Warriors + Cousins = the NBA HAS JUMPED THE SHARK

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

How about an open auction for free agents? They can choose to take less from their home team, but if they become free agents, they have to go to the highest bidder. If they get equal bids, they may choose. The only way a home team can force a player to stay is to offer the supermax. This might actually be good for players because they will not be continually asked to take discounts etc. I have a hunch the players association would go for that.

That wouldn't be Free Agency. Not all players are motivated simply by money. Some may take 5-10% less to be in a perceived better market, to be closer to home, a system fit, an historic/iconic franchise, or a team ready to win.

 

[JCSunsfan]

That wouldn't be Free Agency. Not all players are motivated simply by money. Some may take 5-10% less to be in a perceived better market, to be closer to home, a system fit, an historic/iconic franchise, or a team ready to win.

But that is the point--limiting player movement that produces super teams.

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

But that is the point--limiting player movement that produces super teams.

Players fought for years for free agency, there is no taking that away...

 

[Phrazbit]

How about an open auction for free agents? They can choose to take less from their home team, but if they become free agents, they have to go to the highest bidder. If they get equal bids, they may choose. The only way a home team can force a player to stay is to offer the supermax. This might actually be good for players because they will not be continually asked to take discounts etc. I have a hunch the players association would go for that.

They would never ever go for that. Sorry, but they, just like anyone else, should have a right to work where they please.

Again, just get rid of the max salary. Why do you not see that as a solution? Not only would it assuredly work, but the players would be all about it.

The only reason teams can amass stars and stay below the soft cap is because the best players are having their salaries artificially deflated.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Players fought for years for free agency, there is no taking that away...

They would never ever go for that. Sorry, but they, just like anyone else, should have a right to work where they please.

Again, just get rid of the max salary. Why do you not see that as a solution? Not only would it assuredly work, but the players would be all about it.

The only reason teams can amass stars and stay below the soft cap is because the best players are having their salaries artificially deflated.

Mike (the name of your chicken), you keep saying this, but none of us are buying it. Getting rid of the max salary will not fix this situation, it will just congregate players on teams that can afford it like LAL and NYK. Are you talking about getting rid of the max salary and STILL having a salary cap and lux tax?

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

Mike (the name of your chicken), you keep saying this, but none of us are buying it. Getting rid of the max salary will not fix this situation, it will just congregate players on teams that can afford it like LAL and NYK. Are you talking about getting rid of the max salary and STILL having a salary cap and lux tax?

That's precisely what he means. You would still have a salary cap, but no cap on how much you can offer a single player. It would be nearly impossible to build super-teams when one player could command as much as 50-60% of the cap.

 

[Phrazbit]

Mike (the name of your chicken), you keep saying this, but none of us are buying it. Getting rid of the max salary will not fix this situation, it will just congregate players on teams that can afford it like LAL and NYK. Are you talking about getting rid of the max salary and STILL having a salary cap and lux tax?

Yes, obviously.

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

That's precisely what he means. You would still have a salary cap, but no cap on how much you can offer a single player. It would be nearly impossible to build super-teams when one player could command as much as 50-60% of the cap.

Unless you still get an anomaly team like the Warriors who--at least for a few years--puts winning ahead of Max compensation.

 

[Phrazbit]

Unless you still get an anomaly team like the Warriors who--at least for a few years--puts winning ahead of Max compensation.

Nope, because Durant would have been looking at like 7 years 300 million. Warriors couldn't sniff it.

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

Nope, because Durant would have been looking at like 7 years 300 million. Warriors couldn't sniff it.

He's already sacrificed 15mill+ since joining the dubs. At this point in his career, he is all about chips...if he gets to another, he may feel 3 is enough and go after the money (reason for such a short deal).

 

[Phrazbit]

He's already sacrificed 15mill+ since joining the dubs. At this point in his career, he is all about chips...if he gets to another, he may feel 3 is enough and go after the money (reason for such a short deal).

15 mil is way different than a few hundred mil.

Especially when the other big stars are hauling in that dough. It's no longer a sacrifice of a few mil a year... it's making a third of what other stars do.

