Author Topic: The NBA should consider going to a hard cap  (Read 2362 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The NBA should consider going to a hard cap
« on: September 18, 2017, 12:04:55 AM »

Offline slightly biased bias fan

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1198
  • Tommy Points: 310
I know most would be against it but I believe it is in the best interest of the league. It is actually the players themselves who have made a mockery of the soft cap and the Durant/Warriors move has further pointed out the flaws. The reason for the soft cap and bird rights was so teams could develop their own stars and never be forced to lose them but with the shortness in contracts now and the levels of endorsements the players are receiving the lure of super teams are becoming stronger and stronger and is destroying any parity in the league. To counter this the NBA put in the luxury tax to attempt to scare teams off the prospect of a super team, but with a ever growing world audience, teams values and wealth of some owners, many teams have no problems with paying the luxury tax...but the majority of smaller market teams can't and this is actually accelerating the process of losing their stars. With a hard cap, this would make a 3-4 star team impossible and any previous arguments about forcing players to be moved on would be mute as they are already doing so on their own accord. With a more balanced league, games would be far more enjoyable, unpredictable and would make coaches like Pop and Stevens even more valuable.

Does anyone agree with me?

Re: The NBA should consider going to a hard cap
« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2017, 12:23:50 AM »

Offline max215

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8448
  • Tommy Points: 624
I'm not sure where you'd want a hard cap to fall, but it would likely be very bad for the Celtics regardless of what number it was set at, so no, I would not be in favor of a hard cap (in addition to the one that already exists in some scenarios).
Isaiah, you were lightning in a bottle.

DKC Clippers

Re: The NBA should consider going to a hard cap
« Reply #2 on: September 18, 2017, 12:34:08 AM »

Offline jambr380

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13002
  • Tommy Points: 1756
  • Everybody knows what's best for you
I'm not sure where you'd want a hard cap to fall, but it would likely be very bad for the Celtics regardless of what number it was set at, so no, I would not be in favor of a hard cap (in addition to the one that already exists in some scenarios).

It has been fun watching Belichick and the Patriots outgenius everybody else in the NFL, but the current Cs would be screwed if this were to happen. We currently have three max contract guys and are developing three high draft picks on rookie scale contracts (with another still to come). Under a hard cap, the Cs would either have to plan on dumping Irving, Hayward, and Horford OR trade Tatum, Brown, and Smart at some point.

I think because of how small the rosters are and how important just a couple of guys can be to a team in the NBA, it might not work the same as it does in the NFL where you sign your big contract guys and then fill in the dozens of other roster spots with players that fit your system. Superteams are a problem, but mostly because of the cap jump and the 2nd best player in the NBA taking much less than he actually should be making. The former will work out itself, while the latter could get even worse with better endorsement opportunities for the top players.

Re: The NBA should consider going to a hard cap
« Reply #3 on: September 18, 2017, 12:35:11 AM »

Offline slightly biased bias fan

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1198
  • Tommy Points: 310
I'm not sure where you'd want a hard cap to fall, but it would likely be very bad for the Celtics regardless of what number it was set at, so no, I would not be in favor of a hard cap (in addition to the one that already exists in some scenarios).

The hard cap I am talking about is a firm hard cap that the NFL and NHL has. I know that in the short term it won't help Celtics (thus why I know most on here won't agree) but having someone like Ainge, Stevens and our ownership would actually become more valuable as you can see with Patriots, the only constant during their 5 championships is ownership, BB and TB. During the Patriots Era of the NFL there has still been 8 different Super Bowl winners, and many different finalists...since 1980 in the NBA there has only been 10 different winners total.

Jordan went on record saying he will never pay the luxury tax, why would you follow the Hornets knowing that essentially you will never win nor make The Finals of the NBA?

Re: The NBA should consider going to a hard cap
« Reply #4 on: September 18, 2017, 01:02:30 AM »

Offline max215

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8448
  • Tommy Points: 624
I'm not sure where you'd want a hard cap to fall, but it would likely be very bad for the Celtics regardless of what number it was set at, so no, I would not be in favor of a hard cap (in addition to the one that already exists in some scenarios).

The hard cap I am talking about is a firm hard cap that the NFL and NHL has. I know that in the short term it won't help Celtics (thus why I know most on here won't agree) but having someone like Ainge, Stevens and our ownership would actually become more valuable as you can see with Patriots, the only constant during their 5 championships is ownership, BB and TB. During the Patriots Era of the NFL there has still been 8 different Super Bowl winners, and many different finalists...since 1980 in the NBA there has only been 10 different winners total.

Jordan went on record saying he will never pay the luxury tax, why would you follow the Hornets knowing that essentially you will never win nor make The Finals of the NBA?

I'd argue the hard cap is very much not the cause of the NBA's lack of parity, but rather basketball's inherent reliance on superstars--a hard cap won't change that. As for avoiding the tax, it is possible to win a championship without paying the tax. It's hard to build a dynasty, but that's near impossible anyway. Heck, you could probably argue that a refusal to pay the tax is beneficial in many situations, given that it would prevent situations like the current Blazers.
Isaiah, you were lightning in a bottle.

DKC Clippers

Re: The NBA should consider going to a hard cap
« Reply #5 on: September 18, 2017, 01:17:00 AM »

Offline slightly biased bias fan

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1198
  • Tommy Points: 310
I'm not sure where you'd want a hard cap to fall, but it would likely be very bad for the Celtics regardless of what number it was set at, so no, I would not be in favor of a hard cap (in addition to the one that already exists in some scenarios).

The hard cap I am talking about is a firm hard cap that the NFL and NHL has. I know that in the short term it won't help Celtics (thus why I know most on here won't agree) but having someone like Ainge, Stevens and our ownership would actually become more valuable as you can see with Patriots, the only constant during their 5 championships is ownership, BB and TB. During the Patriots Era of the NFL there has still been 8 different Super Bowl winners, and many different finalists...since 1980 in the NBA there has only been 10 different winners total.

Jordan went on record saying he will never pay the luxury tax, why would you follow the Hornets knowing that essentially you will never win nor make The Finals of the NBA?

I'd argue the hard cap is very much not the cause of the NBA's lack of parity, but rather basketball's inherent reliance on superstars--a hard cap won't change that. As for avoiding the tax, it is possible to win a championship without paying the tax. It's hard to build a dynasty, but that's near impossible anyway. Heck, you could probably argue that a refusal to pay the tax is beneficial in many situations, given that it would prevent situations like the current Blazers.

I know there will never be complete parity but there has become a Warriors vacuum and we are seeing the results of what a modern soft cap is now, George left the Pacers because they are getting decimated, Chicago had to move on from Butler because they were getting decimated, we got Hayward for that exact reason and we may see Westbrook, George (again) and Lebron move teams too. The competitiveness in the league is almost at an all time low, even during the Jordan Era there were multiple teams that were challengers (Suns/Rockets/Knicks/Jazz/Magic/Pacers/Sonics/Spurs), last season we all knew the two teams in the Finals and it was even less competitive than we thought.

Re: The NBA should consider going to a hard cap
« Reply #6 on: September 18, 2017, 03:30:53 AM »

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
I'm not sure where you'd want a hard cap to fall, but it would likely be very bad for the Celtics regardless of what number it was set at, so no, I would not be in favor of a hard cap (in addition to the one that already exists in some scenarios).

It has been fun watching Belichick and the Patriots outgenius everybody else in the NFL, but the current Cs would be screwed if this were to happen. We currently have three max contract guys and are developing three high draft picks on rookie scale contracts (with another still to come). Under a hard cap, the Cs would either have to plan on dumping Irving, Hayward, and Horford OR trade Tatum, Brown, and Smart at some point.

I think because of how small the rosters are and how important just a couple of guys can be to a team in the NBA, it might not work the same as it does in the NFL where you sign your big contract guys and then fill in the dozens of other roster spots with players that fit your system. Superteams are a problem, but mostly because of the cap jump and the 2nd best player in the NBA taking much less than he actually should be making. The former will work out itself, while the latter could get even worse with better endorsement opportunities for the top players.

I would actually be in favour of this idea I think, even if it does hurt the Celtics short term  I feel it is the only way to achieve genuine parity in the league. 

The fact is, the way the NBA runs right now, it is built to allow the strong teams to get stronger, while the weak teams keep getting weaker.  Teams are allowed to go over the cap in order to sign vet-min guys, so elite teams like Cleveland, Golden State and San Antonio keep getting more and more elite because they always have a never-ending stream of veterans who are willing to take minimum contracts just for the chance to try and cop a free ride to a championship.  Meanwhile weaker teams in small markets can't sign free agents even if they want to, because the vast majority of quality players have zero interest in gong there.

Look at what the Cavs did to get to where they are.  They extended Kyrie, signed Lebron, then extended Kevin Love to a massive deal.  At the time those three guys took up pretty much their entire cap, but they used good old bird rights to throw $10M at Shumpert, $16M at Tristan Thompson (etc) and however many $m extra at other random vets to fill out that roster - and they got a championship for it. 

If you have  a hard cap in place, suddenly a team like the Cavs needs to think long and hard about their decisions.  Maybe they re-sign Kyrie, Sign Lebron - have to think twice about signing Love, knowing they wouldn't have enough pieces to fill out the roster.  Or maybe they do sign love, keep Shumpert, but have to let Tristan Thompson walk because they don't have the cap space.   Maybe when they have 3 or 4 extra vets offering their vet-min services, they can only take one of those guys instead of 3 of them.

