Owners make small concession on hard cap

[coachx]

http://basketball.re...ion_On_Hard_Cap

On Tuesday, sources say owners made a modest concession on their stance of implementing a hard salary cap for the first time since labor negotiations began.

The owners proposed an idea similar to the current system that permits teams to pay a luxury tax for going over the cap. The new system would increase punishments for teams that go over the cap beyond its current dollar-for-dollar tax.

The owners’ proposal on Tuesday “would still have the affects of a hard cap,” one source with knowledge of the talks said.

The owners didn’t budge on a desire to change the basketball-related income percentage (BRI) to a split that takes the players from 57 percent to the mid 40s, sources said.

Edited September 29, 2011 by coachx

[Vol4ever]

If the owners want to become a competitive league they have to have a hard cap. It doesnt matter what kind of penalty you put on teams going over the cap, the fact reamains that the big market teams still have a large advantage over the smaller markets. Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Boston, and Miami that have the deep pockets will still have the best odds of winning.

[AHF]

If the owners want to become a competitive league they have to have a hard cap. It doesnt matter what kind of penalty you put on teams going over the cap, the fact reamains that the big market teams still have a large advantage over the smaller markets. Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Boston, and Miami that have the deep pockets will still have the best odds of winning.

What I read on this would move the needle.

It was something like:

Dollar for dollar tax above 65M

2 dollars for every dollar above 70M

3 dollars for every dollar above 75M

4 dollars for every dollar above 80M

A team with 90M in salaries would have to spend: 90M + 5M + 10M + 15M + 40M = 160M

A team with 70M in salaries would spend: 70M + 5M = 75M

Is it going to be worth it for any teams to spend an additional 85M to get another 20M in player salaries?

[sturt]

A lot of intriguing info coming out of Hoopsworld this morning, including the point that AHF just raised...

http://www.hoopsworld.com/nb-am-the-moment-of-truth-in-the-nba/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=nb-am-the-moment-of-truth-in-the-nba

[dlpin]

I think a supertax would probably be the best solution, as it would increase revenue sharing while not forcing a hard cap that makes no sense in a league with such revenue disparities.

I don't think a hard cap will improve competitive balance at all. The 90-91 Bulls team that would go one to win several more championships was 23rd out of 27 in salaries (they moved up the rankings when Jordan's salary went to the stratosphere, something that would not be possible with today's max salary.) The Houston Rockets were 19th and 24th in salaries in their 2 championship years. The lakers that won the "threepeat" in 01-02 were 12th in spending and spent less than the Nuggets and Wolves. The 02-03 Spurs were 17th in spending, the 04-05 were 24th, and the 06-07 were 9th. In fact, the only teams to win the championship and be top 5 in spending were the 09-10 lakers and 10-11 heat.

The big winners of a hard capt system right now would be the heat, who are 22nd in spending as is. They wouldn't really have to get rid of anyone, just some of the more expensive role players. The biggest losers would be the Lakers and Mavs, on one had, and the Thunder and Bulls, on the other, as the thunder and bulls would not be able to resign a lot of their players on rookie contracts.

In basketball superstars dominate even with cheap teams around them. A hard cap may do many things, but it won't improve competitive balance.

[Vol4ever]

What I read on this would move the needle.

It was something like:

Dollar for dollar tax above 65M

2 dollars for every dollar above 70M

3 dollars for every dollar above 75M

4 dollars for every dollar above 80M

A team with 90M in salaries would have to spend: 90M + 5M + 10M + 15M + 40M = 160M

A team with 70M in salaries would spend: 70M + 5M = 75M

Is it going to be worth it for any teams to spend an additional 85M to get another 20M in player salaries?

I still think teams like New York, Los Angeles, and Boston will still have a advantage because the money is not an issue...........for example I would use the Yankees.........their payroll versus say the Braves..................Cities like Atlanta cannot compete on the level of the large markets...........Atlanta teams have to build through the draft, they cannot just see a player they like and sign him as a free-agent, they worry about the salary cap when LA could go over the cap and not worry about it.

[AHF]

I think a supertax would probably be the best solution, as it would increase revenue sharing while not forcing a hard cap that makes no sense in a league with such revenue disparities.

I don't think a hard cap will improve competitive balance at all. The 90-91 Bulls team that would go one to win several more championships was 23rd out of 27 in salaries (they moved up the rankings when Jordan's salary went to the stratosphere, something that would not be possible with today's max salary.) The Houston Rockets were 19th and 24th in salaries in their 2 championship years. The lakers that won the "threepeat" in 01-02 were 12th in spending and spent less than the Nuggets and Wolves. The 02-03 Spurs were 17th in spending, the 04-05 were 24th, and the 06-07 were 9th. In fact, the only teams to win the championship and be top 5 in spending were the 09-10 lakers and 10-11 heat.

The big winners of a hard capt system right now would be the heat, who are 22nd in spending as is. They wouldn't really have to get rid of anyone, just some of the more expensive role players. The biggest losers would be the Lakers and Mavs, on one had, and the Thunder and Bulls, on the other, as the thunder and bulls would not be able to resign a lot of their players on rookie contracts.

In basketball superstars dominate even with cheap teams around them. A hard cap may do many things, but it won't improve competitive balance.

The 2010-11 Heat didn't win a championship. The Dallas Mavericks were #3 in total salary.

http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/index.jsp

The 2008-09 Lakers were top 5 in total salary.

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/basketball/nba/salaries/team/2008

The 2007-08 Celtics were #3 in average salary and #7 in total salary.

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/basketball/nba/salaries/team/2007

The best teams typically have the best players which actually means they can win more cheaply. If you are paying Lebron less than JJ, you both have lower payroll and a better chance at a championship all things being equal. Max salaries do that.

[dlpin]

The 2010-11 Heat didn't win a championship. The Dallas Mavericks were #3 in total salary.

http://www.shamsport...aries/index.jsp

The 2008-09 Lakers were top 5 in total salary.

http://content.usato...aries/team/2008

The 2007-08 Celtics were #3 in average salary and #7 in total salary.

http://content.usato...aries/team/2007

The best teams typically have the best players which actually means they can win more cheaply. If you are paying Lebron less than JJ, you both have lower payroll and a better chance at a championship all things being equal. Max salaries do that.

No, the heat didn't win the championship (I thought mavs but typed heat - the heat were not even in the top 15 in speending).. They are the team that would benefit the most from the hard cap. Their main challengers would be broken up.

The celtics were not top 5 in total salary, which is what is relevant for hard cap discussions.

The 08-09 has a different total salary reported in other places:

http://www.eskimo.co.../salaries09.txt

In any case, the point is the same.

Very few of the multiple winners of the past years would be affected by a hard cap.

A supertax creates more revenue sharing, which helps a lot more than a hard cap.

Edited October 1, 2011 by dlpin