Should the NBA have a hard cap?

[AHF]

Remember as well that instituting a hard cap would depress all salaries in the league since there would be fewer dollars to spend on players. A lot of the teams that are over the cap - such as the 2009-10 Atlanta Hawks - would be paying less for some players if there was a hard cap which would reduce their total payrolls.

I look at the more in terms of the payroll ranking. There aren't many teams I think of as having bought their way to a championship, even the 2008 Celtics got their key players through the draft (Rondo/Pierce/Perkins) or through trading valuable assets (KG/Allen).

What I think of as trying to buy a championship is the Isiah Thomas era Knicks and the free spending Portland days. Today if you wanted to truly buy a championship (i.e., win primarily due to spending greater amounts) and assuming that was even possible, you would need to be heavily in the luxury tax. It seems like looking at teams that were significantly in the luxury tax needs to be the starting point for identifying whether the top spending teams are truly abusing their economic condition because the luxury tax line was put in to mimic a hard cap. The idea was making it so painful to exceed the luxury tax that it would cap salaries at that point. The soft cap number is foolish to use as a barometer, IMO, since everyone expected that number to be exceeded by teams when the CBA was signed.

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.

Apparently, we were thinking the same thing here.

[Buzzard]

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.

You make very good points all the away around concerning a free market approach. But a fact of life in American sports is they are, for the biggest part, a monopoly and not a free market. How else can you explain laws that say a 18 yr old cannot go to work even being mentioned much less standing up and shouting such things in public. In just about every other field were a college education is not a requirement a 17 yr can quit school and start work immediately. And this includes one of our most deadly professions ... being a soldier in our armed forces.

I enjoy competition and I also have that root for the underdog mentality. We can get the mighty upsets at the college level and once in a blue moon in MLB and the NFL. But when was the last time a NBA team resembling a MLB or NFL wild card team won a NBA championship? Setting the monopoly issue aside, this is why I do not like the cap as it is in the NBA.....The difference in level of play between the top 4 to 6 teams vs the other 10 to 12 playoff teams is staggering year end and year out.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Buzzard

[Buzzard]

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.

Here is how I see that...Kobe and his four scrubs would have to go through Chris Paul and his four, Duncan and his four, Garnet before he was traded and his four, Gasol before he was traded and his four, Nowitski and his four, Nash and his four, Deron and his four, etc , etc, etc...it would be just like in college IMO . One player with some hot role players could shock the world and chances are very good a 6th, 7th, or 8th seed would win in the 1st round every year.

Instead we get four game sweeps in the 1st and 2nd round and 40% of all NBA championships having been won by two teams. Its a big market league and when a small market team gets there all you hear is how its going to hurt ratings; instead of man it would be so cool to see the little guy steal one...

Edited June 1, 2010 by Buzzard

[AHF]

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.

It is interesting that this is your example of the most unfair abuse of payroll when they were 5th in the league in payroll and only 6 million more than the team with the 10th highest payroll that season.

Is your concern that teams outspending their revenue stream is unfair or teams that outspend the rest of the league is unfair? If it is the latter, the 1997 Marlins don't seem particularly outrageous when they are only spending 21% more than the median league payroll. A number of MLB teams have been more like 100% over the median payroll in recent years. For example, the 2006 Yankees were more than 250% over the median payroll.

I would therefore assume it is some version of the former. In that case, I assume you think that the way to fix the 1997 Marlins is not to bring everyone's spending into a similar range but instead is to leave NY, Boston, etc. well above the Marlins and simply have the Marlins cut their spending to correspond with their revenue stream? You and I have discussed this before, but I don't like the idea of wildly different payroll structures throughout the league because it violates one of the things fans in the US like to see - that teams have a similar level of opportunity given smart management. Like you, I have a lot of respect for the way the Yankees maximize their revenue opportunities but a team like the Royals, A's, or Devil Rays are never going to have the same revenue opportunities no matter what they do due to the different market and demographics within their markets (for example, the amount of corporate money to be spent on boxes at sporting events in New York versus in Oakland). I know from the discussions on the Hawks' ticket sales that you recognize that different markets are just that - different - so I am curious to know whether your ideal league is one where the teams with bigger revenue streams spend more than the smaller revenue teams. One where everyone tries to maximize their revenues but at the end of the day, you tier the salary structure by the revenue streams teams generate.