Now suddenly all of those extra guys (be it Love, Thompson, or those extra vet min players) can't sign with Cleveland - so it puts them on the market for other teams to pursue, and hence you end up "spreading the wealth" between teams, so to speak.

Now you can no longer have 3 or 4 SuperTeams who have loaded rosters because their filthy rich owners don't think twice about playing luxury tax.  If players want to, for whatever reason, join together and make a superteam - then they would need to take MASSIVE pay cuts in order to do it.  And by MASSIVE I mean like Kyrie taking $10M instead of $20M, or Lebron taking $19M/Yr instead of $30M/Yr - that scale of massive.  And if a player wants to win that badly that he's willing to sacrifice $50M over 5 years to do it, then good luck to him - many (most, even) will not be willing to do that.

And for Boston, I don't think it honestly does hurt us.  We would likely have to choose two out of our three max contacts to move forward with, and cut the third.  Based on our youth movement, I would guess that would mean keeping Kyrie and Hayward, dropping/trading Horford to somebody for a lesser paid big man who can still produce. 

But you know why that is ok?  Because we wouldn't be the ONLY team who'd have to cut guys. 

Cleveland are currently paying $85.4M to Lebron James, Kevin Love, Isaiah Thomas, Tristan Thompson and Jae Crowder.  With the Cap at $99M, that leaves just under $14M left for them to fill out their roster.  That means they HAVE to cut JR Smith ($13.7M) because he'd take up their entire bench cap on his own.  That leaves them with Shumpert ($10.3M), Kyle Korver ($7M) and Channing Frye ($7.4M) still taking up$24.7M, so they can probably realistically only keep one of those three guys.  I'm thinking if you had to choose, you keep Korver - so that means Shumpert and Fry are gone.   Now you have $92.4M in salaries being paid to only 6 players (Lebron, Love, Thomas, Thompson, Crowder. Korver) - leaving you with $7.6M left to fill out the rest of your roster.  We add Derrick Rose ($1.5M), that puts us at $93.9M total. You probably keep Jeff Green ($1.5M) over Richard Jefferson ($2.5M) for his youth and flexibility - so that puts you at $95.4M total.  Add Zizic ($1.6M) as their only real backup center and you're at $97m all up. 

So now Clevleand's roster is:

Isaiah Thomas
Jae Crowder
Lebron James
Kevin Love
Tristan Thompson
Derrick Rose
Kyle Korver
Jeff Green
Ante Zizic

With $2M left to add one more vet-min bench guy.  Strong starting five, but that bench (other then Rose) will get punished big time.  And they would have no option to re-sign Thomas after the season, unless Lebron and IT agree to both sign for like $15M apiece - highly unlikely.

Similar deal with the Warriors, who have $97.1M currently allocated to their starting 5 of Curry/Thompson/Durant/Green/Pachulia.  That leaves $2m for a bench - not going to happen.  They're not cutting Curry or Durant, so they'd need to scrap Thompson or Green...and they'd also need to cut Iggy ($14.8M).  That's the bare minimum before they could start working on assembling a team.. And Warriors are great still, but once you remove Thompson/Green and Iggy the go from "unbeatable" to "exceptional, but beatable".

For Boston we'd be ok by Comparison.  Our bi three of Hayward/Kyrie/Horford only take up $75M..so we could keep Tatum and Brown and still have $14M left or so to fill out our roster.  We'd be able to compete with Clevleand and GS due to our depth. 

Everything bcomes more even, more fair.

Re: The NBA should consider going to a hard cap
« Reply #7 on: September 18, 2017, 06:54:39 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20000
  • Tommy Points: 1323
Quote
I would actually be in favour of this idea I think, even if it does hurt the Celtics short term  I feel it is the only way to achieve genuine parity in the league. 

Does anyone really think that parity is good for any league.   It is not good for certain to dominate all the time but windows close pretty fast in the NBA.   I think the good teams are good for ratings.  I think that the league likes them and will do nothing to change unless said windows do not close.

Re: The NBA should consider going to a hard cap
« Reply #8 on: September 18, 2017, 08:36:52 AM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7489
  • Tommy Points: 741
Is parity really a concern? Over the last 10 years, 7 different teams have won the championship. 9 different teams have made the finals. Sure the Warriors look like they're going to dominate for the next 5 years but they have to actually do it before I start worrying.

And this has been written about before, but I see the Warriors as an aberration and not something to build the rules around. The cap spike that allowed the Warriors the space to bring in Durant is not likely going to happen again and the only reason Durant is still there this season is because he took a massive pay cut, which is something a hard cap couldn't stop anyway.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: The NBA should consider going to a hard cap
« Reply #9 on: September 18, 2017, 08:38:03 AM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34023
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
Quote
I would actually be in favour of this idea I think, even if it does hurt the Celtics short term  I feel it is the only way to achieve genuine parity in the league. 

