Should the NBA have a hard cap?

[Wurider05]

Now that we have another billionaire owner in the league with money to burn and he is willing to over pay, is it time that the league looks into a hard cap. I mean the gap between the haves and havenots is getting bigger every year. With everyone having the exact same payroll we may see an end to the big boys always winning the championship. We would also see an end to horrible contracts.

[Buzzard]

Now that we have another billionaire owner in the league with money to burn and he is willing to over pay, is it time that the league looks into a hard cap. I mean the gap between the haves and havenots is getting bigger every year. With everyone having the exact same payroll we may see an end to the big boys always winning the championship. We would also see an end to horrible contracts.

I like the idea of a hard cap in all professional sports. Problem it brings though is you do not get the dream matchups as often like this seasons finals. I do not see the NBA ever doing that and giving smaller market teams equal payroll to places like N.Y., L.A., Chicago, and Boston. Could you imagine the stink if those four teams all went through a whole decade together without going to a finals?

[NineOhTheRino]

Now that we have another billionaire owner in the league with money to burn and he is willing to over pay, is it time that the league looks into a hard cap. I mean the gap between the haves and havenots is getting bigger every year. With everyone having the exact same payroll we may see an end to the big boys always winning the championship. We would also see an end to horrible contracts.

Yes. Most disgusting stat on the NBA: Two teams (LA & BOS) have won damn near 50% of NBA titles. Honestly teams like the hawks have no chance in a league that rewards teams for having deep pockets.

Edited June 1, 2010 by NineOhTheRino

[dlpin]

I don't think a hard cap would help anything. If anything, a hard cap would lead to fewer teams competing, because good all around teams are more expensive than 4 scrubs and one superstar. Lebron would win the east every year.

The 2002 Lakers, for example, cost only about 53 million, and were only 13th in the league in payroll. Spurs won it in 03 with only the 15th highest payroll. 2005 Spurs were only 23rd.

You put a hard cap in, and it's lakers and spurs every year.

[Buzzard]

Yes. Most disgusting stat on the NBA: Two teams (LA & BOS) have won damn near 50% of NBA titles. Honestly teams like the hawks have no chance in a league that rewards teams for having deep pockets.

What disgust me almost as much, is our owners who do not target the Atl market very well. We have the 9th largest Metro area in the U.S. Higher than Boston and right behind Washington. We also had the highest growth of any in the top 10.

The peope are there and could easily support a WINNER; but we have gone decades without a owner willing to spend on a WINNER. Give us some owners who are willing to pay the likes of Garnet, Pierce, Allen, and Rondo..... Phillips would fill up.

[dlpin]

Yes. Most disgusting stat on the NBA: Two teams (LA & BOS) have won damn near 50% of NBA titles. Honestly teams like the hawks have no chance in a league that rewards teams for having deep pockets.

The 00-02 lakers weren't even on the top 10 in payroll. The 03 spurs weren't even on the top 20 in payroll. the 08 celtics was only 6th in payroll.

This is the first time that the two teams reach the finals while being on the top 5 in payroll.

[Buzzard]

I don't think a hard cap would help anything. If anything, a hard cap would lead to fewer teams competing, because good all around teams are more expensive than 4 scrubs and one superstar. Lebron would win the east every year.

The 2002 Lakers, for example, cost only about 53 million, and were only 13th in the league in payroll. Spurs won it in 03 with only the 15th highest payroll. 2005 Spurs were only 23rd.

You put a hard cap in, and it's lakers and spurs every year.

No...If the Lakers are stuck with Kobe and scrubs, he would not be a shoe in nor would Lebron. And all these teams you just mentioned with a low payroll where several years ago. The only way to win now is going over the cap.

[Buzzard]

The 00-02 lakers weren't even on the top 10 in payroll. The 03 spurs weren't even on the top 20 in payroll. the 08 celtics was only 6th in payroll.

This is the first time that the two teams reach the finals while being on the top 5 in payroll.

Only 6th in payroll. Are you saying they were under the cap in 08? If not, then your aurgument is mute here. If they can't go over the cap to win, they do not win in 08 which is the whole point of my aurgument....

Edited June 1, 2010 by Buzzard

[Buzzard]

The 00-02 lakers weren't even on the top 10 in payroll. The 03 spurs weren't even on the top 20 in payroll. the 08 celtics was only 6th in payroll.

This is the first time that the two teams reach the finals while being on the top 5 in payroll.

Really so Magic and Kareem vs Bird and Mchale were not over the cap? Utah vs Bulls not over the cap? Knicks vs Houston? I may not be from the show me state but you gonna have to show me this fact of yours LMAO.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Buzzard

[dlpin]

Really so Magic and Kareem vs Bird and Mchale were not over the cap? Utah vs Bulls not over the cap? Knicks vs Houston? I may not be from the show me state but you gonna have to show me this fact of yours LMAO.

