Hard Cap Coming? USL?

[JayBirdHawk]

 

Hard cap to be discussed in next CBA talks?

The two most daunting words in the realm of NBA labor relations are suddenly coming up with greater frequency than I’ve ever heard in my three decades covering #thisleague: Hard cap. League sources say that there is an increasing push from the various factions on the league/ownership side to push for a system closer to a true hard cap … with a twist. The current proposals, sources say, don’t actually call it a hard cap, since those words carry such a negative stigma. “Upper Spending Limit,” I’m told, is the nomenclature in play.

 

– via Marc Stein @ marcstein.substack.com

[warcore]

you mean, Upper Spending Limit? 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

These owners always claim to know the fixes concerning revenue and labor.  But everytime they try to tweak something, it backfires.

So let me get this straight NBA. You want to create a system that is similar to the NFL, that sees teams lose its 2nd and 3rd best player all the time, because the salary cap keeps him from being signed?  And you wonder why there is so much instability in the NFL, when it comes to team records?  See LA Rams.

Is that what we truly want in the NBA?

Imagine a situation in which Dejounte Murray really blossoms into a bonafide All-Star talent that is worthy of a max contract.  Atlanta, who has his Bird Rights, could sign him and go over the salary cap, even paying Luxury Tax if they wanted to.  But under a hard or "upper spending limit" system, they'd be forced to let him go with no compensation whatsoever.

No sign and trade. No nothing.

And worse, what if the other teams around the league couldn't afford Dejounte's price tag?  He'd have to take a pay cut, just to get as much as he could from the highest bidder.  Or take an even deeper pay cut to play for a playoff level team.

Players might counter this, by signing one year deals, and become a free agent the following year, knowing when other teams could clear cap space to sign bigger contracts.

[Jdawgflow]

This idea of a hard cap is silly.  The owners are billionaires and can spend as much as they like (see GS, BKN, LAC).  If anything just keep jacking up the luxury tax payments so the “cheap” owners can get more sweet, sweet tax payments.

[JeffS17]

I don't really see the issue with the current system.  The only thing I would change is the difference between a super max and max not counting towards the cap similar to how vet min contracts count the same towards your cap space regardless of the player's years of experience

[JTB]

It ain’t going to happen. lol 

nba ain’t the nfl simple as that. The players Union is too strong and the nba will always be a players league.

[Jdawgflow]

9 hours ago, JeffS17 said:

I don't really see the issue with the current system.  The only thing I would change is the difference between a super max and max not counting towards the cap similar to how vet min contracts count the same towards your cap space regardless of the player's years of experience

This is a great idea and I would add only being able to do this for a homegrown Supermax (which is probably what you were alluding to).

[theheroatl]

On 10/28/2022 at 7:06 PM, Jdawgflow said:

This idea of a hard cap is silly.  The owners are billionaires and can spend as much as they like (see GS, BKN, LAC).  If anything just keep jacking up the luxury tax payments so the “cheap” owners can get more sweet, sweet tax payments.

Yes, this exactly.. Create such a drastic increase in luxury tax that if they double the salary cap in payroll (like GSW) they will pay $1b in luxury tax.

Spread the rich owner wealth around the league if they are going to get championships.

[JeffS17]

1 hour ago, Jdawgflow said:

This is a great idea and I would add only being able to do this for a homegrown Supermax (which is probably what you were alluding to).

Yep, basically the cap hit would always be what other teams could max you out at.  So if you get 5% escalators instead of 3%.  The difference between those contracts would be the hit to the cap.  Same with max v bird right supermax

[AHF]

I think is negotiating posturing by the owners.  They lead with the idea of a hard cap and then fall back to what they are really targeting.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

I think is negotiating posturing by the owners.  They lead with the idea of a hard cap and then fall back to what they are really targeting.

Do you have any guesses as to what they may be targeting? 

[JayBirdHawk]

11 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Do you have any guesses as to what they may be targeting? 

Maybe the BRI split.  I think it's 50/50.  Maybe go back to 51/49 owners?

[AHF]

13 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Do you have any guesses as to what they may be targeting? 

 

1 minute ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Maybe the BRI split.  I think it's 50/50.  Maybe go back to 51/49 owners?

This is just me speculating but I would guess BRI split; the definition of BRI (if something is excluded from BRI the owners effectively get 100% of that); tax provisions; and potentially negotiations around things like treatment of bonuses, max/min salary clauses, etc.

[Jdawgflow]

12 hours ago, theheroatl said:

Yes, this exactly.. Create such a drastic increase in luxury tax that if they double the salary cap in payroll (like GSW) they will pay $1b in luxury tax.

Spread the rich owner wealth around the league if they are going to get championships.

Yessir.  Poor billionaire owners need money too!

[Jdawgflow]

11 hours ago, JeffS17 said:

Yep, basically the cap hit would always be what other teams could max you out at.  So if you get 5% escalators instead of 3%.  The difference between those contracts would be the hit to the cap.  Same with max v bird right supermax

This is by far the best idea I have heard @JeffS17.  This would really put more emphasis on drafting well and help small markets to “even the playing field”.  Bravo sir.

10 hours ago, AHF said:

I think is negotiating posturing by the owners.  They lead with the idea of a hard cap and then fall back to what they are really targeting.

I think you are correct @AHF.  Not sure what they want but know this will not fly with the players and they can still look like the “good guys” by giving up stuff.

[JayBirdHawk]

 

 

[Sothron]

The players will never agree to a hard cap or something that is that but called by a different name. The hard cap has really crippled the NFL imo and it would be a disaster for the NBA. 

[Watchman]

On 10/28/2022 at 7:06 PM, Jdawgflow said:

This idea of a hard cap is silly.  The owners are billionaires and can spend as much as they like (see GS, BKN, LAC).  If anything just keep jacking up the luxury tax payments so the “cheap” owners can get more sweet, sweet tax payments.

Whoopee.  We get inferior teams, who watch the same old mega market teams win year after year.  Does that sound exciting to you?  We get owners who tell us they're willing to pay the luxury tax but orchestrate trades to keep us below the tax level. Yet they retain Schlenk, Nate and Trae, which are recipes for mediocrity.  Hard to see brighter days ahead.  Oh well, with a lockout we get some temporary relief from mediocrity.

Edited December 10, 2022 by Watchman

[Gray Mule]

The have's and the have not's.  We will always have them, regardless of what happens.  Some NBA teams with tons of money will own an all star team while the poorer teams will try to compete.

Baseball has no spending cap.  Owners spend whatever they wish.  See some of the recent contracts.  The rich team will always win because they can afford it.

NFL may be too tight and the baseball too loose.  Perhaps we can find the happy medium.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

If they go to a hard cap, the NBA may have a similar problem like what the WNBA is having.

In the WNBA, the owners have opted to pay veteran players closer to what they are worth.  While this has improved the play around the league, it's pretty much killed the young talent coming in.  You have 1st round draft picks getting cut in their rookie year in the WNBA.  High picks at that.

You are still going to have teams that will load up and try to get top level talent.  And if a team misses on a contract, you're not going to be able to use the Luxury Tax as a safety net to make up for your mistakes.  People may think that is good, but it's actually going to be bad.

For the Hawks, that would mean that a guy like Dejounte Murray would be lost, because we've given huge contracts to Hunter and Collins . . who people may or may not want.

And you'll always have a front office that will try to circumvent any rule that is put into place.

They're trying to reduce "player empowerment", when in reality, it's only like 5 - 10 players in the league who can dictate where they want to go.  It's not the fault of the players that you have horrible and inept front offices that doesn't recognize talent or can't build teams correctly.