn't try to pretend that his sole interest in making the NBA salary structure like the NHL is competition. The fact that Washington is a big market team tells me that. Does he want us to believe he's simply sticking up for the little guy?

vnzla81
09-29-2010, 08:56 PM
Can anybody explain to me what is the difference and if a deal like that could benefit a team like Indiana? making teams equal is what we want right?

Larry Staverman
09-29-2010, 09:03 PM
I'm not saying it shouldn't be. But at least be upfront about it. He shouldn't try to pretend that his sole interest in making the NBA salary structure like the NHL is competition. The fact that Washington is a big market team tells me that. Does he want us to believe he's simply sticking up for the little guy?


I don't care what his motive is because if there is a hard cap it will benefit a team like the Pacers and keep the league more competitive . The more support the better and to that I says thanks whether he makes more money or not.

I'm sure Stern is already unhappy he is running his mouth during negotiations but if he had said he wants the hard cap so he can more money Stern may have cut his tongue out.

vnzla81
09-29-2010, 09:08 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5629666


Ted Leonsis fined for praising hard cap

FAIRFAX, Va. -- Washington Wizards majority owner Ted Leonsis told local business leaders Wednesday that he expects the NBA soon will have a hard salary cap similar to the NHL's model.

NBA commissioner David Stern said that's not necessarily true -- and the NBA fined Leonsis $100,000 for "unauthorized public comments regarding the league's collective bargaining negotiations."


"We're negotiating and that was one of our negotiating points," Stern told The Associated Press, "but collective bargaining is a negotiating process, and that was not something that Ted was authorized to say and he will be dealt with for that lapse in judgment."

Leonsis, who also owns the Washington Capitals, spoke to a group of Northern Virginia business leaders before the Wizards' daily training camp session. He told them that the more fans a team has, the more they spend on the team, and the more the team has a chance to get and keep good players.

"In a salary-cap era -- and soon a hard-salary cap in the NBA like it is in the NHL -- if everyone can pay the same amount to the same amount of players, it's the small nuanced differences that matter," he said.

Asked after the speech to clarify his remarks, Leonsis pulled back from the comment, saying he was not authorized to speak about the ongoing NBA labor negotiations, but said he believed the NHL's system "is a good one."

"It's working," he said. "The teams are very, very competitive. There is no way that big markets teams can outspend small market teams. So when the season starts everyone thinks their team can compete for the Stanley Cup."

NBA teams can currently exceed the salary cap if they are willing to pay a luxury tax penalty. The league's proposal to the union for a new collective bargaining agreement to replace the one that expires next summer included elements of a hard cap, and the players rejected it during last season's All-Star break.

"There's a hard cap in the NFL, there's a hard cap in the NHL, and that was something that was part of our initial proposal," Stern said. "But we're open to a deal and it depends what the deal is."

MyFavMartin
09-29-2010, 09:59 PM
He might worry about getting a better product out on the court. I feel for the Wiz fans for they've had to endure.

vnzla81
09-29-2010, 10:23 PM
He might worry about getting a better product out on the court. I feel for the Wiz fans for they've had to endure.

I don't think is as bad as the things that pacers fans have been enduring for the past five years, JO, Tynsley, Jackson, JOB, etc,etc,etc.

Washington Wizards fans had to endured one year of crappy basketball and now are getting to watch maybe on the best point guards in the NBA.

MillerTime
09-29-2010, 10:47 PM
Can anybody explain to me what is the difference and if a deal like that could benefit a team like Indiana? making teams equal is what we want right?

Unlike the NFL and NHL, the NBA features a so-called "soft" cap, meaning that there are several significant exceptions that allow teams to exceed the salary cap to sign players. This is done to allow teams to keep their own players, which, in theory, fosters fan support in each individual city. By contrast, the NFL and NHL caps are considered "hard," meaning that they offer relatively few (if any) circumstances in which teams can exceed the salary cap.

