Around the League > Around the NBA

The NBA should consider going to a hard cap

(1/3) > >>

slightly biased bias fan:
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?

max215:
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).

jambr380:

--- Quote from: max215 on September 18, 2017, 12:23:50 AM ---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).

--- End quote ---

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.

slightly biased bias fan:

--- Quote from: max215 on September 18, 2017, 12:23:50 AM ---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).

--- End quote ---

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?

max215:

--- Quote from: slightly biased bias fan on September 18, 2017, 12:35:11 AM ---
--- Quote from: max215 on September 18, 2017, 12:23:50 AM ---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).

--- End quote ---

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?

--- End quote ---

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page