CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: __ramonezy__ on October 15, 2017, 12:49:16 PM
-
Been looking at discussions about Marcus Smart objectively and I honestly believe the salary cap, as is, is counter productive.
The concept of it being the great equalizer for smaller markets is a fraud. GS is budgeted to pay $1.4b to keep its core together over the next few years, but that doesn't matter as they sell out arenas on a nightly basis deep into the playoffs year after year.
The luxury tax in my opinion simply doesn't have enough teeth to deter teams in large markets to even blink at exceeding it. What can be done to fix this?
My simple, but weird suggestion is to impose game sanctions on the highest paid players on the squad for each season a team remains in the luxury tax and forget about financial sanctions. So if GS wants to go into the luxury tax, their highest paid player can only play a maximum of 50 games including the playoffs. If they remain in the luxury for 2 seasons, then two players would be sanctioned.
Any suggestions?
-
The luxury tax works. Durant took a huge pay cut to keep the team together; Klay says he will do the same.
Celtics ownership has been raking in huge profits, and they've realized around $1.5 billion in valuation of the franchise. When it's time to pay up the cost will be heavy, but they can afford it.
The only system that will keep all teams below the cap is an NFL-style hard cap.
-
The luxury tax works. Durant took a huge pay cut to keep the team together; Klay says he will do the same.
Celtics ownership has been raking in huge profits, and they've realized around $1.5 billion in valuation of the franchise. When it's time to pay up the cost will be heavy, but they can afford it.
The only system that will keep all teams below the cap is an NFL-style hard cap.
I beg to differ... KD didn't take a massive pay cut. He simply weighed his other endorsements and realized that he could make it back in a large market. Good players with no such endorsement options would never make such a decision... which further proves the brokenness cuz a Milwaukee wouldn't have those alternatives
-
The luxury tax works. Durant took a huge pay cut to keep the team together; Klay says he will do the same.
Celtics ownership has been raking in huge profits, and they've realized around $1.5 billion in valuation of the franchise. When it's time to pay up the cost will be heavy, but they can afford it.
The only system that will keep all teams below the cap is an NFL-style hard cap.
I beg to differ... KD didn't take a massive pay cut. He simply weighed his other endorsements and realized that he could make it back in a large market. Good players with no such endorsement options would never make such a decision... which further proves the brokenness cuz a Milwaukee wouldn't have those alternatives
He's not "making it back". He's making enough to be happy, but he could have had the endorsements *and* the salary. If he'd insisted on that, Iggy would be gone, and maybe some of the other pieces, too. That's the luxury tax at work.
-
Repeater tax means Klay is out the next contract or traded his contract year. They can't maintain their salary even while selling out arenas its crazy $. So cap system will work in time.
-
The luxury tax works just fine. The problem in GS was that they weren't even paying luxury tax until this year because of the cap spike, Curry's bargain contract, and Green and Thompson being extended on a prior cap structure. Now that GS is paying the luxury tax and will be for the foreseeable future, you will start to see the real effects of it, even with Durant taking an 8 million pay cut annually. There is quite simply no way GS will realistically be able to pay Green and Thompson the contracts they will both easily get on the open market, while keeping Curry and Durant and some semblance of a bench.
-
Been looking at discussions about Marcus Smart objectively and I honestly believe the salary cap, as is, is counter productive.
The concept of it being the great equalizer for smaller markets is a fraud. GS is budgeted to pay $1.4b to keep its core together over the next few years, but that doesn't matter as they sell out arenas on a nightly basis deep into the playoffs year after year.
The luxury tax in my opinion simply doesn't have enough teeth to deter teams in large markets to even blink at exceeding it. What can be done to fix this?
My simple, but weird suggestion is to impose game sanctions on the highest paid players on the squad for each season a team remains in the luxury tax and forget about financial sanctions. So if GS wants to go into the luxury tax, their highest paid player can only play a maximum of 50 games including the playoffs. If they remain in the luxury for 2 seasons, then two players would be sanctioned.
Any suggestions?
Don't feel game sanction idea would work. Fans pay to buy tickets to watch certain players...like actors in a movie. It would be a convoluted setup, Fans would have to figure out two things before buying tickets. One, is their favorite player playing and does he/she want to watch this team with a particular lineup. Networks wouldn't be very happy either.
However, you are right-on about the luxury tax. It's not working. Last week Michael Jordan spoke out about the Super teams (see article below). ..."You're going to have one or two teams that are going to be great, and another 28 teams that are going to be garbage. Or they're going to have a tough time surviving in the business environment." http://www.nba.com/article/2017/10/12/michael-jordan-super-teams-hurt-nba#/
Roy H also has a good point..."The only system that will keep all teams below the cap is an NFL-style hard cap."
In my opinion, that is the only option that will work if the NBA is serious about having some sort of team parity. Otherwise, the League will only have 5 contenders each season...basically what we have now.
Kind of hypocritical of Jordan making these statements....his Chicago teams were loaded with stars, e.g., Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, Horace Grant, Toni Kukoc, John Paxson.
-
So your goal is to even out the talent? Frankly, I hate that idea. I prefer that teams can reap the rewards of good management and drafting. So I'm not a fan of becoming the NFL.
So my suggesting would be to continue to give breaks to teams for keeping their own guys while making it more difficult to sign players away from other teams? So maybe luxury tax dollars only to players that you did not draft?
I don't know, haven't really put in too much thought but I don't like a league with a lots or mediocre teams.
-
I have a vague idea of the super max contracts, with it being based on All-NBA selections. If they meet the super max criteria, then is there also a minimum contract they can sign? Call it the Kevin Durant rule, which would help prevent super teams from forming.
What about draft compensation for teams that lose a player in free agency that made an all NBA team in at least 1 out of the previous 3 seasons? Have the lottery teams pick first, then compensation picks, followed by teams that made the playoffs. The compensation picks will be determined by win/loss records for the season, and based on the free agents lost in the previous off season. For instance OKC would have had a compensation pick this past draft with Durant signing with Golden State during last off season.
-
If parity is your goal, I think getting rid of the max contract (or raising the ceiling on it substantially), and then allowing the team that drafts a player to offer way, way more on an ANNUAL basis (as opposed to contract length) would be the most effective way to limit proliferation of stars on any one team.
If a player had to sacrifice $20m, 30m, even $40m per year, as opposed to $5-10m per year, in order to go to a big market team with multiple stars already on the roster, that would be a much harder choice.
Of course, that would substantially limit the amount of $$$ that sub-star players could make; it would also mean that bad, long-term contracts could absolutely cripple a franchise (imagine $50m per year in dead money on the cap).
-
i liked what van Gundy said.
let players go where they want out of college , just have a hard max , zero going over
-
Any suggestions?
I would like to see rookie contracts extended to 5 years and they remove restricted free agency altogether.
Part of the reason the Cs had to deal Bradley and IT is that Jaylen Brown is suddenly on the horizon for a max extension after this season is over, and there was no way you could carry both those guys at their new deals and have the space to sign Brown (not even including Smart, Rozier, etc.)
-
Any suggestions?
I would like to see rookie contracts extended to 5 years and they remove restricted free agency altogether.
Part of the reason the Cs had to deal Bradley and IT is that Jaylen Brown is suddenly on the horizon for a max extension after this season is over, and there was no way you could carry both those guys at their new deals and have the space to sign Brown (not even including Smart, Rozier, etc.)
Uhhh what? He has 2 more cost-controlled years after this year before becoming a restricted free agent in 2020
-
In my opinion there's going to have to be some massive salary corrections over the next three seasons... these role player salaries are almost like bitcoin valuations. During the Hakeem Rockets era there was no stress to resign Horry, or during the Shaq Lakers era to resign Fox or Fisher.
But here we are with a real dilemma to resign role players. CBA in fighting for super money for stars have forced the middle class NBA vet into no man's land...