A hard cap would benefit the Pacers, IMO, because of Indy being a small market team. Teams like LA and NY could go over the cap and be able to recover because of the mere fact that their markets are much larger than a small market team, like Indy for example. Being that large market teams are able to generate more revenue, this gives their owners the flexibility to go over the cap, and luxury tax, and be able to still make a profit because of their market.

Therefore, if the NBA were to move to a hard-cap it would make all teams equal with respect to how much a team's salary is allowed to be. This in essence would benefit a team like the Pacers because large market teams cannot bully their way around by spending more money than the cap would allow

Anthem
09-29-2010, 11:52 PM
Therefore, if the NBA were to move to a hard-cap it would make all teams equal with respect to how much a team's salary is allowed to be. This in essence would benefit a team like the Pacers because large market teams cannot bully their way around by spending more money than the cap would allow
Except that the NBA teams with the biggest payrolls haven't been that competitive over the last decade.

Hicks
09-29-2010, 11:54 PM
If we do see a hard cap after this season, I'm glad we're about to be well under the cap.

Hicks
09-29-2010, 11:58 PM
Except that the NBA teams with the biggest payrolls haven't been that competitive over the last decade.

:huh:

Sure, there are some stinky teams with high payrolls, but even this season ('11), take a look at some of the salaries of what have very recently (and probably still are) some very good teams, including the last three champs:

Boston, $83.3m (~$25m over the cap)
Orlando, $89.8m (~$32m over the cap)
Dallas, $85.7m (~$27m over the cap)
Denver, $83.0m (~$25m over the cap)
Lakers, $94.7m (~36m over the cap)

xBulletproof
09-30-2010, 12:01 AM
A hard cap would be interesting to start. It would mean that you'd have to give teams a few years window to get under the cap, while putting restrictions on those teams to keep them from adding salary.

I haven't looked, but what if a team had a star player coming up soon as a FA, but were unable to sign them because of the restrictions placed on them until they get under the cap?

I think this whole CBA fight is going to be interesting to see how it turns out. Hopefully we don't lose an entire season though.

DaveP63
09-30-2010, 08:08 AM
Must be easy when you got a top superstar in the NHL. The cap may work but the TV contract and other things are total garbage amongst the NHL.

And the Crapitals have won how many Cups?

BillS
09-30-2010, 09:18 AM
I think the LeWadeBosh situation demonstrates that cap is not the only issue any more. If the CBA only deals with salaries and not other parity-affecting issues then team fandom will finally become obsolete.

d_c
09-30-2010, 10:07 AM
I think the LeWadeBosh situation demonstrates that cap is not the only issue any more. If the CBA only deals with salaries and not other parity-affecting issues then team fandom will finally become obsolete.

What exactly are you going to do about the LeWadeBosh situation? It was done fair and square. Historically, there have been a number of teams that have banked heavily on slashing their salary cap to the bare minimum in order to entice more than one MAX free agent.

I mean, what are you going to do about that stuff? That was 3 guys deciding to sign with the same team. They just happened to be 3 all-stars, with two of them being superstars.

"OK, new rule. You guys aren't allowed to talk to eachother over the summer". "And we're limiting teams to adding one all-star per summer."

That just doesn't sound viable to implement.

As far as fandom becoming completely obsolete, keep in mind the league was arguably at it's peak in the 80s when the Lakers and Celtics won 8 out of 10 championships between them. Then Jordan/Pippen dominated for 6 out of 8 years and it was a spectacle people took in, particularly when they weren't sure when Jordan's final season would be. The NBA as a business and a pop culture have done quite well during dynasty runs.

beast23
09-30-2010, 10:13 AM
A hard cap would be interesting to start. It would mean that you'd have to give teams a few years window to get under the cap, while putting restrictions on those teams to keep them from adding salary.

I haven't looked, but what if a team had a star player coming up soon as a FA, but were unable to sign them because of the restrictions placed on them until they get under the cap?