Cap only started in 84-5. That celtics team only went over the cap after they had to resign bird (hence bird exception) so they were under what became the cap up until after the 84 season, when they had won 2 titles already. The only teams to win the nba title that were in the top 5 in salary these past 10 years (which is all we have data for) were the 09 lakers and whoever wins this year.

00-02 lakers were never in the top 10.

03 spurs was 23rd

04 pistons were 18th

http://www.insidehoops.com/nbasalaries.shtml

08 celtics were 6th. 07 Spurs were 8th.

Edited June 1, 2010 by dlpin

[bird_dirt]

Now that we have another billionaire owner in the league with money to burn and he is willing to over pay, is it time that the league looks into a hard cap. I mean the gap between the haves and havenots is getting bigger every year. With everyone having the exact same payroll we may see an end to the big boys always winning the championship. We would also see an end to horrible contracts.

if it hasn't happened yet, i won't happen. the owners wouldn't fight it, but the player's union would never allow it. only chance of it happening is if the players go on strike and the owners outlast them. i don't see that happening. i could see losing a whole season, but it would probably have to start cutting into a second year or more, imo.

[Buzzard]

Cap only started in 84-5. That celtics team only went over the cap after they had to resign bird (hence bird exception) so they were under what became the cap up until after the 84 season, when they had won 2 titles already. The only teams to win the nba title that were in the top 5 in salary these past 10 years (which is all we have data for) were the 09 lakers and whoever wins this year.

00-02 lakers were never in the top 10.

03 spurs was 23rd

04 pistons were 18th

http://www.insidehoops.com/nbasalaries.shtml

08 celtics were 6th. 07 Spurs were 8th.

Here is some good info for you and anyone else that thinks going over the cap does not lead to a championship. I only went through 4 or 5 years but could not find one recent champ that was not over the cap. Basicly, if you have a top ten payroll, some years even lower, you were over the cap. Now I know you think it is where you are ranked, exa Boston only sixth,,,LA only 10th, but both those teams were over the cap.

Which is what this thread is about...having a hard cap so teams cannot go over it to buy a championship. Lakers did exactly that with Shaq and Boston did it with Allen and Garnet.

http://www.insidehoops.com/nbasalaries.shtml

Edited June 1, 2010 by Buzzard

[xhawk]

Agreed, a hard cap is not possible unless we loss a season due to strike/lockout.

Aside from that, going over the cap does create a championship team...acquiring good players (who stay healthy) does. The Lakers have been successful because they trading nothing go get Kobe and then traded nothing to get Gasol. The Pistons were successful because they traded nothing to get Rasheed. The Spurs were successful because they won the Duncan lottery and drafted well (Parker and Ginobli).

[Buzzard]

Agreed, a hard cap is not possible unless we loss a season due to strike/lockout.

Aside from that, going over the cap does create a championship team...acquiring good players (who stay healthy) does. The Lakers have been successful because they trading nothing go get Kobe and then traded nothing to get Gasol. The Pistons were successful because they traded nothing to get Rasheed. The Spurs were successful because they won the Duncan lottery and drafted well (Parker and Ginobli).

The Spurs and Pistons are the only two teams UNDER the cap to win a championship since either of them won one. In no uncertain terms, winning a championship in the NBA is almost synonymous with being over the cap.

Flavor coat it anyway you want; money and high payroll wins championships in the NBA. And that is why you will never see the NBA go with a hard cap. Can you imagine the TV revenue if there were six other small market champions besides the Spurs and Pistons. We would be watching the NBA finals on the golfchannel or TBS instead of ESPN and CBS.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Buzzard

[niremetal]

What disgust me almost as much, is our owners who do not target the Atl market very well. We have the 9th largest Metro area in the U.S. Higher than Boston and right behind Washington. We also had the highest growth of any in the top 10.

The peope are there and could easily support a WINNER; but we have gone decades without a owner willing to spend on a WINNER. Give us some owners who are willing to pay the likes of Garnet, Pierce, Allen, and Rondo..... Phillips would fill up.

We had Nique, Doc, Willis, Tree, and Spud. The Omni did not fill up.

That being said, I want a hard cap, preferably along with contracts that are not fully guaranteed. Parity is ultimately good for the league in the long run because fans always feel like their team has a shot to compete in the near future.

Edited June 1, 2010 by niremetal

[Buzzard]

We had Nique, Doc, Willis, Tree, and Spud. The Omni did not fill up.

Oh yes we did. Maybe not as well as teams with Dr J, Bird, and Magic but we showed up. I was there elbow to elbow in fans. And when we got Moses and Theus, we were declared the next champs and made the cover of Sports Illustrated.

Now if we make it, it is with a caption like this...Ten worse run sports franchises in the U.S.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Buzzard

[niremetal]

Oh yes we did. Maybe not as well as teams with Dr J, Bird, and Magic but we showed up. I was there elbow to elbow in fans. And when we got Moses and Theus, we were declared the next champs and made the front page of Sports Illustrated.

We never cracked the top third of the league in attendance, your anecdotal memory notwithstanding. I've gone through this a million times before: As long as Atlanta is a city of mostly transplants, there won't be the kind of loyal fanbases that you have in cities where people are born into families that are fans of the local team.

Add to that the godawful public transit system where you have to drive almost as long to get a rail station as you do to get the stadium itself and the fact that football and baseball are the traditional sports around Atlanta, and it's almost impossible to have the kind of attendance you are talking about.

Edited June 1, 2010 by niremetal

[Buzzard]

We never cracked the top third of the league in attendance, your anecdotal memory notwithstanding. I've gone through this a million times before: As long as Atlanta is a city of mostly transplants, there won't be the kind of loyal fanbases that you have in cities where people are born into families that are fans of the local team.

Add to that the godawful public transit system where you have to drive almost as long to get a rail station as you do to get the stadium itself and the fact that football and baseball are the traditional sports around Atlanta, and it's almost impossible to have the kind of attendance you are talking about.

Maybe it was drugs but I swore we were on the cover of Sports Illustrated...huh.

We also hit 96% capacity in 1989; by todays standards that would rank us 12th in capacity right under the Jazz. Now maybe I was just drunk then and it only seemed like we were elbow to elbow. Anyways you kids that never watched Nique, Moses, or Doc play, against some of the best players the NBA has ever seen, have every right to think it was not so good back then.

But trust me it was; and if you don't, you still can't take that away from me no matter how hard you may want to...

16.378 capacity

15,714 average attendance

95.9 capacity if you just do the math

Omni capacity link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omni_Coliseum

Hawks attendance figures link

http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/teamatt.htm?tm=atl&lg=n

Edited June 1, 2010 by Buzzard

[Guest]

The cap has been a puzzling thing to me. Its largely an American phenomenon, you don't see caps in Foreign leagues. As Americans, we tend to consider ourselves free-market and capitalist in economic thought. Europeans certainly aren't as free-market in thinking as Americans. Yet, for sports leagues Americans take a 180 degree turn. A cap is a constraint on spending, its collusion. A monopsony. Why is it that Americans become enraged when we don't have a free-market in the economy, there is uproar over monopolies. But the overwhelming tendency is for Americans to prefer a cap in their sports leagues. And then if you look over at European soccer leagues, THAT is the ideal free-market approach to sports leagues. Why do we see this flipping of stances on sports leagues?

Personally, as much as I enjoy putting in time to understand the NBA's CBA and rules governing the cap, I absolutely hate it. Its wrong on so many levels. This silly notion of "leveling the playing field" infuriates me. Teams that are good are good for a reason, if you want to say "well they didn't do anything, they just spent money" then think to yourself why do they have money? Chances are its because they are high revenue clubs. Then think, how do they get all this revenue? Its not a windfall, its because they have fans that are willing to pay a lot of money for merchandise, watch games, etc. I may not like Yankee fans personally, but how can you argue with all the money they pour into the team? They aren't blindly throwing money at Steinbrener, there is something in the business plan that the Yankees are doing correctly. Revenue is rightfully earned in most cases.

Now I will say there can be instances where the playing field is not level. Example: 1997 Florida Marlins. They held a team with a ridiculously insane payroll for their revenue stream. They had an owner who lost money in order to win a World Series. In the short run, 1997 was unfair for MLB. But what happened the next year? Well the owner realized what a moron he was for losing tens of millions of dollars and he quickly sold all the players. I don't think these few examples of wasteful spending by owners is enough to overturn a free market approach to sports. However, I do realize I am in the minority with this one.

[dlpin]

The Spurs and Pistons are the only two teams UNDER the cap to win a championship since either of them won one. In no uncertain terms, winning a championship in the NBA is almost synonymous with being over the cap.

Flavor coat it anyway you want; money and high payroll wins championships in the NBA. And that is why you will never see the NBA go with a hard cap. Can you imagine the TV revenue if there were six other small market champions besides the Spurs and Pistons. We would be watching the NBA finals on the golfchannel or TBS instead of ESPN and CBS.

You know why most teams who won the championship were over the cap? Because most teams were over the cap, period.

There are two teams under the cap right now: Memphis and Portland.

If a hard cap were set, it would not be at the same value of the current cap. It would be closer to the value of the luxury tax. And none of the champions from 99 to 07 were paying the luxury tax.

I guarantee that if things switch to a hard cap, it'll be the same teams every year in the finals. For the majority of their dynasties, the lakers and spurs weren't even in the top 1/3 in payroll. And they were only challenged by teams that spent a lot of money: dallas, orlando, miami.

You put a hard cap in, and Lebron and 4 scrubs go to the final against Kobe and 4 scrubs every year.

Edited June 1, 2010 by dlpin