Free-agency all the time: Someone needs a to put a stop to it before the NBA dies

[Peter_Gibbons]

What I think the NBA should do is


-Lower maximum contracts (# of yrs can stay the same)

-Only part of the money is guaranteed in each contract and the rest are performance bonus (it has to be reasonable, such as playing X number of games a season, having a 20ppg scorer guarantee at least 15ppg. ) So there won't be people sitting out a yr and getting paid and cripple the franchise.

-Franchise tag

-Change the current cap system so that teams have to pay dollar for dollar as soon as they exceed the cap, not when the pass the luxury threshold of ($76 mil this yr?). This will stop teams like lakers, Mavs etc to stack up talent and make it unfair to cities/teams without the deep pockets.



I agree that at the end of the day, the players are still going to want to play in the NBA. Its where they will get paid the most, get endorsements, fame etc etc. The league and fans have been giving players too much power. With the amount that they make from TV deals and tickets, teams should not be losing so much money. But a very normal player is getting paid $6-$8 mil on the average these days in the NBA. Thats too much money and us normal fans can barely afford to go to a game.

 

[Gargamel]

-Change the current cap system so that teams have to pay dollar for dollar as soon as they exceed the cap, not when the pass the luxury threshold of ($76 mil this yr?). This will stop teams like lakers, Mavs etc to stack up talent and make it unfair to cities/teams without the deep pockets.

Gotta do something about Buss, who has less money than the owners of: Portland, Orlando, Minny, Indy, Denver, Memphis, Charlotte, Cleveland, and Larry Miller when he was above ground. Also, less than Sterling. Paul Allen is struggling to keep up w/ Dr. B.

 

[Superman]

Gotta do something about Buss, who has less money than the owners of: Portland, Orlando, Minny, Indy, Denver, Memphis, Charlotte, Cleveland, and Larry Miller when he was above ground. Also, less than Sterling. Paul Allen is struggling to keep up w/ Dr. B.

Buss is the one adding free agents despite being well above the salary cap every year. I don't think it matters how much money any of them have. What matters most is how much they're spending, and Buss is spending more than anyone else, and has been for several seasons now. So yes, we gotta do something about Buss.

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

Buss is the one adding free agents despite being well above the salary cap every year. I don't think it matters how much money any of them have. What matters most is how much they're spending, and Buss is spending more than anyone else, and has been for several seasons now. So yes, we gotta do something about Buss.

Agreed, it doesn't really matter how much they are worth. Cuban is not the richest owner by any means but he is one of the top spenders, even when his team reportedly loss $40 mil last season.

Jerry Buss also has billionaire Philip Anschutz as a co owner. Part of this guy's business is AEG which owns the Staples center, Home Depot Center, O2 arena, hugh interest in the MLS.

Changing the cap rule to charge dollar for dollar once its over $58mil will make everyone think twice.

 

[Packt]

-Only part of the money is guaranteed in each contract and the rest are performance bonus (it has to be reasonable, such as playing X number of games a season, having a 20ppg scorer guarantee at least 15ppg. ) So there won't be people sitting out a yr and getting paid and cripple the franchise.

Can we get some examples of players crippling a franchise by sitting out a year? I'm not saying it hasn't happened, I just want to see some examples. I know Grant Hill in Orlando was crippling, but that eventually lead to Dwight and the finals. Knowing that Dwight is on your team would you go back and change what happened? Who knows how the cards would've stacked up without all the suckage they went through. Being able to cut unproductive players will just give big market teams an even bigger advantage to small market teams. The Eddy Curry and Jerome James of the world will get cut and those teams will have the cash to sign whomever is hot that season and rinse, repeat. The one advantage small market teams have had is being smarter with their money. This would allow big market teams to erase their mistakes erase the advantage small market teams had.

-Change the current cap system so that teams have to pay dollar for dollar as soon as they exceed the cap, not when the pass the luxury threshold of ($76 mil this yr?). This will stop teams like lakers, Mavs etc to stack up talent and make it unfair to cities/teams without the deep pockets.

How does this not hurt a market like Sacramento? Big markets will still have more money, and will still be able to afford more. They'll sign the stars and have the role players sign on for pennies on the dollar. They pay the tax cause they can while the small market teams won't have the cash to go over the tax.

 

[Superman]

Can we get some examples of players crippling a franchise by sitting out a year? I'm not saying it hasn't happened, I just want to see some examples. I know Grant Hill in Orlando was crippling, but that eventually lead to Dwight and the finals. Knowing that Dwight is on your team would you go back and change what happened? Who knows how the cards would've stacked up without all the suckage they went through. Being able to cut unproductive players will just give big market teams an even bigger advantage to small market teams. The Eddy Curry and Jerome James of the world will get cut and those teams will have the cash to sign whomever is hot that season and rinse, repeat. The one advantage small market teams have had is being smarter with their money. This would allow big market teams to erase their mistakes erase the advantage small market teams had.

I think the only way to do a hard cap is if you have non-guaranteed contracts, but I don't think that will happen in the NBA, as much as I think it needs to.

How does this not hurt a market like Sacramento? Big markets will still have more money, and will still be able to afford more. They'll sign the stars and have the role players sign on for pennies on the dollar. They pay the tax cause they can while the small market teams won't have the cash to go over the tax.

You'd have to make the tax more severe, and maybe even progressive as you spend more consecutive years over the tax threshold. You could also take away signing exceptions so teams can't use the MLE to add talent every year, even though they're well over the cap. Maybe restrict Bird rights. The whole point is that the tax was meant to be a deterrent, but it's not working, especially not for teams that are title contenders every season. So make it a real deterrent. You'd also have to reform the way the other teams receive tax payments, so that they don't get satisfied having a bad team as long as they're profiting off the good teams. You only receive a percentage of the cap in any given year (this year the max you'd get would be $5.5 million for being under the cap), and you can't receive tax money in consecutive years.

So, for instance, the Lakers would not have been able to sign Ron Artest last summer. No Matt Barnes and Steve Blake this summer. They've built a title contender, and they've done so by spending money. Nothing wrong with that. But you shouldn't be able to say "I'm willing to pay double the money for free agents as long as I can win a championship," because that's essentially the same thing the Yankees and Red Sox do. If you have a cap, make it have a purpose.

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

Can we get some examples of players crippling a franchise by sitting out a year? I'm not saying it hasn't happened, I just want to see some examples. I know Grant Hill in Orlando was crippling, but that eventually lead to Dwight and the finals. Knowing that Dwight is on your team would you go back and change what happened? Who knows how the cards would've stacked up without all the suckage they went through. Being able to cut unproductive players will just give big market teams an even bigger advantage to small market teams. The Eddy Curry and Jerome James of the world will get cut and those teams will have the cash to sign whomever is hot that season and rinse, repeat. The one advantage small market teams have had is being smarter with their money. This would allow big market teams to erase their mistakes erase the advantage small market teams had.

You are saying that because Orlando ended up drafting Dwight and got to the finals many years after Grant Hill was sitting out and milked top $ and salary cap space is a good thing. It doesn't relate.

Also, I didn't propose the teams being able to CUT the players. I said only part of their salary is guaranteed and the other part is performance based. Do you really think the players will purposely be unproductive to not get their incentives?

My point is for more than just the top salary guys. For every player there should be a partial guaranteed contract. A 10ppg scorer would be expected to score ... say 7.5ppg if the coach gives him X amount of mins. He must stay healthy enough to play in 75% of the games or there is a per game deduction for every game they miss over the 25%. Its a fair thing to do. Every team works with the same salary cap. Just because he didn't reach his performance bonus, it doesn't mean you can just clear that off your salary cap and use it on someone else. Thats not what I'm proposing.

How does this not hurt a market like Sacramento? Big markets will still have more money, and will still be able to afford more. They'll sign the stars and have the role players sign on for pennies on the dollar. They pay the tax cause they can while the small market teams won't have the cash to go over the tax.

The lakers make $15million last season if I remember what they said on AM570 correctly. If the luxury tax kicks in right after $58 mil instead of $76, the lakers would have to pay $18 more million for their luxury spending. They would end up losing $3 million. Do you think the Buss family and their shareholders want to lose money?

It hurts the big market teams because they are usually the ones to go deep into the luxury tax to begin with. We see most other teams trying to clear their cap space. Remember even crazy Mark Cuban is losing $40 million last yr reportedly. His shareholders are suing him in part for his reckless spending that led to the team's large losses.

The early kick in of luxury tax will stop teams like the lakers from signing Artest and then Blake and Barnes every yr. You also need to understand that it affects beyond just MLE players they add. Staying with the lakers as an example, if the lux tax kicks in @ $58 mil, would the lakers have been able to award huge extensions to Pau Gasol, Andrew Bynum, Lamar Odom, and kobe?

