Whats the point of a salary cap?!

[.:DaYg0sTyLz:.]

When you allow teams to go over it??


In the thread M-Dogg set up I mentioned how the new big three in Miami could start a trend in the NBA to where superstar players might just flock to certain cities. Mainly cities like LA, NY, Miami, etc. These cities typically already have an advantage just because of geography in signing free agents. If NY had any kind of winning tradition to go along with them being the largest media market they would dominate free agency.

A lot of people bash MLB because of their not being a salary cap and teams like the Yankees can simply buy championships.  But its possible that the NBA has already started doing the same, even with a salary cap.

There are a ton of exceptions that keep certain players salaries from counting against the salary cap. But those salaries still add up and can put a team over the luxury tax cap that everyone tries to avoid. Once they exceed that luxury tax threshold they are forced to pay $1 for every $1 they exceed the luxury tax threshold. So, if a team has enough money they can work deals for players utilizing the different exceptions...fork out a ton of money to have top talent and just pay the luxury tax amount. The big market teams (LA, NY, Miami, etc) typically have the money, so they are fine paying it in order to win a championship. Essentially they are buying a championship and just paying a tax to do it.

The thing is, its getting worse. The Spurs won the title in 2007 over the Cavs. The Cavs were under the luxury tax threshold. The Spurs exceeded it by $196,000. They were over, but not too bad. Since then...

Boston vs L.A. (Boston $8 million over, L.A. $5 million over)
L.A. vs Orlando (L.A. $7 million over, Orlando was actually under)

and this past year...

L.A vs Boston (L.A. $21 million over, Boston $14 million over!)

Now for this year, the Lakers are already on the books for over $90 million. Meaning they are about $20 million over the luxury tax threshold of about $70 million. The actually salary cap btw, is $58 million.

Miami is under as of now. But theyre players have escalating salaries so we will see in the next couple of years what happens with them.


The point is, this practice of simply going far above the salary cap...and even far anove the luxury cap means that even though we have a salary cap in place for the NBA, big market teams or teams with a ton of money will simply be able to exceed that cap and spend more then anyone else to win a championship.

On the flip side of it, since part of that money that is paid by teams exceeding the cap gets distributed amongst teams who do not exceed it...you are bound to get owners who will operate at as low a cost as possible, putting a poor product on the floor, and receiving money from the big market spenders. Either way its bad for the NBA and the fans. The teams that could really be hurt by it, are the small-medium market teams who actually want to win.

[Controver$y King]

Ain't the NBA in talks to get a hard cap or something like that?

[.:DaYg0sTyLz:.]

Ain't the NBA in talks to get a hard cap or something like that?

Possibly during this next off season.

Ive just always thought they should have a better way of regulating spending by teams. It shouldnt just be, whoever has the most money wins. Whats the point in the sport then? As of now, its basically just that if you spend way too much money...you have to spend some more. Im sure it keeps some owners from going over the luxury cap. But clearly not all of them. So whats the point in the cap to begin with?

[theremedy360]

Ain't the NBA in talks to get a hard cap or something like that?

Possibly during this next off season.

Ive just always thought they should have a better way of regulating spending by teams. It shouldnt just be, whoever has the most money wins. Whats the point in the sport then? As of now, its basically just that if you spend way too much money...you have to spend some more. Im sure it keeps some owners from going over the luxury cap. But clearly not all of them. So whats the point in the cap to begin with?

It take it you're not a baseball fan?

[.:DaYg0sTyLz:.]

Ain't the NBA in talks to get a hard cap or something like that?

Possibly during this next off season.

Ive just always thought they should have a better way of regulating spending by teams. It shouldnt just be, whoever has the most money wins. Whats the point in the sport then? As of now, its basically just that if you spend way too much money...you have to spend some more. Im sure it keeps some owners from going over the luxury cap. But clearly not all of them. So whats the point in the cap to begin with?

It take it you're not a baseball fan?

Naw not really. Not so much cus of the lack of a salary cap. But any sport where I can watch 12 year old on tv play it, and its more exciting...i struggle to get into lol

[7even]

A salary cap is great. The Lakers might be 20 mil above it, but in soccer there are teams who are virtually 200 mil above it (if their was one).

In soccer it is horrible, oil tycoons can effortlessly spend 300 mil a year, whereas "real" clubs have to rely on what they actually earn, through stadium tickets, merchandise, titles they won and so on. It is blatantly unfair.

I prefer a soft salary cap greatly over a non-existing salary cap.


The talk about a hard cap in the NBA is probably just made to appease the critics. A hard salary cap would hurt the well-liked teams like the Lakers, and it would even hurt the league. Because for every dollar over the luxery tax, the league gets 1 dollar. The league owns over 20 mil a year just by having the Lakers over the cap. I doubt the league will do anything to elude the current system.