I think this whole CBA fight is going to be interesting to see how it turns out. Hopefully we don't lose an entire season though.That's really the first things that popped into my head as well.

Parity is a great thing; but how long will it take to truly get there? And, when a cap is decided, will it be so large that it would not benefit the Pacers? I don't know the exact amounts, but as an example, under current rules, let's say the current cap is 58M but luxury tax does not have to be paid until teams go over 69M. So, what if the hard cap under a new rule were established to be about 68-70M? That would serve the purpose of setting a hard cap, thus making all teams equal (at least financially) in competing for players. But, we all know that the Pacers will remain in the red at 70M in salaries.

The best thing for the Pacers would not only be a hard cap, but decreased salaries and a significantly lower hard cap. Maybe something like 50M. It seems like that is the only way for teams like the Pacers to make money, and for the cost to the average attending fan to eventually decrease and become more affordable.

To keep a star player, it seems as though some sort of "franchise tag" will be necessary that will enable you to go over the cap to keep that one player.

Speed
09-30-2010, 10:29 AM
Guaranteed contracts are more a concern for me, in length, but also that there aren't any way out of them. A mixture of what the NFL has with upfront money being the only guaranteed money sounds more important to me. Hard cap is fine, but only if it has enough built in room for small markets to compete for talent, which I think thats not really that related.

In other words, I want them to address guys who sign big long term contracts and then aren't in shape/stop working, looking at you Eddie Curry. This protects the owners, teammates, and fans from the Jamaal Tinsley's, Derrick Colemans of the world that can weigh your franchise down for years and years. Literally weigh in some cases.

A hard cap helps small market owners control costs, if done right, but for me the way it's structured now isn't too far off of a hard cap anyway. What I'm saying is, Carmelo or Lebron weren't coming to Indy or Milwaukee with a hard cap or the cap they have now, that won't change. You might get a second tier NBA stud all things being equal, but probably still never a top 10 player as a free agent, unless it's just a situation where only your team has the money available.

I mean I get it, why limit your earning potential with outside basketball revenue by going to Cleveland or Utah. Put it this way in Indy you get Kinetico and Andy Mohr commercials, in NY you probably get Tag Hauer and Gucci worldwide ad campaign endorsement deals. So I get it from a top 10 player standpoint. My point is hard, soft, inbetween caps won't likely change the small markets chance to lure a top 10 player.

But you can protect the league, as a whole, from being held hostage by players who won't work, by limiting the guaranteed contract.

Listen, I'm on the side of any person trying to make as much money as the market bears, but I'm against workers not earning that money in an ongoing basis.

I think the guaranteed contract issue is WAY more important to me, imho.

BillS
09-30-2010, 12:21 PM
What exactly are you going to do about the LeWadeBosh situation? It was done fair and square. Historically, there have been a number of teams that have banked heavily on slashing their salary cap to the bare minimum in order to entice more than one MAX free agent.

Franchise player status? Some other creative option to let a team keep a player they've invested a lot of money and PR into?

What I mean is that money is no longer the be-all and end-all motivation, which is to be expected when the numbers get so high you couldn't spend it all in a dozen lifetimes. There needs to be another way to keep a team from being torn to pieces without being able to do anything about it. It should be as fair as possible to the players, but it needs to be designed to keep some parity in the league.


As far as fandom becoming completely obsolete, keep in mind the league was arguably at it's peak in the 80s when the Lakers and Celtics won 8 out of 10 championships between them. Then Jordan/Pippen dominated for 6 out of 8 years and it was a spectacle people took in, particularly when they weren't sure when Jordan's final season would be. The NBA as a business and a pop culture have done quite well during dynasty runs.

This argument keeps getting used, but it doesn't speak to whether that was the best the NBA could possibly hope for or even if it is something that will keep Professional Basketball a sport rather than a show. Who knows if the NBA during years when they DIDN'T have a Bird/Magic or a Jordan could have made just as large a profits if effort was made in getting fans loyal to their local teams buying local team gear and selling out local arenas on nights when the Big Hype Superstar ISN'T in town. How much would that ADD in years where a Hype Player exists?