Does anyone really think that parity is good for any league.   It is not good for certain to dominate all the time but windows close pretty fast in the NBA.   I think the good teams are good for ratings.  I think that the league likes them and will do nothing to change unless said windows do not close.


I don't think there will be true parity.   Teams with the top superstars (and good GM for cheap talent) would still drive the league.


I do think that teams not feeling hopeless will drive more of the local fans to follow and if the playoffs didn't feel like a waiting period for the top two teams to meet, it would be better for the game.   

Re: The NBA should consider going to a hard cap
« Reply #10 on: September 18, 2017, 08:39:16 AM »

Offline dreamgreen

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3558
  • Tommy Points: 182
I'm in favor of a hard cap. There are many ways to do it and make it work IMO, there could be a few exceptions to help teams keep their draft picks but not add free agents. I'm sure many people could create one, I already have something in mind.

Re: The NBA should consider going to a hard cap
« Reply #11 on: September 18, 2017, 09:23:31 AM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34023
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
I still think the biggest issue going to a hard cap is the guaranteed contracts.   Too often players teams may want to keep will leave because a bad contract (that may have been a good contract at some point)


But, I doubt we will ever see that go away.   

Re: The NBA should consider going to a hard cap
« Reply #12 on: September 18, 2017, 09:39:11 AM »

Offline furball

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 938
  • Tommy Points: 95
Salary caps don't create parity.  The league with the most parity?  Baseball.  The league with no salary cap...Baseball.  The NFL has a salary cap and the Pats were picked to win every game this year.  Salary caps only keep owners from spending their money, they have no effect on parity. 

The NBA will never have parity because you only play 5 guys at a time and your best player (s) can play most of the game and get the ball every time down court.  In baseball you have to bat through your order and your ace can only pitch once every 5 days.  In Football, no matter how good your QB is, if the players around him suck, he can't win.  In Hockey you best line plays in 60 second stints.  In the NBA the dominate player will always be in contention weather it's Lebron, Curry, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Russel.  There is no way of stopping that aside from going to the rule we used to have in rec league (and still may) in my town where everyone played in 5 minute stretches and then subbed out. 

The difference back in the day (before the turn of the century) was that with the old illegal defense rule there were many different ways you could play and be successful.  The Celtics played the ultimate team game.  The Lakers had the Showtime offense.  The Bulls and Hawks went with the one superstar and a bunch of role players.  Houston had the twin towers, the Pistons played dirty.  You could basically find what ever worked best for you team and make it work.  Now, once they changed the illegal defense rule (and ruined the league), there is only one way to play if you want to win.  Pace and space.  That's it.  Zones dictate this.  It's been the same way in college since they added the three point line and now it's what the NBA is.  The Warriors are the best at it, due to their personnel, so they are the dominate team. 

If the NBA, or any league, wanted to up the parity they would eliminate teams and concentrate the player pool.  They will NEVER do this (hell aren't they talking about expanding again?) so it makes one dominate player even more dominate.  It also means that if one team can manage to accumulate a bunch of talent they will have a huge advantage.  like say.... Golden State.

 


Re: The NBA should consider going to a hard cap
« Reply #13 on: September 18, 2017, 09:51:01 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
And you really can't use the Patriots as an example of how good management benefits a team with a hard cap because Tom Brady is a unicorn.  Not just because of his football skill, but also because he basically his whole career has accepted a contract significantly less than his true market value.  If Brady was being paid the going rate for a top 2 QB the last decade plus, the Patriots cap situation would look a lot different as would the team. 

You also can't use the last couple of seasons in the NBA to show the system doesn't work because of the weird cap rising mechanisms.  Let's just see what happens when guys like Klay Thompson and Draymond Green are eligible for 35 million + a year on a team that already has Curry making 40+ and whatever Durant will be at that time.  Do you really think the Warriors are going to pay 4 players the max when 3 puts them at or over the cap such that basically an entire max contract of one of those guys is all taxed, not to mention the 11 other players on the roster?  Start adding in repeater tax and see what happens.  Those teams won't stay together.

I'd be opposed to any system where a team like Oklahoma City couldn't keep all of the players it drafted together.  I mean the current system "forced" them to trade Harden, under a hard cap they would have lost Ibaka and Perkins as well and just been Durant and Westbrook.  No team should have to give up all but a couple of drafted players because of an artificial salary structure.

The one thing I'd like to see is the removal of individual max contracts.  If some team has 60 million in cap room (or his current team) and wants to give it to Lebron.  They should be able to.  If you take out the individual salary constraints, it would probably help a bit with player movement and the creation of super teams.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip