Should the NBA change the rules somehow to prevent these "super" teams?

[pdxKingsFan]

That would kill free agency.

Out of curiosity, why would that be a bad thing?

I can only think of one reason and that would be if a team was so completely stacked at one position they kept a truly special player from ever stepping on the court for major minutes.

But if you allowed a team to restrict their starting 5 and gave them the right to match any offer would that be terrible? The union would never allow that so it's not an option on the table, but unless you're a player with money on the line how is free agency a good thing?

It's not like owners wanted free agency, they fought tooth and nail in the courts to prevent it, and it hasn't been particularly great to the fans either. All it has resulted in is player salaries shooting to the moon (I was in high school when OMG he signed a million dollar contract!!! and I ain't that old), "loyalty" becoming synonymous with "loser" and fans being priced out of the arenas and fields.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

That would kill free agency. Never mind that it would never get ratified by either the player's union or the owners, why would a team agree to pay an extra $8 million on top of what they agree to with the player they're signing? Why not just get rid of the salary cap altogether and just have a luxury tax on everything above the current cap threshold? All your proposal would do is ensure that teams like the Clippers stay under the cap so Donald Sterling can profit off of his NBA team.

I think that the proposal was not that the team definitely pay the extra $8M, just that the amount that the contract was under market would count separately against an independently calculated luxury tax number.

So, let's assume (for sake of argument) that the Heat "big three" contracts all start at $13M per year, but that all three guys were offered $16M per year from other teams, that they declined - that $9M difference would then count towards the Heat's luxury tax figure (though not the salary cap figure or actual payroll). Currently the luxury tax is right about $70M, but the "savings" on their big three would put the Heat's luxury tax line effectively at about $61M.

Essentially the suggestion would allow teams to "underpay" for players, but the luxury tax would be based on the true market value of those players, which would add at least some discouragement to stockpiling players at below market value. I don't even think it would be terribly much discouragement, as a team could "underpay" its players to stockpile talent under the salary cap, then pay back some of the savings once (if) they exceeded the tax. It would be better than nothing, but I can't at all see a proposal like this killing free agency. The danger would seem to be in teams making outrageous offers to free agents just to spite their eventual targets, but you'd have to keep in mind that the player might actually accept the outrageous offer. But if you set up reasonable rules - can't make an offer that you can't legally make given the cap, outstanding offers which become illegal due to the offering team adding salary get rescinded automatically, etc. - I think it would be pretty easy to get a rule like this established. I can't see the players losing much, so I don't know why they would complain.

The more I think about it, the biggest problem is that it doesn't seem to have much in the way of teeth. Currently, rich teams can underpay to get under the salary cap and continue to stockpile talent. Under this proposal, it's no different, except that the rich teams might have to pay a little money at the back end in tax. But the real deterrent to this sort of stockpiling now isn't the total cost, it's staying under the cap. And this proposal doesn't change that.

 

[SacKings7]

I like the compensation rule they have in the NFL, where they give teams draft picks if they lose significant free agents. Unfortunately it wouldn't work in the NBA since there's only 2 rounds in the draft

 

[Superman]

Out of curiosity, why would that be a bad thing?

I think that, at some point in their careers, players should have a right to choose where they want to play. I don't know if we are going to argue the merits of free agency in professional sports, but while it has it's disadvantages, it's better than teams owning a player's rights until they don't want those rights anymore.

I can only think of one reason and that would be if a team was so completely stacked at one position they kept a truly special player from ever stepping on the court for major minutes.

But if you allowed a team to restrict their starting 5 and gave them the right to match any offer would that be terrible? The union would never allow that so it's not an option on the table, but unless you're a player with money on the line how is free agency a good thing?

It's not like owners wanted free agency, they fought tooth and nail in the courts to prevent it, and it hasn't been particularly great to the fans either. All it has resulted in is player salaries shooting to the moon (I was in high school when OMG he signed a million dollar contract!!! and I ain't that old), "loyalty" becoming synonymous with "loser" and fans being priced out of the arenas and fields.

Owners were dead set against free agency 35 years ago. If they wanted to make a legitimate case against it now, they'd be hard-pressed to do so when they are the ones offering the sky high contracts (including $80 million to Rudy Gay; $110 million to Rashard Lewis; $80 million to Elton Brand; $119 million for Joe Johnson; $55 million for Ben Gordon; $45 million for Brian Cardinal; $53 million for Hedo Turkoglu; $111 million for Gilbert Arenas; those are just the ones that come to mind).

And as for ticket prices and the like? Supply and demand is a mother. Big time teams have ridiculous ticket prices, and they have waiting lists for season tickets. The general public is waiting to overspend on these games. Ten million people watched LeBron James pee on Cleveland. Eight million people watched the NFL Draft (it peaked at over 23 million). Owners wouldn't charge so much for tickets if people didn't buy them. League Pass wouldn't be $250 if people weren't subscribing. And without those sources of revenue (not to mention apparel and the like), player contracts wouldn't be an average of $5.8 million per season. Sure all this stuff is over-inflated, but that's not going to change, even without free agency.

And what would you do anyways? Just force players to sign lifetime contracts? What happens if they sign a seven year rookie deal, and then they don't want to stay with the Milwaukee Bucks after that contract is up? They just have to retire at 27? Meanwhile, teams can still cut said player or trade him to wherever they want to trade him, and he just has to suck it? That seems incredibly lopsided. I don't have a lot of sympathy for professional athletes who get paid millions of dollars to play the games that I love, but I don't think they should be told where they are going to play, and for how long. They should be allowed a measure of freedom in their professional career. That's why free agency came into existence in the first place.

 

[DocHolliday]

Simply put...no. If a team is operating and players are operating within the rules of the CBA, and salary cap, why shouldn't a team be able to sign whoever they want if they have the money? Why shouldn't players be able to play for any time they like as long as they are a free agent?

That would be like telling you that you can't buy the 10,000 sq ft. house if you have the money. Wouldn't that seem unfair? No, you have the money, but we don't think it's fair for you to have this very large home.

And as far as "collusion" among the players, it doesn't exist. The NBA said they would not enforce any rules about players talking to each other. They won't enforce any rules along those lines, because it's ridiculous. Players are people, players are friends. Friends talk, that's not collusion. That's your buddy that works for one company saying hey we have a position open that you are qualified for, let me see what I can do about getting you to the right people.

Now if tampering can be proven, then that's outside the rules of the CBA and then there is a problem.

 

[Superman]

I think that the proposal was not that the team definitely pay the extra $8M, just that the amount that the contract was under market would count separately against an independently calculated luxury tax number.

So, let's assume (for sake of argument) that the Heat "big three" contracts all start at $13M per year, but that all three guys were offered $16M per year from other teams, that they declined - that $9M difference would then count towards the Heat's luxury tax figure (though not the salary cap figure or actual payroll). Currently the luxury tax is right about $70M, but the "savings" on their big three would put the Heat's luxury tax line effectively at about $61M.

Essentially the suggestion would allow teams to "underpay" for players, but the luxury tax would be based on the true market value of those players, which would add at least some discouragement to stockpiling players at below market value. I don't even think it would be terribly much discouragement, as a team could "underpay" its players to stockpile talent under the salary cap, then pay back some of the savings once (if) they exceeded the tax. It would be better than nothing, but I can't at all see a proposal like this killing free agency. The danger would seem to be in teams making outrageous offers to free agents just to spite their eventual targets, but you'd have to keep in mind that the player might actually accept the outrageous offer. But if you set up reasonable rules - can't make an offer that you can't legally make given the cap, outstanding offers which become illegal due to the offering team adding salary get rescinded automatically, etc. - I think it would be pretty easy to get a rule like this established. I can't see the players losing much, so I don't know why they would complain.

The more I think about it, the biggest problem is that it doesn't seem to have much in the way of teeth. Currently, rich teams can underpay to get under the salary cap and continue to stockpile talent. Under this proposal, it's no different, except that the rich teams might have to pay a little money at the back end in tax. But the real deterrent to this sort of stockpiling now isn't the total cost, it's staying under the cap. And this proposal doesn't change that.

The example given was a bit sensational, so it kind of hid the true merits of the proposal. I still don't see the merits as being all that great, except that it lowers the tax threshold for the team signing the free agents for less than market value. However, in this particular case, the Heat still won't be anywhere near the tax threshold this season, because they can't sign anyone for more than veteran minimum. If I understand the rules correctly, they don't even have an MLE this season. So even with the Big Three's contracts, and the Heat round their roster out with eight more vet minimum contracts, they'll be at about $60 million this season. We're only talking about $8 million between the three of them that they're leaving on the table this season, so that would lower their threshold to $62 million. Still good.

What I thought he was saying is that the signing team pays the however many millions discount that they got as a tax. Which is not a good idea. If Miami, for instance, signs Derek Fisher for $1.5 million, but he turns down a $3 million offer from the Lakers, why should Miami have to pay $1.5 million in tax? Just get rid of the salary cap and let them pay Derek Fisher his market rate. In reality, though, the player taking a minimum contract should be between him, the team and the player's union. You never hear about players in their prime taking significantly less than what they could get otherwise. All told, the Three are taking about $15 million less than if they had gone max. With the sign-and-trades being done, they didn't have to do that to make the deals work. We're not really talking about a significant amount of money being left on the table. If they sign a few free agents and save a million here, two million there, it's not the worst thing that's ever happened. And like I said before, the precedent was set with Lakers Reloaded in 2004. The current CBA was finalized the next year, and no one did anything to prevent that from happening. It's not a huge deal.

I think the best way to address this is to look at a way to compensate the teams that lose in free agency. For all the talk about Cleveland losing LeBron, the big deal is that they don't have cap space to be major players in free agency now that they lost LeBron. They don't have the space to make a trade to bring a big time player in. Giving them a cap allowance that expires at the end of this coming season would allow them to go after another free agent to take LeBron's place, or make a trade and absord a big contract, even though they don't have cap space to do so. And you give them compensatory picks. That way they're not SOL at the end of the day. Still got left at the altar, and you can't sto that from happening, but at least they have something to show for it other than first rounders in three or four years.

 

[Superman]

And as far as "collusion" among the players, it doesn't exist. The NBA said they would not enforce any rules about players talking to each other. They won't enforce any rules along those lines, because it's ridiculous. Players are people, players are friends. Friends talk, that's not collusion. That's your buddy that works for one company saying hey we have a position open that you are qualified for, let me see what I can do about getting you to the right people.

Now if tampering can be proven, then that's outside the rules of the CBA and then there is a problem.

If Dwayne Wade told Pat Riley in 2008 to get this ready, after talking to Bosh and LeBron at the Olympics, then that's a big problem. The bigger problem is that you'd never be able to prove it, and you'd never be able to stop players from talking to each other.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

And what would you do anyways? Just force players to sign lifetime contracts? What happens if they sign a seven year rookie deal, and then they don't want to stay with the Milwaukee Bucks after that contract is up? They just have to retire at 27? Meanwhile, teams can still cut said player or trade him to wherever they want to trade him, and he just has to suck it? That seems incredibly lopsided. I don't have a lot of sympathy for professional athletes who get paid millions of dollars to play the games that I love, but I don't think they should be told where they are going to play, and for how long. They should be allowed a measure of freedom in their professional career. That's why free agency came into existence in the first place.

No obviously I'm not suggesting lifetime contracts, but you were the one suggesting that a few reasonable tweaks to the CBA would "kill" free agency. I just asked why that would be a bad thing?

I do think that players deserve some lattitude in where they play, particularly if they are underutilized or not earning market value. But when 30 teams are lining up to give a guy the max and he won't even take meetings with his current team it just seems broken. I mean the solution there may be as simple as adding the "restricted" tag onto the 2nd contract or until age 30. With so much elite talent going pro after just one year of college it seems fair that the team that drafts and develops them gets more than 3 or 4 years of the player at their prime.

 

[Superman]

No obviously I'm not suggesting lifetime contracts, but you were the one suggesting that a few reasonable tweaks to the CBA would "kill" free agency. I just asked why that would be a bad thing?

I think the tweak suggested would kill free agency, because I don't think teams would be willing to pay luxury taxes just because they got a discount from the player. Rather than giving their money to Donald Sterling, just allow them to pay what the player would command on the open market and get rid of the salary cap. That would further inflate contracts, though.

I do think that players deserve some lattitude in where they play, particularly if they are underutilized or not earning market value. But when 30 teams are lining up to give a guy the max and he won't even take meetings with his current team it just seems broken. I mean the solution there may be as simple as adding the "restricted" tag onto the 2nd contract or until age 30. With so much elite talent going pro after just one year of college it seems fair that the team that drafts and develops them gets more than 3 or 4 years of the player at their prime.

Why, because they drafted them? What if that player's prime doesn't wind up being what they expected it would be? Then they can just relinquish those rights and Darko Milicic can go wherever the hell he wants to, right? But the other four guys that got drafted with him and turned into star players have to locked down until their prime is fading, without regard for their team's commitment to winning. That sucks.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Yeah it must suck being a multibajillionaire and having to spend the first 10 years of your career in Milwaukee or Cleveland.

I wouldn't know.

In all seriousness though, they could go to Europe or something if they hated it that bad. The fact is they are in a league and the league has an interest in maintaining the competitive balance of their smaller markets.

 

[Superman]

Yeah it must suck being a multibajillionaire and having to spend the first 10 years of your career in Milwaukee or Cleveland.

I wouldn't know.

It must suck being the uber-multibajillionaire that pays the multibajillionaire's, and losing your cash cow because you failed for four years to get him a true second option.

On the other hand, if they were restricted free agents until they were 30, what would motivate the Cavs to get him a true second option, if there's no threat of him leaving? You also have to acknowledge the fact that when LeBron is 30, he'll have played 12 years in the NBA. That's close to 1200 games, including the playoffs. Assuming he isn't bionic, he'll starting showing wear and tear around that time the same as every other star NBA player has after 1200 games.

In all seriousness though, they could go to Europe or something if they hated it that bad. The fact is they are in a league and the league has an interest in maintaining the competitive balance of their smaller markets.

If that were true, there would be a hard cap.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

If that were true, there would be a hard cap.

I may be wrong but there isn't a hard cap because that was one thing the player's union wouldn't budge on. The luxury tax was a compromise and yet it has proven to be a complete failure in most regards.

But as for the original free agency killing idea - apply the luxury tax to players that play for under market value - I do think the union would go for that since it would only serve to increase player salaries around the league which is what they want.

 

[Jose]

I think that the proposal was not that the team definitely pay the extra $8M, just that the amount that the contract was under market would count separately against an independently calculated luxury tax number.

So, let's assume (for sake of argument) that the Heat "big three" contracts all start at $13M per year, but that all three guys were offered $16M per year from other teams, that they declined - that $9M difference would then count towards the Heat's luxury tax figure (though not the salary cap figure or actual payroll). Currently the luxury tax is right about $70M, but the "savings" on their big three would put the Heat's luxury tax line effectively at about $61M.

^^ This.... I agree with what others have said that it doesn't have a lot of "teeth", but at least it's something. A team that is smart in managing its salaries can still get away with one or two players "on the cheap", but it may hurt them in other areas as they would need to watch how they use their MLE, etc. to avoid getting over the luxury tax threshold. Plus, it may make teams think twice... if the "big 3" had $20m offers from other teams, would MIA be so willing to take them? It would truly allow the market to determine the value of the players, and allow teams with cap space to make offers that would matter.

I can't see why the player's union wouldn't love this...

 

[Superman]

^^ This.... I agree with what others have said that it doesn't have a lot of "teeth", but at least it's something. A team that is smart in managing its salaries can still get away with one or two players "on the cheap", but it may hurt them in other areas as they would need to watch how they use their MLE, etc. to avoid getting over the luxury tax threshold. Plus, it may make teams think twice... if the "big 3" had $20m offers from other teams, would MIA be so willing to take them? It would truly allow the market to determine the value of the players, and allow teams with cap space to make offers that would matter.

I can't see why the player's union wouldn't love this...

If a team is offering max contracts to free agents, then they don't have an MLE to offer. I mentioned earlier that the proposed scenario would be unlikely to cause Miami to exceed even an altered tax threshold. And if you're imposing the tax the minute the team signs the player without regard for the tax threshold, then why? Because the player prefers my team to yours? It could be that his family lives in this city, and he's been trying to get there for a while. It doesn't have to be because they have a better shot at a title.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

It doesn't matter why a player is taking a discount from market value, they are still circumventing the salary cap and luxury tax situation when doing so.

For those that take the "This is America" approach - let's note that just as your rich uncle can't sell you his million dollar house for $1 without all kinds of tax laws kicking in, the luxury tax laws should apply in a similar fashion.

 

[Superman]

It doesn't matter why a player is taking a discount from market value, they are still circumventing the salary cap and luxury tax situation when doing so.

What I'm saying is that A) this isn't a common occurence;

B) when Lakers Reloaded happened, the NBA and union were in the middle of negotiations, and nothing was done abut veterans "circumventing the salary cap" to play for a contender. Didn't even make a ripple as the new CBA was finalized a year later. The NBA and the owners don't consider it to be a big deal, and in fact, I don't think it should be. First of all, just because a team offers more more money doesn't mean that a player should be obligated to take said offer. Secondly, there can be any number of compelling reasons why a player would want to play for less, and said reasons might be worth more monetarily than he's giving up. I don't think you should handicap teams or players just because one team is willing to outbid another, and still loses. The Clippers are in a huge market, but players regularly spurn them. Lamar Odom begged the Clippers to let him leave, for equal money. Six years later, he seriously contemplated going back to Miami (which kind of blows the whole "Wade told Riles to get ready for 2010" theory out of the water, or at least makes it harder to conceive) for less money. Sometimes, a player makes a decision to play somewhere for less. I don't think the team that he chooses should be penalized for it.

For those that take the "This is America" approach - let's note that just as your rich uncle can't sell you his million dollar house for $1 without all kinds of tax laws kicking in, the luxury tax laws should apply in a similar fashion.

I'm not a "This is America" kind of guy. I'm not a political person, in general, so without getting political, I'll just note that regulations exist primarily as a protection. When we're talking about a rich man's hobby, a diversion, it's kind of hard to justify levying a tax on one team just because a certain player would rather play there, even for less money.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I'm not a "This is America" kind of guy. I'm not a political person, in general, so without getting political, I'll just note that regulations exist primarily as a protection. When we're talking about a rich man's hobby, a diversion, it's kind of hard to justify levying a tax on one team just because a certain player would rather play there, even for less money.

It wasn't a political comment, I was merely pointing out that in this country we actually have rules about selling goods and services for less than their value and cited one of the more obvious ones. Why shouldn't they apply here? Again like I said it doesn't matter WHY the player wants to play for less, though the only reason he would do so ultimately is to skirt around the salary cap. Can you name any players that took less than market value to play with teams that still had cap money to play with after their rosters were complete? I would be surprised if there are any. They might leave for the most the team they really want to play for can pay but if they had another $5 of cap space you can be sure they'd also ask for that too.

 

[Superman]

It wasn't a political comment, I was merely pointing out that in this country we actually have rules about selling goods and services for less than their value and cited one of the more obvious ones. Why shouldn't they apply here? Again like I said it doesn't matter WHY the player wants to play for less, though the only reason he would do so ultimately is to skirt around the salary cap. Can you name any players that took less than market value to play with teams that still had cap money to play with after their rosters were complete? I would be surprised if there are any. They might leave for the most the team they really want to play for can pay but if they had another $5 of cap space you can be sure they'd also ask for that too.

I can't think of very many free agents that took less money, period, especially where it was a significant amount of money left on the table. That's why I don't think it's a huge deal.

In Odom's case, the Heat offered him a five year MLE deal since they were over the cap, but offered him an opt-out after three years so that they could renegotiate his deal after attaining Bird rights. To me, THAT'S circumventing the CBA, and it's a bigger issue than a veteran signing a $1.5 million contract when he could be signing at $2.5 million contract. Haslem is taking less to stay with Miami, but it's looking like it's going to be a difference of $1.8 million a year. We're not talking about guys who would be setting the market here, so the union doesn't really care all that much about the free market ramifications of these deals.

And to be honest, if there's a problem with pay, it's that it's too high. I listed a few of the really bloated contracts of the last few years earlier. As long as those guys are signing for that kind of money, there's no chance that the player's association is concerned about guys taking less. In most cases, it really is about the money. Joe Johnson could have teamed up with Amare Stoudemire or Carlos Boozer, but he took that extra $30 million from Atlanta and is stuck on a 5th seed Eastern conference team for the foreseeable future. We're not talking about prime guys going to Miami to play for the vet minimum and totally upsetting the marketplace. We're talking about Derek Fisher and Wally Sczerbiak and Tim Thomas (who has already made twice as much as he should have in his career), etc. You know what I'm sayin? Von Wafer, Kwame Brown, Brad Miller ... these aren't guys that are setting the table for the rest of the NBA.

 

[Superman]

@DerekFisher:

While this may not be the most lucrative contract I've been offered this off season, it is the most valuable.

 

[ElRey]

The NBA needs a hard cap, even if its a higher hard cap. Probably won't ever happen though. You know the players union would be against it. Stern probably is against it as well since that takes away big market teams' advantage.

 

[Anthony1]

I think the simplest solution to this issue, is to have a formula, where if a team doesn't pay the FA 80% or more of his previous years salary, then his former team gets the opportunity to match the offer and retain the player.

 

[Kingster]

http://www.nowpublic.com/sports/chris-paul-carmelo-anthony-wedding-toast-prediction-2639544.html

Could there be a grain of truth to this? Maybe next year we'll see Paul, Anthony, and Stoudemire in New York? This is why I HATE the Miami situation. It obviously opens the door for other players doing the same thing. And you can bet that the superstars aren't going to say: Let's all get together in Sacto!

 

[Jose]

I think the simplest solution to this issue, is to have a formula, where if a team doesn't pay the FA 80% or more of his previous years salary, then his former team gets the opportunity to match the offer and retain the player.

^^ ... as long as the team had also made a sort of qualifying offer to the free agent? That way, a team has to try to comptete for their own free agents. But that would kind of be the end of free agency as we know it... all free agents would become RFAs of sorts...

 

[Capt. Factorial]

http://www.nowpublic.com/sports/chris-paul-carmelo-anthony-wedding-toast-prediction-2639544.html

Could there be a grain of truth to this? Maybe next year we'll see Paul, Anthony, and Stoudemire in New York? This is why I HATE the Miami situation. It obviously opens the door for other players doing the same thing. And you can bet that the superstars aren't going to say: Let's all get together in Sacto!

It might be more credible if it had identified Chris Paul as a New Orleans Hornet rather than as a New Orleans Saint.

 

[Superman]

I think the simplest solution to this issue, is to have a formula, where if a team doesn't pay the FA 80% or more of his previous years salary, then his former team gets the opportunity to match the offer and retain the player.

I think that by playing out your contract, you should be able to earn your free agency at some point and choose for yourself where you're going to play.