Unfortunately, the Superstar Income Model has pretty much been the only thing Stern and the NBA have looked at. How much of a stretch is it to decide that the model of having 30+ teams of which half of them will be bad on any given night isn't bringing in enough $$$ - just put together a team of the best players, put together another team of players who will lose to them, tour them around the country charging $150 per nosebleed seat, and show them on pay-per-view. Huge money, huge jersey sales, huge hype. Not a sports league, though. More like WWE.

MillerTime
09-30-2010, 01:56 PM
Except that the NBA teams with the biggest payrolls haven't been that competitive over the last decade.

ya but they have been selling tickets. A team doesnt necessarily have to win to sell tickets. (I know this is a different league) But look at the Toronto Maple Leafs for example, they have been at the bottom of the league for many many many years now but they have had one of the best attendance records in the NHL

d_c
09-30-2010, 06:00 PM
Franchise player status? Some other creative option to let a team keep a player they've invested a lot of money and PR into?

What I mean is that money is no longer the be-all and end-all motivation, which is to be expected when the numbers get so high you couldn't spend it all in a dozen lifetimes. There needs to be another way to keep a team from being torn to pieces without being able to do anything about it. It should be as fair as possible to the players, but it needs to be designed to keep some parity in the league.


This argument keeps getting used, but it doesn't speak to whether that was the best the NBA could possibly hope for or even if it is something that will keep Professional Basketball a sport rather than a show. Who knows if the NBA during years when they DIDN'T have a Bird/Magic or a Jordan could have made just as large a profits if effort was made in getting fans loyal to their local teams buying local team gear and selling out local arenas on nights when the Big Hype Superstar ISN'T in town. How much would that ADD in years where a Hype Player exists?

Unfortunately, the Superstar Income Model has pretty much been the only thing Stern and the NBA have looked at. How much of a stretch is it to decide that the model of having 30+ teams of which half of them will be bad on any given night isn't bringing in enough $$$ - just put together a team of the best players, put together another team of players who will lose to them, tour them around the country charging $150 per nosebleed seat, and show them on pay-per-view. Huge money, huge jersey sales, huge hype. Not a sports league, though. More like WWE.

I think a franchise status tag is something that will be discussed, but I don't think it's going to be implemented the same way it is in the NFL. The NFL does have a franchise tag, but it's impact isn't nearly as great as a similarly implemented tag in the NBA.

Anybody can argue that Stern and the league COULD have had a different type of marketing/promotional approach in the 80s. Sure, we'll never know how different it could have been, but bottom line is Stern has been VERY successful as is.

Before Magic, Bird and Stern, the NBA was struggling in the 70s. They weren't nearly as big as they are today. They had low attendance and tape delayed playoff games. It was the rise of two dynasties in big markets that really put the NBA back on the map. I'm pretty sure the league is happy with the way the 1980s turned.

The reality is that people (the general public and casual sports fans) like superstars. They like dynasties. They like heroes. They like to see juggernaut teams and then whether or not someone can take down that juggernaut. People want entertainment, and that's what entertains them. Sure, a bunch of hardcore fans like us on boards such as these would be fine with seeing a less supestar-centric league. But take away that element and the big interest from the casual fan will wane.

travmil
09-30-2010, 08:30 PM
Sure, a bunch of hardcore fans like us on boards such as these would be fine with seeing a less supestar-centric league. But take away that element and the big interest from the casual fan will wane.

So all the small market teams (San Antonio not withstanding) have to watch as the superstars all congregate in 4 cities? Bull****! EVERY team, and the fans that make the NBA possible, deserves a chance to draft and keep a superstar for their fanbase to cherish.

d_c
09-30-2010, 09:23 PM
So all the small market teams (San Antonio not withstanding) have to watch as the superstars all congregate in 4 cities? Bull****! EVERY team, and the fans that make the NBA possible, deserves a chance to draft and keep a superstar for their fanbase to cherish.