NO, they would be forced to give up 1 or even 2 of them. Just like NFL teams often have to let stars walk. The small market teams are definitely in better shape if big market teams can't keep 3 or 4 big salary stars. There will always be a smaller market team that has cap space and end up being able to bring on a superstar because his big market team can't resign him at the amount of $ he is asking for.

 

[venom_7]

NBA needs a franchise tag, no questions asked. Teams can franchise a player at the end of his rookie or extended rookie contract for one year at the average salary for the NBA. It would encourage team loyalty, and if the player was really insistent on leaving, they would either play another year with that team, or get traded to a different team.

 

[Superman]

NBA needs a franchise tag, no questions asked. Teams can franchise a player at the end of his rookie or extended rookie contract for one year at the average salary for the NBA. It would encourage team loyalty, and if the player was really insistent on leaving, they would either play another year with that team, or get traded to a different team.

That's a horrible idea. At least Brick was suggesting a long-term max contract. There's no way in the world a top tier player should be forced to play on a one year, NBA average salary. That would mean that LeBron James would be playing on a one-year, $6 million contract this season, with no chance of negotiating a better deal. And exactly how would that encourage team loyalty?

 

[Packt]

You are saying that because Orlando ended up drafting Dwight and got to the finals many years after Grant Hill was sitting out and milked top $ and salary cap space is a good thing. It doesn't relate.

Also, I didn't propose the teams being able to CUT the players. I said only part of their salary is guaranteed and the other part is performance based. Do you really think the players will purposely be unproductive to not get their incentives?

My point is for more than just the top salary guys. For every player there should be a partial guaranteed contract. A 10ppg scorer would be expected to score ... say 7.5ppg if the coach gives him X amount of mins. He must stay healthy enough to play in 75% of the games or there is a per game deduction for every game they miss over the 25%. Its a fair thing to do. Every team works with the same salary cap. Just because he didn't reach his performance bonus, it doesn't mean you can just clear that off your salary cap and use it on someone else. Thats not what I'm proposing.






The lakers make $15million last season if I remember what they said on AM570 correctly. If the luxury tax kicks in right after $58 mil instead of $76, the lakers would have to pay $18 more million for their luxury spending. They would end up losing $3 million. Do you think the Buss family and their shareholders want to lose money?

It hurts the big market teams because they are usually the ones to go deep into the luxury tax to begin with. We see most other teams trying to clear their cap space. Remember even crazy Mark Cuban is losing $40 million last yr reportedly. His shareholders are suing him in part for his reckless spending that led to the team's large losses.

The early kick in of luxury tax will stop teams like the lakers from signing Artest and then Blake and Barnes every yr. You also need to understand that it affects beyond just MLE players they add. Staying with the lakers as an example, if the lux tax kicks in @ $58 mil, would the lakers have been able to award huge extensions to Pau Gasol, Andrew Bynum, Lamar Odom, and kobe?

NO, they would be forced to give up 1 or even 2 of them. Just like NFL teams often have to let stars walk. The small market teams are definitely in better shape if big market teams can't keep 3 or 4 big salary stars. There will always be a smaller market team that has cap space and end up being able to bring on a superstar because his big market team can't resign him at the amount of $ he is asking for.

I took “So there won't be people sitting out a yr and getting paid and cripple the franchise.” as being able to cut players. Players doing the minimum to collect their check is acceptable? Would unearned incentives get credited back into the capspace?

The fast pace nature of the NBA isn't conducive to incentive base pay you proposed. Micro managing players minutes and points will only lead to players looking out for themselves.

As far as the tax kicking in as soon as a team exceeds the cap, that doesn't solve anything. Big market teams still have more money than small market teams. Infact this probably hurts smaller market teams because they have less money and any penalty will be a heavier burden. This will be a step backwards.

 

[Superman]

As far as the tax kicking in as soon as a team exceeds the cap, that doesn't solve anything. Big market teams still have more money than small market teams. Infact this probably hurts smaller market teams because they have less money and any penalty will be a heavier burden. This will be a step backwards.

That's not necessarily true that big market teams have more money. Depends on how you're defining "market", I guess, but Paul Allen and Larry Ellison have way more money than Jerry Buss and James Dolan. Portland and Oakland pale in comparison to LA and New York. The only big money owner in the NBA that's in a big market is Mark Cuban (at least off the top of my head), but Dallas isn't exactly an NBA free agent wishlist destination.

And here's the thing about the luxury tax: If it's not going to be a deterrent, than get rid of it. It's not serving it's purpose now, so either we tweak it to make it more effective, or we get rid of the dang thing. I think that a) making it progressive; b) having it kick in at the cap, instead of another, higher level; c) adding other signing penalties to teams over the tax threshold; those three changes combined would make it more effective at keeping both big market teams and billionaire owners from just spending into oblivion and offering max extensions every summer.

 

[Bricklayer]

The luxury tax has been a HUGE deterrent. Basically a hard cap for about 4/5 of the league. It really changed the thinking and teams making desperate deals to slip under it has become a normal part of the landscape.

Its only proven ineffective for a handful of owners, which is of course the discussion.


In a perfect world though you would somehow allow teams to go over the cap to keep their teams together while simultaneously equally restricting all of the owners regardless of wealth.

 

[kennadog]

That's not necessarily true that big market teams have more money. Depends on how you're defining "market", I guess, but Paul Allen and Larry Ellison have way more money than Jerry Buss and James Dolan. Portland and Oakland pale in comparison to LA and New York. The only big money owner in the NBA that's in a big market is Mark Cuban (at least off the top of my head), but Dallas isn't exactly an NBA free agent wishlist destination.

n terms of personal wealth, you may be right, although Cuban at least makes Forbes list of 500 billionionaires. None of the Maloofs ever have.A bigger marekt, though, means bigger cash revenues for the team. Their TV contracts are bigger, they have a bigger corporate base to draw sponserships from and they can sell a lot more expensive suites. With much bigger populations, they can sell a lot more NBA mechandise. And in a place like LA, they can share the arena with two other pro teams, cutting their arena expenses. So its not just personal wealth that helps these teams, its the bigger amount of revenue sources that most big market teams can count on. Also, teams in Texas and Florida have the no State tax appeal.

It'll never happen in a million years, but revenue sharing, more than a luxury tax, would really help the smaller market teams, who will never be able to consistently produce the revenue srtream of the bigger market teams. OK and Sac haven't a snowball's chance of producing the revenue of an LA or NY.

 

[Bricklayer]

n terms of personal wealth, you may be right, although Cuban at least makes Forbes list of 500 billionionaires. None of the Maloofs ever have.A bigger marekt, though, means bigger cash revenues for the team. Their TV contracts are bigger, they have a bigger corporate base to draw sponserships from and they can sell a lot more expensive suites. With much bigger populations, they can sell a lot more NBA mechandise. And in a place like LA, they can share the arena with two other pro teams, cutting their arena expenses. So its not just personal wealth that helps these teams, its the bigger amount of revenue sources that most big market teams can count on. Also, teams in Texas and Florida have the no State tax appeal.

It'll never happen in a million years, but revenue sharing, more than a luxury tax, would really help the smaller market teams, who will never be able to consistently produce the revenue srtream of the bigger market teams. OK and Sac haven't a snowball's chance of producing the revenue of an LA or NY.

Revenue sharing is actually under some discussion according to reports, but its never been remotely effective in baseball as anything more than a way for the Yankees to keep their Washington Generals/farm teams barely afloat to develop them more talent for them.

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

I took “So there won't be people sitting out a yr and getting paid and cripple the franchise.” as being able to cut players. Players doing the minimum to collect their check is acceptable? Would unearned incentives get credited back into the capspace?

You just made that assumption. I said that players' salaries will have partial that is guarantee and the rest not. You can't just cut the player. Incentives does not get credit back to the cap which I already mentioned.

The fast pace nature of the NBA isn't conducive to incentive base pay you proposed. Micro managing players minutes and points will only lead to players looking out for themselves.

It works for the NFL, the most successful and profitable sports league in the US. The specifics of which performance incentives is up for discussion. But the idea of it is what I'm supporting.

As far as the tax kicking in as soon as a team exceeds the cap, that doesn't solve anything. Big market teams still have more money than small market teams. Infact this probably hurts smaller market teams because they have less money and any penalty will be a heavier burden. This will be a step backwards.

As others have mentioned, not every "big market" team is willing to spend the most. It all depends on the owner. Even a team like the lakers will have to watch their wallets if the luxury tax kicks in early. Instead of willing to carry a near $100 million salary pre-tax, they would most likely have to go down to the 70s range. No business will want to lose money year after year. The teams with less spendy owners will try to stay around the cap.
But the point you are missing is big market teams will no longer have the luxury of keeping 3-4 guys that gets paid big $$$. In order to stay around profitability, they have to decide between keeping an all star caliber starting 5 with a thin/weak bench or a team with a deep bench but with only 1-2 stars. Teams won't be able to have both like the celtics, lakers etc.

 

[Superman]

n terms of personal wealth, you may be right, although Cuban at least makes Forbes list of 500 billionionaires. None of the Maloofs ever have.A bigger marekt, though, means bigger cash revenues for the team. Their TV contracts are bigger, they have a bigger corporate base to draw sponserships from and they can sell a lot more expensive suites. With much bigger populations, they can sell a lot more NBA mechandise. And in a place like LA, they can share the arena with two other pro teams, cutting their arena expenses. So its not just personal wealth that helps these teams, its the bigger amount of revenue sources that most big market teams can count on. Also, teams in Texas and Florida have the no State tax appeal.

It'll never happen in a million years, but revenue sharing, more than a luxury tax, would really help the smaller market teams, who will never be able to consistently produce the revenue srtream of the bigger market teams. OK and Sac haven't a snowball's chance of producing the revenue of an LA or NY.

Okay, but Lakers are turning an annual profit that's, for instance, $40 million more than the Warriors, but Ellison is worth $28 billion and Buss is worth $400 million, so it's not just about the luxury tax. In the Lakers case, they can pay for the tax out of their profits, and that's a discussion that takes into consideration state taxes, revenues, sponsorships and TV contracts, and it's a discussion that's worth having. But when it comes to money, it's not true that big market teams necessarily have more than small market teams do. Ellison is worth 50 times more than Buss is. He can pay the tax if he wants to. Personal wealth is a bigger factor than corporate revenue when you're talking about multibillionaires, especially if you're arguing that they should be receiving subsidies from other teams.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/32/basketball-values-09_NBA-Team-Valuations_Income.html

And the luxury tax is the NBA's version of revenue sharing. The only pushback I have on revenue sharing is that teams with no desire to be competitive would live off the profits of teams that do try to win, like the Clippers do with the luxury tax now. It's insane that the Lakers are paying the Clippers tax money every year. Same market, same building, but one team tries to win while the other team seems to do whatever they can to lose. The Clippers are an investment for Sterling, while the Lakers are an indulgence for Buss. Sure he makes money on them, but he also tries to put together a quality product. That's why I've argued that the luxury tax at least needs to be reformed so that teams receive a maximum amount of tax money every season, and so that they can't receive tax money every year.

And here's the thing: the NBA has proven that spending money isn't necessarily equal to winning. It absolutely helps. But trying to equalize the revenue isn't going to mean that Oklahoma City or Sacramento have a better chance of putting a quality product on the floor. What helps more than that is making sure that teams who go all out to put a superteam together have a limited run due, not to wealth restraints, but rule restraints. As I mentioned so long ago, the Lakers can't just sign contributing MLE players every year to patch holes (Artest, Barnes, Blake, etc.), while at the same time giving Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol $160 million in extended contracts, AND resigning Derek Fisher and Lamar Odom.

Since a hard cap is practically impossible to do without non-guaranteed contracts, you change the luxury tax rules so that it's more oppressive to large and small market teams alike, and you restrict a taxed team's rights in free agency. I do think that a team should have the right to resign their own players as long as they are willing to pay them and the player wants to stay, but the signing exceptions make the free agency restrictions pretty much nonexistent. So you get rid of the exceptions, making it harder for a team to add talent without shedding payroll. And you increase revenue sharing by lowering the tax threshold and making it progressive (a higher tax the more consecutive years you're over the threshold). Boom: more revenue sharing, less piling on talent.

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

Okay, but Lakers are turning an annual profit that's, for instance, $40 million more than the Warriors, but Ellison is worth $28 billion and Buss is worth $400 million, so it's not just about the luxury tax.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/32/basketball-values-09_NBA-Team-Valuations_Income.html

Not that I disagree with what you said, but keep in mind Forbes lists usually are from their own "sources" and estimates. According to lakers people that informed the LA media, they made $15 million this 2009-2010 season. Thats about $25 million down from the previous year's $40 million profit. Thats a huge decrease. They actually added to their payroll for next season and they don't expect their revenue will go up. So they are willing to make even less for next yr for a chance at a 3peat.

If the luxury tax kicked in @ $58 mil, they would be losing money and the shareholders or even Buss himself would not allow that to happen. That would mean they have to break up some of their championship team to turn a profit while teams like the Kings are operating well below the cap. This gives smaller market teams a chance to sign some of the key players that the lakers, celtics, mavs etc can no longer afford to sign.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/24/sports/la-sp-heisler-phil-jackson-20100624

 

[Superman]

Not that I disagree with what you said, but keep in mind Forbes lists usually are from their own "sources" and estimates. According to lakers people that informed the LA media, they made $15 million this 2009-2010 season. Thats about $25 million down from the previous year's $40 million profit. Thats a huge decrease. They actually added to their payroll for next season and they don't expect their revenue will go up. So they are willing to make even less for next yr for a chance at a 3peat.

If the luxury tax kicked in @ $58 mil, they would be losing money and the shareholders or even Buss himself would not allow that to happen. That would mean they have to break up some of their championship team to turn a profit while teams like the Kings are operating well below the cap. This gives smaller market teams a chance to sign some of the key players that the lakers, celtics, mavs etc can no longer afford to sign.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/24/sports/la-sp-heisler-phil-jackson-20100624

The numbers from my link are for the 2008-09 season, not 2009-10, so that probably explains the discrepancy. And they might not be the same as the numbers that the Lakers people would give for the same season, but it's not really a big deal. The point I was making is that I don't know how effective it is to say "Team A makes money every year, and Team B loses money every year, so Team A should be sharing their revenue with Team B to level the playing field." There's a ton of other factors, personal wealth included, that come into play, and I don't really think the Lakers should be subsidizing the Warriors when Ellison could buy Buss fifty times and still be one of the richest owners in sports.

I do, however, think that teams that spend to and above the luxury tax should be more restricted than they are, regardless of the personal wealth of the owners.

 

[sidney]

The numbers from my link are for the 2008-09 season, not 2009-10, so that probably explains the discrepancy. And they might not be the same as the numbers that the Lakers people would give for the same season, but it's not really a big deal. The point I was making is that I don't know how effective it is to say "Team A makes money every year, and Team B loses money every year, so Team A should be sharing their revenue with Team B to level the playing field." There's a ton of other factors, personal wealth included, that come into play, and I don't really think the Lakers should be subsidizing the Warriors when Ellison could buy Buss fifty times and still be one of the richest owners in sports.

I do, however, think that teams that spend to and above the luxury tax should be more restricted than they are, regardless of the personal wealth of the owners.

If you start taking owner assets and market size into the equation, the NBA will turn into a bureaucratic nightmare that will cause more problems than it is solving. Just too many variables with net worth calculations, cities changing, partial ownership, etc.

However, a progressive luxury tax is not a bad idea. I could envision some sort of super tax line at 80million or whatever that carried a $2 tax for every $1 over. Teams like the Magic, Lakers, and Miami (in a couple of years) would have to think quite hard about adding an MLE contract if it costs them 18M/year (6M x 3). That's better than a hard cap IMO. Teams can still go over but you dial up the pain to the big spenders along with the benefit to smaller markets.

 

[Superman]

If you start taking owner assets and market size into the equation, the NBA will turn into a bureaucratic nightmare that will cause more problems than it is solving. Just too many variables with net worth calculations, cities changing, partial ownership, etc.

That's kind of my point. The only thing that should matter is how much they are spending on payroll.

However, a progressive luxury tax is not a bad idea. I could envision some sort of super tax line at 80million or whatever that carried a $2 tax for every $1 over. Teams like the Magic, Lakers, and Miami (in a couple of years) would have to think quite hard about adding an MLE contract if it costs them 18M/year (6M x 3). That's better than a hard cap IMO. Teams can still go over but you dial up the pain to the big spenders along with the benefit to smaller markets.

So you're saying they pay a dollar for dollar tax once they cross the threshold, but it goes up to a two dollar tax once they cross the super tax threshold? That's a little different than what I was saying, which was based on how many years the team is in tax land. Maybe you can combine both.

And I still think they should restrict the signing exceptions for teams in tax land. You don't get an MLE when you're already at $90 million.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Not that it's a huge point for your argument, Superman, but Ellison didn't get the Warriors.

 

[Superman]

Not that it's a huge point for your argument, Superman, but Ellison didn't get the Warriors.

You're right. Totally forgot about that. Still enough billionaire owners in small markets for the point to be relevant.