Riddle me this...

[Ogaju]

should NBA address ring chasing and its diluting effect on the salary cap?

So for example we have a superstar like say..... Kevin Durant (probably the best player in the league). Problem is Mr. Durant did not have a championship ring placing his legacy and endorsement capacity at risk. In comes shoe company X with an idea. 'Hey Mr. Durant you can make us a lot of money endorsing our shoes if only you could win one two or three NBA rings. Why dont you join the best team in the league and increase your chance of winning those rings'. Durant says well yeah I can join the GSW, but with my max contract they will lose the necessary supporting players that make them the best team in the league.  Shoe company X says dont take the max, we will compensate you with a huge endorsement contract the make up for the reduction you take on your contract. So problem solved Durant forms super team circumvents the salary cap by getting part of his max contract from shoe company X. Works out well for both as Durant wins his three rings and sells more shoes for the shoe company that made it all happen.

Moral of the story is .... superstars should not be allowed to take less money otherwise you might as well scrap the salary cap.

If you disagree with this, what stops LeBron from taking 2 million a year to play for GSW? He sure does not need the money, and if he does Nike can just raise his endorsement contract.

The problem is this, I can afford to make 10-15,000 less than I do now, that doesn't mean I want to. Kevin Durant is making $25 million. It's not like we're talking chump change. I think this us much to do about nothing.

A poster in this thread just attributed the Spurs success in the 2000s partly to this practice, so I do not think it is much to do about nothing. It is real, the question is whether you are okay with it or not. At least the other poster likes it because he thinks the Celtics may be well positioned to take advantage of the practice in the near future.

[Ogaju]

Just to clarify for those who are misinterpreting the OP.

i respect the right of any player playing for less than they can command on the open market.

My post was about the effect of this practice on the salary cap and the competition in the NBA.

I am also concerned that the practice is subject to collusion by outside entities to compensate players outside the cap.

[KGs Knee]

Obviously the American education system has failed since neither one of you have the foggiest idea what communism is. 

So, who does own the means of production in the nba and where are the lumpen proletariat? And, is this from each according to their ability and to each according to their need? 

I'm well aware of what actual communism is and isn't.  And I'm not too concerned with what your impression of what my level or quality of education may or may not be is, as it is rather irrelevant.

My comment was merely meant to be a cheeky reply to a rather absurd premise.  The idea that a player should not be free to accept whatever salary they so choose is beyond the pale and not worthy of a serious reply.

You are still missing the point. The point is not the players' freedom to accept whatever salary they choose. First, they cannot accept any salary because their right to contract is limited by the salary cap, but more important they can still accept whatever they want subject to the cap so your point is moot. The gist of the OP that you have chosen to ignore or do not understand is the impact on the salary cap of player's taking discount, and not the player's right to take the discount.

I understand your point perfectly well.   And I think it's nuts.

I don't care if a player taking less than their market value gives a team a leg up on the rest of the league. If that is what a player wants to do so be it, that should be their choice. Telling them they have to play for an amount someone else determined is 'fair' is ridiculous.

[Ogaju]

Obviously the American education system has failed since neither one of you have the foggiest idea what communism is. 

So, who does own the means of production in the nba and where are the lumpen proletariat? And, is this from each according to their ability and to each according to their need? 

I'm well aware of what actual communism is and isn't.  And I'm not too concerned with what your impression of what my level or quality of education may or may not be is, as it is rather irrelevant.

My comment was merely meant to be a cheeky reply to a rather absurd premise.  The idea that a player should not be free to accept whatever salary they so choose is beyond the pale and not worthy of a serious reply.

You are still missing the point. The point is not the players' freedom to accept whatever salary they choose. First, they cannot accept any salary because their right to contract is limited by the salary cap, but more important they can still accept whatever they want subject to the cap so your point is moot. The gist of the OP that you have chosen to ignore or do not understand is the impact on the salary cap of player's taking discount, and not the player's right to take the discount.

I understand your point perfectly well.   And I think it's nuts.

I don't care if a player taking less than their market value gives a team a leg up on the rest of the league. If that is what a player wants to do so be it, that should be their choice. Telling them they have to play for an amount someone else determined is 'fair' is ridiculous.

Nope, never said that. So clearly you do not understand my point.

[KGs Knee]

Obviously the American education system has failed since neither one of you have the foggiest idea what communism is. 

So, who does own the means of production in the nba and where are the lumpen proletariat? And, is this from each according to their ability and to each according to their need? 

I'm well aware of what actual communism is and isn't.  And I'm not too concerned with what your impression of what my level or quality of education may or may not be is, as it is rather irrelevant.

My comment was merely meant to be a cheeky reply to a rather absurd premise.  The idea that a player should not be free to accept whatever salary they so choose is beyond the pale and not worthy of a serious reply.

You are still missing the point. The point is not the players' freedom to accept whatever salary they choose. First, they cannot accept any salary because their right to contract is limited by the salary cap, but more important they can still accept whatever they want subject to the cap so your point is moot. The gist of the OP that you have chosen to ignore or do not understand is the impact on the salary cap of player's taking discount, and not the player's right to take the discount.

I understand your point perfectly well.   And I think it's nuts.

I don't care if a player taking less than their market value gives a team a leg up on the rest of the league. If that is what a player wants to do so be it, that should be their choice. Telling them they have to play for an amount someone else determined is 'fair' is ridiculous.

Nope, never said that. So clearly you do not understand my point.

Moral of the story is .... superstars should not be allowed to take less money otherwise you might as well scrap the salary cap.

You said as much right here.

EDIT: I removed my unnecessary snarky comment.  But please do explain what you mean here, because it sure does seem like you are saying certain players should be "told" what salary they are allowed to play for.