Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 35 of 35

Thread: Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

  1. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In a Gym
    Age
    21
    Posts
    16,859
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

    Hard Cap Could Mean Reduction Of Existing Contracts

    Read more: http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archiv...#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

  2. #27
    The New Gold Swagger travmil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New Pal
    Posts
    7,302
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

    Quote Originally Posted by pacer4ever View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Hard Cap Could Mean Reduction Of Existing Contracts

    Read more: http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archiv...#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.

  3. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,440

    Default Re: Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

    Quote Originally Posted by travmil View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

  4. #29
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,818

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

    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.
    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

  5. #30
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

    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.

  6. #31

    Default Re: Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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?

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to cordobes For This Useful Post:

    d_c

  8. #32
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,818

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

    Quote Originally Posted by cordobes View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.
    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

  9. #33

    Default Re: Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

  10. #34
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,818

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

    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.
    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

  11. #35

    Default Re: Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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).


    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-29-2010, 02:00 PM
  2. Replies: 532
    Last Post: 04-30-2010, 02:23 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-27-2010, 02:30 PM
  4. Prospective Wizards owner Ted Leonsis 'very confident' of sale [ESPN]
    By RoboHicks in forum NBA Headlines (RSS Feeds)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-28-2010, 08:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •