Help me to understand the CBA please.

[jacobdrj]

Help me to understand an aspect of the CBA please.

From what I understand, it will be easier to unload big contracts via trade next off season due to the next collective barganing agreement.

First of all, is this true?

If so, why?

Finaly, I want to know the logic behind trading cap numbers to begin with. Let me explain. While I dissagree with a cap to begin with, I can, at the very least, understand why one may be implemented. However, what possible advantage could there be to limiting the ability to trade only for the same amount of money. Why should a max player only be traded for comperable salary. It doesn't keep contract priced down, and as Mark Cuban said, it is hard to make "gamble trades" now. As he put it, trading "your mistake for my mistake, and lets see what happens."

 

[funkykingston]

I'm not sure I understand what your actual question is. As far as being able to trade big contracts, the new CBA allows for trades to be consumated as long as the salaries are within 25% +/- $100,000 on both sides. This is a change from the previous requirement of 15%.

This doesn't make next offseason a better time to unload big contracts, as the new CBA will be in effect this summer.

Why do you disagree with the idea of a salary cap?

 

[captain bill]

You can unload bigger contracts because you can take back less salary in return. Before, if you wanted to unload a big contract, you had to convince another team to trade a bunch of its players or one with another big contract, either of which is hard to do. Now it is easier because you don't have to get back as much in exchange, although other teams might not want to because they'd be taking a bigger hit against the cap.

"However, what possible advantage could there be to limiting the ability to trade only for the same amount of money. Why should a max player only be traded for comperable salary. It doesn't keep contract priced down, and as Mark Cuban said, it is hard to make "gamble trades" now. As he put it, trading "your mistake for my mistake, and lets see what happens.""

I assume this is to prevent teams from simply buying players from other teams- by trading one player with a tiny contract for a player with a massive one the team getting the big contract is essentially paying the other team by taking the huge contract off their hands. Were this not in effect, teams could easily unload talent to richer teams to gain cap relief. Also, those rich teams would have a loophole then to spend over the cap- find a team with cap room, or a superstar, and trade them a cheap, decent, serviceable player for the more expensive stud. The big market rich team then steals talent by paying for as much as possible, some smaller teams go along with it trying to grab young players when they're cheap in exchange for giving up their established players.

 

[jacobdrj]

Hmm, how do I explain my question.

Before the 98 CBA, you could have, in theory, traded Shaq (HUGE contract) for Steve Kerr if you wanted to. Thier salaries did not match, but it didn't matter. Assuming Shaq was a bust that made 20 million a year for "Team A", and Kerr was a promising young player for "Team B" at "Team B"'s already deep SG position and making rookie money of, say, 3 mill a year, this would have been an ideal trade for "Team A" to make with "Team B". Trading mistakes, so to speak.

Before 98, a GM could pull this off.

Not after 98 though.

However, with the 98 CBA, this would have been impossible. Why did they take away that particular option away from GMs? What was its purpose?

As far as for the Salary Cap, I am a firm student of the "Free Market" club. In a free market, owners are free to set market prices. If you are in a capped system, a player knows exactly the resources available to him in free cap space/exceptions and will demand nothing less. Desperare teams overspend because they are held hostage. Adonal Foyles are created.
I aknowledge that a free market system is not perfect, and that minimum salaries are a good thing, but I feel the good outweighs the bad, such as the posibility of big market dynesties forming. If a smaller market can not compete, you must find another way to equalize the playing field, that does not hamper free the free market. I am not offering a better answer, only that I idealogicaly dissagree with a cap.

 

[jacobdrj]

"However, what possible advantage could there be to limiting the ability to trade only for the same amount of money. Why should a max player only be traded for comperable salary. It doesn't keep contract priced down, and as Mark Cuban said, it is hard to make "gamble trades" now. As he put it, trading "your mistake for my mistake, and lets see what happens.""

I assume this is to prevent teams from simply buying players from other teams- by trading one player with a tiny contract for a player with a massive one the team getting the big contract is essentially paying the other team by taking the huge contract off their hands. Were this not in effect, teams could easily unload talent to richer teams to gain cap relief. Also, those rich teams would have a loophole then to spend over the cap- find a team with cap room, or a superstar, and trade them a cheap, decent, serviceable player for the more expensive stud. The big market rich team then steals talent by paying for as much as possible, some smaller teams go along with it trying to grab young players when they're cheap in exchange for giving up their established players.