 

[Hoop Head]

They would never ever go for that. Sorry, but they, just like anyone else, should have a right to work where they please.

Again, just get rid of the max salary. Why do you not see that as a solution? Not only would it assuredly work, but the players would be all about it.

The only reason teams can amass stars and stay below the soft cap is because the best players are having their salaries artificially deflated.

The issue with getting rid of max salaries is teams like the Lakers and Knicks could offer someone like Lebron the same amount that the entire Bucks roster receives. Then they could throw another offer at KD that is about the same. Eliminating max contracts would only benefit the large markets that are able to ignore luxury tax fines right now. It's not as simple as abolishing them to solve the issue. Plus the poor will get much poorer in a world where there is no max salary. All players and agents would be aiming for high salaries. Maybe some borderline all-stars aren't worth what Lebron got but they're worth 1/2 or 2/3. All salaries will be proportioned similarly where the best players make bank but the tier below them come close.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

The issue with getting rid of max salaries is teams like the Lakers and Knicks could offer someone like Lebron the same amount that the entire Bucks roster receives. Then they could throw another offer at KD that is about the same. Eliminating max contracts would only benefit the large markets that are able to ignore luxury tax fines right now. It's not as simple as abolishing them to solve the issue. Plus the poor will get much poorer in a world where there is no max salary. All players and agents would be aiming for high salaries. Maybe some borderline all-stars aren't worth what Lebron got but they're worth 1/2 or 2/3. All salaries will be proportioned similarly where the best players make bank but the tier below them come close.

Have to disagree. There would still be a salary cap to work around. Say they offered LeBron a contract at 50m/year, they would have to be 50m under the cap in the first place and then would have to be another 40-50m under the cap to sign the other big name player to a similar salary. It would be nearly impossible to build a legit super team (3-5 all NBA caliber players) if a single player is using 50-60% of the cap.

 

[Phrazbit]

The issue with getting rid of max salaries is teams like the Lakers and Knicks could offer someone like Lebron the same amount that the entire Bucks roster receives. Then they could throw another offer at KD that is about the same. Eliminating max contracts would only benefit the large markets that are able to ignore luxury tax fines right now. It's not as simple as abolishing them to solve the issue. Plus the poor will get much poorer in a world where there is no max salary. All players and agents would be aiming for high salaries. Maybe some borderline all-stars aren't worth what Lebron got but they're worth 1/2 or 2/3. All salaries will be proportioned similarly where the best players make bank but the tier below them come close.

Sigh... not if you still have the soft cap. Just like now, they can't offer a free agent if it puts them over the soft cap.

It would have zero effect on small vs big market.

Also worth noting, the highest tax payer in the league is OKC, who I suspect is also the smallest market.

 

[Hoop Head]

Sigh... not if you still have the soft cap. Just like now, they can't offer a free agent if it puts them over the soft cap.

It would have zero effect on small vs big market.

Also worth noting, the highest tax payer in the league is OKC, who I suspect is also the smallest market.

That isn't guaranteed to stop anything. Some players will take deals to sign for less so their team can sign more players. If they can accept any salary and there are no limits what's stopping 3 players from splitting the cap amongst them to form a super team and winning a title? Nothing. Without a max they can do whatever they want. With the max salary it creates a market value for them. It's better to have it than not.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

That isn't guaranteed to stop anything. Some players will take deals to sign for less so their team can sign more players. If they can accept any salary and there are no limits what's stopping 3 players from splitting the cap amongst them to form a super team and winning a title? Nothing. Without a max they can do whatever they want. With the max salary it creates a market value for them. It's better to have it than not.

Sure they could take less to form a dominant core, but the point is that they would be taking WAY less. For instance the cap this year is 101m and feasibly 3 players could get together and decide to make it work where they each get like 25-30m apiece, but would only be losing out on like 10m/year that they could get elsewhere. However now imagine that with no max contracts one of those three players gets offered 50-60m/year on a multi-year deal to play somewhere else. They would be passing up a contract that could potentially be worth more than twice what the other situation could offer. These guys who are taking discounts aren't playing for half of what they could be getting, but for like 75-85% of what they could be getting. Just a completely different scenario.