[M Dogg™]

A salary cap is great. The Lakers might be 20 mil above it, but in soccer there are teams who are virtually 200 mil above it (if their was one).

In soccer it is horrible, oil tycoons can effortlessly spend 300 mil a year, whereas "real" clubs have to rely on what they actually earn, through stadium tickets, merchandise, titles they won and so on. It is blatantly unfair.

I prefer a soft salary cap greatly over a non-existing salary cap.


The talk about a hard cap in the NBA is probably just made to appease the critics. A hard salary cap would hurt the well-liked teams like the Lakers, and it would even hurt the league. Because for every dollar over the luxery tax, the league gets 1 dollar. The league owns over 20 mil a year just by having the Lakers over the cap. I doubt the league will do anything to elude the current system.

A hard cap should be done. In the end, the NFL is the strongest league for many years thanks to a hard cap and revenue sharing. It would hurt the Lakers, and you'd be happy, but it's better for the league to have competitive teams across the nation than just a consideration of power on the coast.

[Chamillitary Click]

Well isn't that why there will be a lockout after this season?

[.:DaYg0sTyLz:.]

A salary cap is great. The Lakers might be 20 mil above it, but in soccer there are teams who are virtually 200 mil above it (if their was one).

In soccer it is horrible, oil tycoons can effortlessly spend 300 mil a year, whereas "real" clubs have to rely on what they actually earn, through stadium tickets, merchandise, titles they won and so on. It is blatantly unfair.

I prefer a soft salary cap greatly over a non-existing salary cap.


The talk about a hard cap in the NBA is probably just made to appease the critics. A hard salary cap would hurt the well-liked teams like the Lakers, and it would even hurt the league. Because for every dollar over the luxery tax, the league gets 1 dollar. The league owns over 20 mil a year just by having the Lakers over the cap. I doubt the league will do anything to elude the current system.

They need the hard cap, and a minimum cap as well. The league doesnt get the full $1 for every $1 over the luxury threshold. It is distributed amongst the other teams who dont exceed the cap. The problem is, i watch basketball for the sport...not because I want to see big market teams win. What this cap does is essentially make a small/medium sized market team work much harder in order to win a championship then a big market team does. There is not enough of a punishment for exceeding the luxury tax line...and on the other side, teams who only care about their profits are rewarded for spending very little.

[7even]

Let's say they do a hard cap, that can't be exceeded at 70 mil. What happens to the teams who are currently at 90 mil?

Oh man this is gonna be a long ass lockout if they go that route. They also wanna shorten player's salaries by 10 percent.

[.:DaYg0sTyLz:.]

Let's say they do a hard cap, that can't be exceeded at 70 mil. What happens to the teams who are currently at 90 mil?

Thats up to the league and the players union to work that out. But they allowed it to get to this point, they need to clean up the mess. And simply keeping things the same is clearly not the best idea. Unless the league truly DOES want just big market teams to win (which they do...but still)

[M Dogg™]

Let's say they do a hard cap, that can't be exceeded at 70 mil. What happens to the teams who are currently at 90 mil?

Thats up to the league and the players union to work that out. But they allowed it to get to this point, they need to clean up the mess. And simply keeping things the same is clearly not the best idea. Unless the league truly DOES want just big market teams to win (which they do...but still)

I say let the current contracts ride out, and then the team is not allowed to exceed the cap after their contracts run out. In the case of the Lakers, that's after Gasol and Kobe either retire or have to resign.

[.:DaYg0sTyLz:.]

Let's say they do a hard cap, that can't be exceeded at 70 mil. What happens to the teams who are currently at 90 mil?

Thats up to the league and the players union to work that out. But they allowed it to get to this point, they need to clean up the mess. And simply keeping things the same is clearly not the best idea. Unless the league truly DOES want just big market teams to win (which they do...but still)

I say let the current contracts ride out, and then the team is not allowed to exceed the cap after their contracts run out. In the case of the Lakers, that's after Gasol and Kobe either retire or have to resign.

Sounded like a great plan for any team currently overspending

[7even]

Yeah but if they can't sign MLE niggas or get niggas for the Vets Min or make trades, those teams are ass after 2-3 years

[.:DaYg0sTyLz:.]

Yeah but if they can't sign MLE niggas or get niggas for the Vets Min or make trades, those teams are ass after 2-3 years

If you have a hard cap...I dont think youd have an MLE anyways.  And what about teams who are just at the cap? They also couldnt add to their teams but would be competing against teams who are far above the cap or even luxury threshold.