And when did I say that?

I didn't say what was fair or not. Or what was right or wrong, or what should or shouldn't happen. All I said is that, traditionally, the league's popularity in mainstream media is going to be higher when the "marquee" franchises are doing well.

The Lakers/Celts dynasties of the 80s illustrates that. I don't know what else says it better. The NBA trudged through the 70's as an afterthought stepsister to the MLB/NFL. Nobody cared about the league. It was completely revitalized with two dominant dynasties. Whether you like that or not, the NBA as a viable business is in a far, far better situation today because of the Magic/Bird era of dominance.

FTR, Utah was able to keep two HOF superstars for pretty much their entire careers not only in a small market, but in a city/state that is probably at the very bottom of the list that young pro athletes want to play in.

pacer4ever
10-01-2010, 12:03 AM
Hard Cap Could Mean Reduction Of Existing Contracts

Read more: http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/69367/20100930/hard_cap_could_mean_reduction_of_existing_contract s/#ixzz114nfq3jL

wow this would of helped when mike D and Troy had 3yrs left lol but this will never happen players would not agree to this

travmil
10-01-2010, 12:31 AM
Hard Cap Could Mean Reduction Of Existing Contracts

Read more: http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/69367/20100930/hard_cap_could_mean_reduction_of_existing_contract s/#ixzz114nfq3jL

wow this would of helped when mike D and Troy had 3yrs left lol but this will never happen players would not agree to this

I don't think they would just cut teams off cold turkey. They would have to do some sort of staggering or allow all current contracts to expire and only allow contracts compliant with the new rule going forward. The bottom line is if this thing does go to a hard cap, Joe Johnson is the luckiest baller in history.

d_c
10-01-2010, 02:07 AM
I don't think they would just cut teams off cold turkey. They would have to do some sort of staggering or allow all current contracts to expire and only allow contracts compliant with the new rule going forward. The bottom line is if this thing does go to a hard cap, Joe Johnson is the luckiest baller in history.

Yep. I have a hard time seeing the owners being able to proactively alter contracts that have ALREADY been signed in writing under and are in compliance with the current CBA. The players could take them to court on that one and I envision they would win that one.

Remember guys who signed the pre-1996 rookie scale contracts. Guys like Shaq and KG were able to sign extensions larger than guys from 96' and on due to their larger initial base salaries. They were grandfathered in. That's how come KG's initial MAX deal was so much bigger than everyone else's that followed.

Players would just point to that kind of precedence (if they would even have to) and they'd probably win.

BillS
10-01-2010, 10:36 AM
But I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of grandfathered cap exception for teams with old contracts. It would help big franchises who spend a lot of money this year and thoroughly screw the Pacers. Just what the league loves to see.

Hicks
10-01-2010, 11:31 AM
Wouldn't it go something like this: You sum the roster's total salary starting with the contracts signed 2011 or later, then the grandfathered contracts count up to the top of the hard cap, but at that point they don't penalize you for exceeding the cap.

Say it's 2014, the hard cap is $55m, and aside from the old $15m contract on the roster for a player whose contract began prior to 2011, the rest of the team's salaries are new(er) and add up to $44m. Let the old $15m bring them up to the $55m limit, but not penalize them for exceeding it by the other $4m on the old contract.

cordobes
10-05-2010, 07:16 PM
Franchise player status? Some other creative option to let a team keep a player they've invested a lot of money and PR into?

What I mean is that money is no longer the be-all and end-all motivation, which is to be expected when the numbers get so high you couldn't spend it all in a dozen lifetimes. There needs to be another way to keep a team from being torn to pieces without being able to do anything about it. It should be as fair as possible to the players, but it needs to be designed to keep some parity in the league.

A hard cap would make harder for teams to retain their prized players. Well managed teams are generally able to keep their best players with the current system.

I'm not sure how a hard cap will bring a lot more parity. It won't affect the shortage of superstars and difference makers. It will be tougher for teams to build around the guys they drafted/bought low and developed... but why is that a good thing?

BillS
10-06-2010, 09:47 AM
A hard cap would make harder for teams to retain their prized players. Well managed teams are generally able to keep their best players with the current system.

I'm not sure how a hard cap will bring a lot more parity. It won't affect the shortage of superstars and difference makers. It will be tougher for teams to build around the guys they drafted/bought low and developed... but why is that a good thing?

While the argument is that Cav's management stunk and that's why LeBron left, I'm not particularly seeing the same accusations being leveled at Toronto.

Again, since money is no longer necessarily the top motivator for players - which makes sense, after a few tens of millions a couple more isn't that much of an incentive - something has to be done to give some control back to the teams. In a hard cap situation, you will tend to spread the money out more evenly because mid-level and second-tier players aren't going to be getting max money from Free Agency because no one will be able to afford the extra $$$. That means you can still build, you just aren't likely to be building via Free Agency.

The ONLY reason it would not work is if the Europeans are able to suddenly offer huge amounts of money that the NBA can't match. That looked possible a few years ago but I think it isn't as much of a threat now.

cordobes
10-06-2010, 09:00 PM
While the argument is that Cav's management stunk and that's why LeBron left, I'm not particularly seeing the same accusations being leveled at Toronto.

Yeah, unfortunately that's correct. Probably because Bosh lacks LeBron's talent and reputation - the incompetence to build a winner around Bosh is somewhat less serious.

But Colangelo has been a disaster: he inherited a team with Bosh, a boatload of prospective cap space ($40M IIRC), an All-NBA Rookie 1st teamer, the 1st overall pick in the upcoming draft and no bad contracts complicating stuff. It's amazing how little he has accomplished in 4 years and how much worse Toronto is now.


Again, since money is no longer necessarily the top motivator for players - which makes sense, after a few tens of millions a couple more isn't that much of an incentive - something has to be done to give some control back to the teams. In a hard cap situation, you will tend to spread the money out more evenly because mid-level and second-tier players aren't going to be getting max money from Free Agency because no one will be able to afford the extra $$$. That means you can still build, you just aren't likely to be building via Free Agency.

I understand there are diminishing returns, but what has changed in the last 10 or 15 years? I'd need more than an off-season and 3 or 4 cases to assume that the current mechanism in place to help teams to retain their free-agents doesn't work any more.

But what I don't get is this:

In a hard cap situation, you will tend to spread the money out more evenly because mid-level and second-tier players aren't going to be getting max money from Free Agency because no one will be able to afford the extra $$$.

Why? Why would teams spread the money more evenly with a salary cap? Mid-level players don't get max money in free-agency as of now. But why would teams allocate resources differently? And why wouldn't players get money from free-agency? What would prevent teams from cleaning their books and then sign the best players in free-agency, taking advantage of the inability of the original teams to re-sign their best players because they're capped out? To me, that's exactly what would happen.

With a hard cap, players would hit free-agency more frequently. Especially the top-tier players, especially young players. Because those are the kind of players that the soft-cap allows teams to retain.

So, imagine Hibbert having an All-Star type of season this year. In the next one, he improves further, becomes a 20/10 threat and gets an All-Pro selection. He becomes the face of the franchise and there are billboards with him all over Indiana. But the Pacers are very close to the cap threshold when his contract is up and they can't afford to re-sign him. And he's gone. Could have happened to Granger or Reggie Miller. Is this kind of situation good for the teams? For the business? I don't think so.

That's the problem with a hard-cap: more players leaving their "home teams", more teams trying to pull a Miami and clear enough cap room to sign the free-agents available in the free-market (it becomes easier, because in many situations that "more money, more years" factor you now have and is an incentive for players to stay with their teams dissipates), less ability for the teams to retain their own free-agents, more randomness. The draft would be less important, stuff like the attractiveness of the cities would be more important.