 

[Phrazbit]

That isn't guaranteed to stop anything. Some players will take deals to sign for less so their team can sign more players. If they can accept any salary and there are no limits what's stopping 3 players from splitting the cap amongst them to form a super team and winning a title? Nothing. Without a max they can do whatever they want. With the max salary it creates a market value for them. It's better to have it than not.

If the other stars are on 300 million dollar contracts you honestly think a guy like Durant is going to sign for 3 years, 60-70 mil? No chance. We're not talking about missing out on a few million, at that point it's beyond sacrifice, it's insane.

Right now nothing is stopping 5 guys from chopping up a cap, because they don't sacrifice much because the max contract deflates the wages of the best players. No way you're going to see multiple players gang up and throw away a chance at hundreds of millions, especially when the other guys of their skill level are getting that money.

You also would see the salaries of the not yet stars and marginal stars drop, because again, the real stars would actually get paid their value.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

How about an open auction for free agents? They can choose to take less from their home team, but if they become free agents, they have to go to the highest bidder. If they get equal bids, they may choose. The only way a home team can force a player to stay is to offer the supermax. This might actually be good for players because they will not be continually asked to take discounts etc. I have a hunch the players association would go for that.

I know (hope and assume) you mentioned this unwittingly, but did you just really recommend an auction for a league that is predominantly African American?

 

[Hoop Head]

Sure they could take less to form a dominant core, but the point is that they would be taking WAY less. For instance the cap this year is 101m and feasibly 3 players could get together and decide to make it work where they each get like 25-30m apiece, but would only be losing out on like 10m/year that they could get elsewhere. However now imagine that with no max contracts one of those three players gets offered 50-60m/year on a multi-year deal to play somewhere else. They would be passing up a contract that could potentially be worth more than twice what the other situation could offer. These guys who are taking discounts aren't playing for half of what they could be getting, but for like 75-85% of what they could be getting. Just a completely different scenario.

If the other stars are on 300 million dollar contracts you honestly think a guy like Durant is going to sign for 3 years, 60-70 mil? No chance. We're not talking about missing out on a few million, at that point it's beyond sacrifice, it's insane.

Right now nothing is stopping 5 guys from chopping up a cap, because they don't sacrifice much because the max contract deflates the wages of the best players. No way you're going to see multiple players gang up and throw away a chance at hundreds of millions, especially when the other guys of their skill level are getting that money.

You also would see the salaries of the not yet stars and marginal stars drop, because again, the real stars would actually get paid their value.

I see what you guys are saying but I think the system is too broken to implement a fix like that. It would cause all deals to increase, substantially. I think mid-level salaries would become a thing of the past. Players would sign for maximum money or minimum, hoping to win a ring.

I'm not sure what the solution is. Another thing I heard that is a little more complex is creating a tier system. All players fall in one of so many tiers, say there is 6 or 7. Tier 1 is your minimum deals for aging vets or undrafted rookies. Tier 2 would be a little more, in the $2-5 million dollar range that fringe rotation players get. Tier 3 would be rotation players and questionable starters, paying them $5.1 million to $10, Tier 4 would pay between $10.1 and $16 for starters. Tier 5 would be All-Stars or centerpieces. Paying them between $17m to $22-23. Then max deals for All-NBA talent at the top between $23-$30 million. Stats from the previous year decides where they fall. Signing multi-year deals would be encouraged also because a player would be locked in at the highest tier they qualify for.

It would take some work but I think it could be done. The problem now, I think, is there aren't enough mid-level contracts. Very few players are paid what they're worth. Either they're overpaid or underpaid. Not much of a middle ground.

Perhaps a team could be limited as far as how many "max" players they can have. Don't allow any team to have more than max salaries on the books. There would need to be something that would keep players from taking a small discount that would allow their team to bypass it because they're not technically making the max. Perhaps 2 salary caps, or 3, 1 set salary number to sign your starters, 1 for rookies and young players, and another for veterans coming off the bench.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I know (hope and assume) you mentioned this unwittingly, but did you just really recommend an auction for a league that is predominantly African American?