Edited June 1, 2010 by AHF

[Guest]

It is interesting that this is your example of the most unfair abuse of payroll when they were 5th in the league in payroll and only 6 million more than the team with the 10th highest payroll that season.

Is your concern that teams outspending their revenue stream is unfair or teams that outspend the rest of the league is unfair? If it is the latter, the 1997 Marlins don't seem particularly outrageous when they are only spending 21% more than the median league payroll. A number of MLB teams have been more like 100% over the median payroll in recent years. For example, the 2006 Yankees were more than 250% over the median payroll.

I would therefore assume it is some version of the former. In that case, I assume you think that the way to fix the 1997 Marlins is not to bring everyone's spending into a similar range but instead is to leave NY, Boston, etc. well above the Marlins and simply have the Marlins cut their spending to correspond with their revenue stream? You and I have discussed this before, but I don't like the idea of wildly different payroll structures throughout the league because it violates one of the things fans in the US like to see - that teams have a similar level of opportunity given smart management. Like you, I have a lot of respect for the way the Yankees maximize their revenue opportunities but a team like the Royals, A's, or Devil Rays are never going to have the same revenue opportunities no matter what they do due to the different market and demographics within their markets (for example, the amount of corporate money to be spent on boxes at sporting events in New York versus in Oakland). I know from the discussions on the Hawks' ticket sales that you recognize that different markets are just that - different - so I am curious to know whether your ideal league is one where the teams with bigger revenue streams spend more than the smaller revenue teams. One where everyone tries to maximize their revenues but at the end of the day, you tier the salary structure by the revenue streams teams generate.

My point is the former. I think what you are looking at, mainly revenue, is looking at only one aspect of this situation.

Yes I envision high payroll teams that have big revenue streams and low payroll teams that have low revenue streams. We see that all the time with companies, a bigger sized companies compensate their executives better than smaller sized companies. With sports, we have a little different spin. A big sized company can have a VP of sales, human resources, technology, etc. while a small sized company maybe just has one VP. Sports, you have a fixed number of roster slots (this is akin to saying each company needs to pick their top 12 people to be VPs, or something like that). So in terms of spending, sure there is a dispersion of spending. But just because a company spends more, does it make it a better company? I think people would judge whether it is a good company or not based on something other than payroll size. Thats the same thing with sports.

A big key in sports is management, coaching styles, personnel decisions, finding the right players for the right system, etc. This isn't a case where we have a fixed pool of players and talent level. We have an ever changing pool of players and talent level. We also have uncertainty in sports. I am a firm believer that payroll can only explain a small fraction of a win, we need other elements to determine whether someone will win or not.

If we fix everything but payroll (i.e. all teams have the same management, value players the same, evaluate players the same, have the same style of play, etc.), then yes a cap would be a good thing because payroll would be the sole determinant of wins. However, thats a ridiculous case, teams don't value players the same or have the same styles. So its all about teams adapting to the league and trying to exploit advantages. These "other" aspects of the game are what drives teams to win or lose, not just whether someone has more money or not. Its easy to blame it on the money, but I don't think that is a good analysis because there are so many "other" variables and if you realize what a profound effect the "other" variables have on the game it makes payroll seem insignificant (which it is).

[dlpin]

Here is how I see that...Kobe and his four scrubs would have to go through Chris Paul and his four, Duncan and his four, Garnet before he was traded and his four, Gasol before he was traded and his four, Nowitski and his four, Nash and his four, Deron and his four, etc , etc, etc...it would be just like in college IMO . One player with some hot role players could shock the world and chances are very good a 6th, 7th, or 8th seed would win in the 1st round every year.

Instead we get four game sweeps in the 1st and 2nd round and 40% of all NBA championships having been won by two teams. Its a big market league and when a small market team gets there all you hear is how its going to hurt ratings; instead of man it would be so cool to see the little guy steal one...

The reason we don't have lower seeds advancing more often has nothing to do with the cap and everything to do with it being 7 game series without a dominant position (in hockey, goalies get hot and a lower seed team can go all the way). You put in a 7 game series in the ncaa and the same teams will make the finals every year.

And I am surprised at these topics about the same teams always being in the finals when we've had 18 different teams in the past 19 finals. There are only 5 eastern conference teams that haven't been to a finals in the past 19 years. Atlanta, Milwaukee, Washington, Toronto and Charlotte. And 2 of these 5 are recent expansion teams. And Milwaukee was a buzzer beater away from making it in 01.

In the western conference you have 7 teams that didn't make the finals. But of those 7, 2 got really close.

Sure, the same 2 teams have won 50% of all championships. But how many of those came under the current cap system implemented in 84-85? How many of those came in an era without free agency and with a lot fewer teams?

The celtics and lakers have 23 of 39 up until 1984, but 9 of 26 after that - with 4 of those 9 coming with the teams assembled before the cap system was in place. In other words, if we look just at teams assembled entirely under the salary cap era (let's say, those after Bird and Magic retired), the lakers and celtics have 5 of 19.

Because let's be real here: of all the people complaining about the nba being too predictable and the same teams always winning, how many thought the celtics would be here? If we did a poll at the start of the playoffs, how many people thought that the celtics would win the east?

Not to mention that people completely forget how much the celtics sucked from 93 to 07.

Basketball, by it's nature, will have a player or two dominate. Even with that, the league has had a great deal of variety. What is more, the soft cap with a luxury tax actually helps the small teams, redistributing money from teams with more money than sense (blazes, knicks) to small market teams. The biggest losers with a hard cap in place would be teams like the jazz and OKC, decent teams that need the additional revenue. The biggest winners would be the knicks, blazers, etc. (which would be saved from themselves) and the mavs, magic (recent teams that have overspent on mediocre talent trying to buy a championship).

Edited June 2, 2010 by dlpin

[Joker]

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.

Say what you want but you can't pay for Kobe if Kobe is no where to be found or doesn't want to play for your team. What do you want us to be, the New York Knicks. You cannot overpay for talent that doesn't deserve it.

Edited June 2, 2010 by nbasuperstar40

[Joker]

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.

You can't have parity when a team has Lebron, Dwight, or Kobe. Those players are worth three times as much as your best player. This is a superstar sport, just deal with it, we do not have a star, we will not win titles.

[Buzzard]

Say what you want but you can't pay for Kobe if Kobe is no where to be found or doesn't want to play for your team. What do you want us to be, the New York Knicks. You cannot overpay for talent that doesn't deserve it.

The suject of the thread is should a hard cap be in place? I said yes and my reasoning is simple. If you have a hard cap in place, the wealth of all-stars would be distributed more evenly. Thus creating a more level playing field.

Examples would be both Garnet and Gasol. No way they would be playing along side Kobe and Odum....Pierce and Allen with a hard cap in place unless one of them each took a severe pay cut to win a championship. Other words...Peirce and Kobes' contracts would rule out two and three max type contract superstars all being on the same team.

They would have to get their money elsewhere, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. That is my opinion. Disagree with me and we just have to agree to disagree :)

Edited June 2, 2010 by Buzzard

[Sothron]

The NBA desperately needs a hard cap. I'm sick and tired of the same teams winning the title and frankly being the only ones with a real chance to win a title year after year after year. There is no chance any non elite team could win a title under the current rules.

[Wurider05]

I think that a hard cap would make the league more competitive than it is right now. We keep hearing all this stuff about this being a superstar league so I feel that a hard cap would make players prove that they are superstars. We keep hearing about the greatness of Kobe Bryant but the guy is playing with two bona fide allstars. SO the idea of Kobe and 4 scrubs really doesn't fly. Then you about Lebron whining about needing help. He wants to play with another all star because he can't do it by himself.

Alot of this problem falls on the league. I have been saying for years that they promote stars instead of the game. They should take a cue from the NFL.

As for the Spurs remember that Tim Duncan took a pay cut so the team can get better talent.

The players in the free agent summitt have yet to prove they can win anything. Yeah Wade has a ring but he was playing with 2 Hall Of Famers possibly 3. We see what kind of team they are when those guys left.

[Buzzard]

The NBA desperately needs a hard cap. I'm sick and tired of the same teams winning the title and frankly being the only ones with a real chance to win a title year after year after year. There is no chance any non elite team could win a title under the current rules.

I agree 100%. The NBA is becoming boring and stagnant from a national perspective IMO. I live in a non NBA city and a lot of people here almost despise the NBA; as compared to the NFL, MLB, NHL, and college hoops or football. LeBron is a in state product and just a few hours away, and with the exception of a few Cleveland transplants, most here do not watch him on TV and could careless where he goes.

Edited June 2, 2010 by Buzzard

[AHF]

If we fix everything but payroll (i.e. all teams have the same management, value players the same, evaluate players the same, have the same style of play, etc.), then yes a cap would be a good thing because payroll would be the sole determinant of wins. However, thats a ridiculous case, teams don't value players the same or have the same styles. So its all about teams adapting to the league and trying to exploit advantages. These "other" aspects of the game are what drives teams to win or lose, not just whether someone has more money or not. Its easy to blame it on the money, but I don't think that is a good analysis because there are so many "other" variables and if you realize what a profound effect the "other" variables have on the game it makes payroll seem insignificant (which it is).

The difference I see is that all teams can hire superior management, come up with cutting edge ways to evaluate and value players, etc. and succeed or fail on that basis. You see this all the time with small and large teams (some good ones in recent years have been the Yankees and Twins or Lakers and Oklahoma City and some bad ones have been the Mets and the Royals or Knicks and Timberwolves) Clubs like the Twins, Royals, T-Wolves, etc. will never be able to spend like the Yankees, Mets, Knicks, etc.

You and I agree that there are a lot of variables. We just disagree on the ultimate significance of salary. I see 8 of the top 10 payrolls in the NBA in the 2009-10 playoffs and 2 of the bottom 10 payrolls in the playoffs. I see 7 of the top 13 payrolls in MLB in the 2009 playoffs and none of the bottom 13 teams in the playoffs. We agree there are a host of factors and that money is in no way determinative but we just disagree on the degree of significance that finances play.

[NineOhTheRino]

Look at the Saints. We know the NFL has a hard cap but not every team spends to the cap. The Saints are a small market team that just won a Super Bowl. Was money a factor there? Yes! Even though the Saints are described as a small market team they had the highest payroll in the NFL. It would not be a stretch to say that in any sport payroll costs are directly proportional to winning .

Then again it all may go back to cause and effect. Do we really know which is which? Are these teams winning due to the fact they spend more or are these teams spending more because they're winning. All we know for sure is that the Hawks have never done either.

Edited June 2, 2010 by NineOhTheRino

[dlpin]

The suject of the thread is should a hard cap be in place? I said yes and my reasoning is simple. If you have a hard cap in place, the wealth of all-stars would be distributed more evenly. Thus creating a more level playing field.

Examples would be both Garnet and Gasol. No way they would be playing along side Kobe and Odum....Pierce and Allen with a hard cap in place unless one of them each took a severe pay cut to win a championship. Other words...Peirce and Kobes' contracts would rule out two and three max type contract superstars all being on the same team.

They would have to get their money elsewhere, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. That is my opinion. Disagree with me and we just have to agree to disagree :)

No, what you are not hearing is that it does not matter. Again, the only time the finals teams were in the top 5 in payroll was this year. Teams can't buy a championship, so a hard cap won't matter. In fact, doing away with the soft cap and luxury tax would hurt the small teams.

Let's say the NBA implemented a hard cap that was exactly at the median payroll for the last couple of seasons. The teams from 99 to 06 would have had to cut no one. The 07 and 08 champions would have had to cut just a few scrubs. The celtics in 08 would could get below the median salary by simply cutting Brian Scalabrine, Eddie House, and Tony Allen.

A soft salary cap with a luxury tax is the best thing for the NBA.

And people talk about the NFL all the time, but let's look at it:

Saints were 4th highest payroll, steelers in 08 6th, colts in 06 were 1st, Steelers in 05 were 10th, Patriots in 03 were 9th.

So we've had 4 champions in the past 9 superbowls in the top 10 in spending. In the NBA, the only teams in the top 10 in spending were the 07 spurs, 08 celtics, and 09 lakers.

[DeacKillsaDevil]

The NBA desperately needs a hard cap. I'm sick and tired of the same teams winning the title and frankly being the only ones with a real chance to win a title year after year after year. There is no chance any non elite team could win a title under the current rules.

This might be a huge reason why the NBA is losing money as a whole.

[DeacKillsaDevil]

No, what you are not hearing is that it does not matter. Again, the only time the finals teams were in the top 5 in payroll was this year. Teams can't buy a championship, so a hard cap won't matter. In fact, doing away with the soft cap and luxury tax would hurt the small teams.

Let's say the NBA implemented a hard cap that was exactly at the median payroll for the last couple of seasons. The teams from 99 to 06 would have had to cut no one. The 07 and 08 champions would have had to cut just a few scrubs. The celtics in 08 would could get below the median salary by simply cutting Brian Scalabrine, Eddie House, and Tony Allen.

A soft salary cap with a luxury tax is the best thing for the NBA.

And people talk about the NFL all the time, but let's look at it:

Saints were 4th highest payroll, steelers in 08 6th, colts in 06 were 1st, Steelers in 05 were 10th, Patriots in 03 were 9th.

So we've had 4 champions in the past 9 superbowls in the top 10 in spending. In the NBA, the only teams in the top 10 in spending were the 07 spurs, 08 celtics, and 09 lakers.

What is the disparity between the teams in the NFL with their payroll? (i.e. Are the payrolls on the super bowl team and the last place team vastly different?). One thing to note is that the NFL also has a salary minimum.

[AHF]

It would not be a stretch to say that in any sport payroll costs are directly proportional to winning .

Yes it is. See New York Knicks v. Oklahoma Thunder. I think you are seriously overstating it. In my mind, payroll is a significant contributing factor and not close to something where the correlation is "directly proportional."

[AHF]

There is no chance any non elite team could win a title under the current rules.

It will always be the case in the NBA, IMO, that the only teams with a real title shot are those with elite talent. The real question is whether every team has a chance to build an elite roster under the current rules.

[Buzzard]

No, what you are not hearing is that it does not matter. Again, the only time the finals teams were in the top 5 in payroll was this year. Teams can't buy a championship, so a hard cap won't matter. In fact, doing away with the soft cap and luxury tax would hurt the small teams.

Let's say the NBA implemented a hard cap that was exactly at the median payroll for the last couple of seasons. The teams from 99 to 06 would have had to cut no one. The 07 and 08 champions would have had to cut just a few scrubs. The celtics in 08 would could get below the median salary by simply cutting Brian Scalabrine, Eddie House, and Tony Allen.

A soft salary cap with a luxury tax is the best thing for the NBA.

And people talk about the NFL all the time, but let's look at it:

Saints were 4th highest payroll, steelers in 08 6th, colts in 06 were 1st, Steelers in 05 were 10th, Patriots in 03 were 9th.

So we've had 4 champions in the past 9 superbowls in the top 10 in spending. In the NBA, the only teams in the top 10 in spending were the 07 spurs, 08 celtics, and 09 lakers.

And you are not hearing me. I am not talking about a median salary range. I am talking about NO ONE being allowed to go over the cap. And chances are it will be lowered this year. That is not "they can get to the luxury threshold" . It is they cannot go over the cap.

That is what a hard cap is BTW. And the NBA should do what he needs to do CAP wise to ensure no more than one Max contract can be on one team at a time. The NFL usually pays just one to four max type contracts out per 22 starting players. That would workout to be the same proportionality to 1 per 5 starters in the NBA.

You keep citing all these teams that are not paying the luxury tax but are over the cap. A hard lowered cap would put a end to all that; and ensure the only way Lebron-Shaq-Jamison, Kobe-Odom-Gasol, Garnet-Peirce-Allen, Howard-Lewis-Carter, etc...could get on the same team would be with significant reductions in yearly salary on their part.

This is not about what is being done. This is about what we think should be done. Some think nothing; others like myself think the NBA has become boring and stagnant with all these all-stars playing on just four different teams. This may be just what you and some others enjoy every year. Personally I do not even know why the NBA has a 1st round playoff; the 2nd round is plenty bad enough....

Edited June 2, 2010 by Buzzard