this is why the max salary needs to be raised, would they really take ~$17 million each if the max was $30 million?
I think an interesting idea is eliminating the max contract altogether. If someone wants to give LeBon $30M-$40M let them, and let them fill out their roster with MLE types. You'd get more competition for titles because you'd be pitting teams like that against teams with no super-duper stars but 3-4 very good players. In effect, the 2012 Celts vs the 2009 Cavs or similar matchups.
I don't think that would really change anything, they are taking pay cuts not asking for more money. Lebron would still be taking the same amount of money to play on a good team. Winning a championship probably results in $15M-$25M+ extra in apparel sales and endorsements for Lebron and also a lot of times pre-existing sponsorship deals have a bonus that kicks in if you win the finals.
They're taking small pay cuts. If there wasn't a max salary they never would have joined up in the first place. It's one thing for LeBron to give up 1M or so a year to help the team, it's another thing if he's giving up 15M+. I mean if they really wanted to help the team they'd all sign for the vet min, since none of them really need the money. But they won't. None of them do.
It's an interesting idea, but I think the max contract was put in place to protect teams from stupid GM's. Plus, the max is in place to encourage superstars to stay with their original team (the home team can offer the most). If there's no limit, then small market teams would suffer. The flaw in this whole thing is that superstars are signing contracts clearly below their market value.
What if...and this is just another crazy idea...there's an "NBA player appraiser" who would determine what range of salary a player can sign for.
I see your logic but I disagree that removing player maximums puts small market teams at a disadvantage. In fact, if anything I would say it's better for small market teams than the current system. If we didn't have a maximum salary, teams could only afford to pay market value to one star (perhaps two but with no supporting cast) and stay under the salary cap. That just means more stars to go around for small market teams. And having a maximum salary also puts more emphasis on the market you're going to. If you can only get a certain amount, and you're offered it by New York and Milwaukee, you're going to pick New York every time because it's more fun and there are more endorsement opportunities. Having no maximum at least gives Milwaukee a chance to compensate for being a smaller market by offering a higher salary. It's true that small market teams would no longer have the advantage of being able to offer the most money to their own free agents, but they'd also have a better chance of replacing free agents who leave. We'll never totally eliminate the advantage that big market teams have, but I think eliminating the max contract would help a lot.
I see your point and yes, you will pick NY almost every time because of those reasons you mentioned, but to highlight something you mentioned:
Having no maximum at least gives Milwaukee a chance to compensate for being a smaller market by offering a higher salary.
This assumes that New York won't match that, because after all, there's no more limit. If anything, the Bucks are in a worse slot because any big market team who wants their FA can offer exactly what they're offering. And on a year where many teams have cap space (like whenever LBJ enters free agency), if there's no max, then it'll look similar to how things currently are.
Maybe it should be a hybrid, where teams resigning their own players have no max, but teams luring other players are capped by a "max". That way, smaller market teams can keep their advantage and they can clearly outdo other bigger market teams. Of course, that doesn't protect teams from their stupid GMs who will sign Rashard Lewis to a 20m/yr contract
Anyway, more importantly (for me at least), taking out the max doesn't answer this whole "collusion"-esque thing that Miami is doing. Going back to my NBA player appraiser idea, what it really is proposing is something like a tiered-"minimum slalary" (instead of a maximum). For example, a guy like Lebron James (multiple time MVP, etc. etc.) won't be allowed to sign for less than the maximum (let's say, the max is pegged at 20M or something). At the time of his signing, Wade - who was all 1st NBA team, MVP candidate, etc. etc. - won't be able to sign for less than the maximum either. Meanwhile, a lesser star like Bosh (but who was still an all-star, etc. etc.) would have to sign for at least 16M, a tier below but still up there.
Getting rid of (or keeping) the max contract rule can still work in this type of structure, because nothing is stopping teams from signing LBJ to say, a 30M/yr contract. However, LBJ can't run off to his top-tier friends and create a superteam of his own because of the minimum salary.
Topic: Report: Bosh, Wade to opt out of deals (Read 8886 times)