You also have consider that a lot of players are overpaid. Kwame Brown was a $10 million/year player at one point. Rashard Lewis won't be making anywhere near $24 million after his contract expires in 2013. That system would artificially over-inflate salaries even more than what we've already seen.

The Bird rights are already addressing this issue. Maybe you could make a Bird rights contract more attractive for the free agent, but it already gives the current team the ability to offer a much more lucrative contract, which is why Joe Johnson is still in Atlanta and Rudy Gay is still in Memphis (also why Gilbert Arenas is still in Washington). It's the reason we were able to keep Chris Webber in 2001. You don't often see players -- especially top tier players in their primes -- leaving tens of millions of dollars on the table. It's usually a midlevel player or a long time veteran who wants to play for a contender, and they've usually put in several years and made a ton of money.

 

[kennadog]

Maybe I'm naive, but I think money wasn't not the only thing that kept Webber here.

Certain teams that might offer less money have an advantage if they are located in states that have no income tax, like Texas and Florida. When that is taken into consideration, it's not necessarily that much less, if at all.

 

[Superman]

Maybe I'm naive, but I think money wasn't not the only thing that kept Webber here.

I don't think it was the only thing, but I'm sure it was a factor. I think it amounted to $25 million + the extra year, and we can't just ignore that. In the end, that's why the Bird rule exists, so that teams have a leg up in retaining their own free agents.

Certain teams that might offer less money have an advantage if they are located in states that have no income tax, like Texas and Florida. When that is taken into consideration, it's not necessarily that much less, if at all.

In LeBron's case, his total state tax would have been about $8 million on his $130 million max contract. He signed for $110 million, so he's still $12 million shy of what he could have made. Stretched out over six years, it's not that big of a deal when you're signing a nine figure contract, but it's still a lot of money. All I'm saying is that the state tax issue doesn't completely account for the money left on the table.

 

[LPKingsFan]

To start, why not just jack up the luxury tax rate? That wouldn't have stopped the initial occurrence of a team like Miami amassing cap space to sign three superstars who are willing to take a pay cut to play together, but I really don't think there is much you can realistically do unless you're forcing a player to stay put, which I can't get on board with (rookies already go through restricted free agency once). But in the subsequent years as they try to add more pieces with the MLE, and as their player salaries increase, the lux tax would hurt more and more. I still think the concept of a luxury tax might work better than a hard cap, it just needs to have more bite.

 

[Superman]

To start, why not just jack up the luxury tax rate? That wouldn't have stopped the initial occurrence of a team like Miami amassing cap space to sign three superstars who are willing to take a pay cut to play together, but I really don't think there is much you can realistically do unless you're forcing a player to stay put, which I can't get on board with (rookies already go through restricted free agency once). But in the subsequent years as they try to add more pieces with the MLE, and as their player salaries increase, the lux tax would hurt more and more. I still think the concept of a luxury tax might work better than a hard cap, it just needs to have more bite.

It's already a dollar for dollar tax. That's a 100% tax. What would you raise it to?

And if a team wants to pay it, then they pay it. If you make it so prohibitive that no one will pay it, then you've basically just set a hard cap.

 

[ElRey]

It's already a dollar for dollar tax. That's a 100% tax. What would you raise it to?

And if a team wants to pay it, then they pay it. If you make it so prohibitive that no one will pay it, then you've basically just set a hard cap.

There is really no replacement for a hard cap. You can increase the luxury tax but that will only increase the disparity between big market and small market teams even more. The reason is that big market teams make so much more than small market teams that they will still go over the increased luxury tax and do well, whereas the smaller/mid market teams wouldn't dare go over it. for example, I don't see an increased luxury tax deterring the Lakers from going over the cap. They make so much more than most other teams that they could probably care less and it's worth the price for them to pay for having a championship level team.

These are the NBA team revenue from Forbes, it's a couple years old but it gives you an idea of the revenue teams are bringing in.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/32/nba08_NBA-Team-Valuations_Rank.html

ps I think those are just arena revenues so it doesn't include merchandise, local TV, and other income, which should be even higher for big market teams.