-
What breaks the system are two things:
1. Salary Cap Anomaly - the cap spiked like crazy, allowing a capped team like GSW the ability to sign a player like KD
2. Players agreeing to below market value contracts - this is what will allow GSW to stay together. Salaries attempt to condense a player's value into one number and the cap is what's supposed to uphold or police the "balance". This is often faulty though, not just in Stars but also in "vet min buyouts" like Wade.
I don't know how to fix this. Maybe players should be "appraised" and thus, can only sign in a range of salaries (e.g. KD cannot take a pay cut below a certain amount, and he can't be offered more than a certain amount). This appraisal can be a combination of raw stats, advanced stats, team tenure, and awards.
-
Just have a soft salary cap and a hard salary cap. Can't go over the hard cap or below the soft cap.
-
Just have a soft salary cap and a hard salary cap. Can't go over the hard cap or below the soft cap.
By the latter, you are referring to a salary "floor", not a soft cap.
The NBA actually has all three:
salary floor - teams are required to pay out at least 90% of the salary cap. This year, that amount is 89M. If they don't pay out that much in salaries, the difference must be made up in extra payments distributed to the players.
soft cap - this is the 'salary cap' that is most frequently talked about. Non-Bird external free agents can only be signed with room under this cap. It is possible to go over the salary cap by various types of transactions (most often by using Bird Rights and other exceptions) and so it is 'soft'.
hard cap - this is essentially the effect of the luxury tax 'apron'. Once over that, teams lose ability to use various exceptions to sign players. Their salary can still go up, via built-in raises and via Bird Right transactions, but player additions are limited to minimum salary and rookie transactions. This year's apron number is 125M.
Their are more complexities than are worth detailing here, but those are the essential details. If you are interested, please see Larry Coon's excellent FAQ:
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm
-
The luxury tax works. Durant took a huge pay cut to keep the team together; Klay says he will do the same.
Celtics ownership has been raking in huge profits, and they've realized around $1.5 billion in valuation of the franchise. When it's time to pay up the cost will be heavy, but they can afford it.
The only system that will keep all teams below the cap is an NFL-style hard cap.
I beg to differ... KD didn't take a massive pay cut. He simply weighed his other endorsements and realized that he could make it back in a large market. Good players with no such endorsement options would never make such a decision... which further proves the brokenness cuz a Milwaukee wouldn't have those alternatives
Giannis is about to sign a shoe deal worth at least $5 million per year with a chance at up to $10 million per, so playing in Milwaukee clearly doesn't hurt endorsements that much. and well i understand that some of that money is his value as an international player Russel Westbrook has major endorsements despite playing in OKC.
-
The luxury tax works. Durant took a huge pay cut to keep the team together; Klay says he will do the same.
Celtics ownership has been raking in huge profits, and they've realized around $1.5 billion in valuation of the franchise. When it's time to pay up the cost will be heavy, but they can afford it.
The only system that will keep all teams below the cap is an NFL-style hard cap.
I beg to differ... KD didn't take a massive pay cut. He simply weighed his other endorsements and realized that he could make it back in a large market. Good players with no such endorsement options would never make such a decision... which further proves the brokenness cuz a Milwaukee wouldn't have those alternatives
Giannis is about to sign a shoe deal worth at least $5 million per year with a chance at up to $10 million per, so playing in Milwaukee clearly doesn't hurt endorsements that much. and well i understand that some of that money is his value as an international player Russel Westbrook has major endorsements despite playing in OKC.
Top players can definitely still get big endorsement deals from national / international brands no matter where they are.
But where the differences show up is in the 'regional' endorsements. Things like local store chains, auto dealerships, restaurants. Being a spokesman for a NYC regional brand is a lot bigger deal than being the equivalent spokesman for some similar regional business in Kansas. Being "locally famous" in NYC is a lot different than being locally famous in Phoenix. Getting paid to do a spot on a NYC radio/TV station pays a ton more than doing a spot on a Green Bay area radio/TV station.
And you also have national/international brands that market regionally. Example: those Dunkin' Donuts adds featuring Red Sox players probably don't get shown in NYC. Their endorsement deals are going to pay the athletes based on the market they are going to target with them.