The ONLY reason it would not work is if the Europeans are able to suddenly offer huge amounts of money that the NBA can't match. That looked possible a few years ago but I think it isn't as much of a threat now.

I don't think it was ever a factor and I wouldn't expect it to become one unless the hypothetical hard cap is recklessly low. It could be a problem if the NBA adopts non-guaranteed salaries, for example, even though the biggest threat in that case would be internal competition.

It would work in the sense of keeping the players in the league, but it would produce perverse effects.

To me, it'd be important to prevent the current over-spending for some teams, I reckon it should be addressed in the next CBA. But the right way of doing it, IMO, is via a tiered luxury tax. A hard-cap is an unnecessary complication.

BillS
10-07-2010, 09:45 AM
With a hard cap, who can afford to sign someone away from you? It isn't like only certain teams will be against the cap and others will not. It probably means that no team can keep multiple max value players without skimping on roleplayers, but I think that has been shown to be a poor strategy.

If my team is at the cap paying someone the current max, the chances are pretty good I can match what someone else could offer because it is less of a change for me than it is for them - they would have to clear the full salary space, I only have to clear the increment.

The problem I have with a luxury tax is that the rich teams can afford to ignore it, so it levels the playing field not at all. It just means they pay more for those free agents and the money doesn't go into the player's pocket.

Initially a hard cap will cause some major shake-up, but once it settles down the salary structure itself would cause teams to stop giving max contracts to borderline players.

In terms of "face of the franchise", that plays into the second part. Suppose you have the hard cap, which is reduced by one max salary. 14 of your players have to be signed under that cap. One player is outside the cap, you have to declare him your franchise player, he can't go anywhere but you have to pay him the max.

The details may be quibbled (I just threw that out there), but you can see the idea.

cordobes
10-08-2010, 12:38 PM
With a hard cap, who can afford to sign someone away from you? It isn't like only certain teams will be against the cap and others will not.

How so? Maybe we're talking about different concepts of what a hard-cap is?

With a hard cap, some teams would be capped out and unable to sign new players while others would have room under the cap and would be able to compete for Free-Agents. Just like now, except that teams wouldn't have the exceptions - say, Cleveland would never have a chance of retaining LeBron James.


If my team is at the cap paying someone the current max, the chances are pretty good I can match what someone else could offer because it is less of a change for me than it is for them - they would have to clear the full salary space, I only have to clear the increment.

Not really. Imagine the hard cap is at $60 millions. You have long term salaries for other players that total $53 millions + a guy under his rookie contract (and the new face of the franchise) making $3 millions (say it's Lance Stephenson who's become a Kevin Durant level of player). So, your team can offer Stephenson $7 million at most. But some other team may have enough room under the cap available to offer him a max. contract (like Miami this off-season).



The problem I have with a luxury tax is that the rich teams can afford to ignore it, so it levels the playing field not at all. It just means they pay more for those free agents and the money doesn't go into the player's pocket.

Yeah, but I think they should have a tiered luxury tax system - 1:1 for the first $5 millions; 2 dollars per each additional dollar for the second $5 millions; etc. At some point, the tax will be too large - not even the richest teams would sustain the $150M payroll they'd quickly reach. The money paid via luxury tax is distributed to teams under the tax, that helps to level the playing field.


Initially a hard cap will cause some major shake-up, but once it settles down the salary structure itself would cause teams to stop giving max contracts to borderline players.

In terms of "face of the franchise", that plays into the second part. Suppose you have the hard cap, which is reduced by one max salary. 14 of your players have to be signed under that cap. One player is outside the cap, you have to declare him your franchise player, he can't go anywhere but you have to pay him the max.

How can you do that with a hard cap? What if you don't have enough room under the cap to offer the player a max. contract? How would the Celtics protect Rondo, for example?