Yeah. It brings to mind the mini-scandal that ESPN recently went though for their poorly thought out fantasy draft auction.

 

[JCSunsfan]

I know (hope and assume) you mentioned this unwittingly, but did you just really recommend an auction for a league that is predominantly African American?

I do not know what else to call it.

I am warming to Mike's idea of no max deals IF there is a harder soft cap in place. The max contract is this arbitrary number that every good player thinks he deserves. Once a specific number is out of the picture, some superstar players might get more, but other players will likely get less.

 

[Phrazbit]

I see what you guys are saying but I think the system is too broken to implement a fix like that. It would cause all deals to increase, substantially. I think mid-level salaries would become a thing of the past. Players would sign for maximum money or minimum, hoping to win a ring.

I'm not sure what the solution is. Another thing I heard that is a little more complex is creating a tier system. All players fall in one of so many tiers, say there is 6 or 7. Tier 1 is your minimum deals for aging vets or undrafted rookies. Tier 2 would be a little more, in the $2-5 million dollar range that fringe rotation players get. Tier 3 would be rotation players and questionable starters, paying them $5.1 million to $10, Tier 4 would pay between $10.1 and $16 for starters. Tier 5 would be All-Stars or centerpieces. Paying them between $17m to $22-23. Then max deals for All-NBA talent at the top between $23-$30 million. Stats from the previous year decides where they fall. Signing multi-year deals would be encouraged also because a player would be locked in at the highest tier they qualify for.

It would take some work but I think it could be done. The problem now, I think, is there aren't enough mid-level contracts. Very few players are paid what they're worth. Either they're overpaid or underpaid. Not much of a middle ground.

Perhaps a team could be limited as far as how many "max" players they can have. Don't allow any team to have more than max salaries on the books. There would need to be something that would keep players from taking a small discount that would allow their team to bypass it because they're not technically making the max. Perhaps 2 salary caps, or 3, 1 set salary number to sign your starters, 1 for rookies and young players, and another for veterans coming off the bench.

The max contract is the reason there is no middle tier. Good but not great players are getting wildly overpaid, superstars and true role players are getting underpaid.

I don't think the system is as broken as you think and I think and end to max deals would fix most of your complaints.

 

[SunsFanFirst]

I know (hope and assume) you mentioned this unwittingly, but did you just really recommend an auction for a league that is predominantly African American?

So if the league were predominantly white an auction would be ok? And if not, are we as an american society never allowed to use an auction format again for anything? When you hear/see/think people of color today why do you associate them with slaves? We are talking about extremely well paid, admirable, professionals who desire to be in this arena. It is in no way comparable to ripping someone from their life/home and shipping them across the world and forcing them to do things against their will and treating them as lesser beings. Why do you not have a problem with trading athletes? Using your logic, isnt that just as offensive as an auction?

That said, I feel your heart is in the right place but thought you should be aware of how offensive and malaligned your comment/logic is.

 

[Phrazbit]

So if the league were predominantly white an auction would be ok? And if not, are we as an american society never allowed to use an auction format again for anything? When you hear/see/think people of color today why do you associate them with slaves? We are talking about extremely well paid, admirable, professionals who desire to be in this arena. It is in no way comparable to ripping someone from their life/home and shipping them across the world and forcing them to do things against their will and treating them as lesser beings. Why do you not have a problem with trading athletes? Using your logic, isnt that just as offensive as an auction?

That said, I feel your heart is in the right place but thought you should be aware of how offensive and malaligned your comment/logic is.

Eh, not really. We're not even a generation removed from Jim Crow. I don't want to get into this kind of debate here. But people SHOULD be aware that auctioning people's physical skill smacks of slavery.

There is no industry in America where that would be remotely acceptable.

 

[Western Font]

I don’t see why the players would be interested in that anyway: it removes the agency from free agency. They wouldn’t have control over where they sign, they wouldn’t have control over how much they make (they don’t dictate the figure now what they can negotiate it), and it removes the option of taking less to play for a preferred franchise.