I figured something like this could be an answer, but hear me out: So what? The cap would still be the equalizer. Even if you traded a 2 million dollar contract for a 30 million dollar one, you would STILL be bound by the cap.

And this could have been good for the grandfather contract situations like Portland and New York. Had they been able to have the flexibility to unload contracts, it could have saved them alot in tax money.

 

[Bricklayer]

No, actually you lose control of salries that way:

a) if team A trades away a $20mil salry for a $2 mil salary, they then have the cap room to go sign another player for $10mil (or whatever), something neither team could have done beforehand. The current system prevents dumping players for cap room and blowing up the cap on the other side. Meanwhile the team taking the big salary has violated the cap -- they should not be able to get a player that good when they are over the cap.

b) it can in effect become a wealth transfer deveice fom small market teams to big market teams who can suck up as many big $$ contracts as they can hold.


As an aside, unless I am misremembering, there were restrictions on that kind of thing before '98 as well, although I have forgotten what they are.


As for your continuing "free market" argument, it is ridiculous in light of our very own MLB example. does nto work. At ALL. There is no hoppe for a small market team but to buy up all the big $$ players they can for one year, vastly overspend, and then tear it all down. Its disgusting. Fans in Sacramento have EVERY much of a right to watching a winning product as do fans in New York. And they ahve the right to do it without operating under incredible financial pressure that makes it 5x as hard for them to field a winner as the big market teams. You claim you are talking about free market. You are not. You are talking about the perversion fo the free market via what is effectively monopolies or oligopolies. Classic free market is everybody is equal. Everybody has the same opportunity. Furthermore the NBA is a closed system. Its got nothing to do with free market. The free amrket is those of us out here watching and paying for tickets. And if you think there would be as many of us from smaller cities if the league was turned into a New York bend over and take it league (or Mark Cuban's personal hobby room), you are kidding yourself.

 

[funkykingston]

I still don't understand your question.

Teams CAN trade a 20 million dollar contract for a 3 million dollar contract. Before summer signings (Ok, agreements) were made, several teams were 17 million dollars under the cap and could have made such a trade.

Teams over the cap can't make that deal because it violates the very idea of the cap, thus the need for the 125% rule.

 

[jacobdrj]

I still don't understand your question.

Teams CAN trade a 20 million dollar contract for a 3 million dollar contract. Before summer signings (Ok, agreements) were made, several teams were 17 million dollars under the cap and could have made such a trade.

I didn't know that. I was under the impression that in fact that was not possible, according to how Mark Cuban put it.

If that is the case, than my question was in fact invalad and just based on a misunderstanding.

 

[funkykingston]

Oh, ok I understand now. I can see why people might think such a deal is impossible since you almost never see it in today's NBA.

 

[Bricklayer]

I didn't know that. I was under the impression that in fact that was not possible, according to how Mark Cuban put it.

If that is the case, than my question was in fact invalad and just based on a misunderstanding.

Teams way under the cap can take more salary back (however much that they are under the cap) than they give up. The 125% provision only kicks in when you are over the cap.

BTW, think somebody mentioned this above, but the reason it gets easier to do trades next year is because they are bumping the percentages form 115% to 125% so you don't have to match salaries quite as closely.

 

[captain bill]

I figured something like this could be an answer, but hear me out: So what? The cap would still be the equalizer. Even if you traded a 2 million dollar contract for a 30 million dollar one, you would STILL be bound by the cap.

And this could have been good for the grandfather contract situations like Portland and New York. Had they been able to have the flexibility to unload contracts, it could have saved them alot in tax money.

It wouldn't if the 125 rule wasn't in effect- teams could keep trading small contracts for big ones. Granted, they couldn't sign big ticket FAs, but they could just trade draft picks and exceptions for massive contracts and keep going higher and higher over the cap. Say the Kings are the richest team in the world, there is a cap and no 125 rule. Kings can trade Daniels for Garnett, Martin for McGrady, etc, etc. Granted, a small market team would have to have a big talent that they wanted to unload, but that is bound to happen every few years, meaning once that occurs a big team over the cap can swoop in and grab them for free.


Besides, anyone who has studied capitalism at even a cursury level knows that a completely unregulated free market, as you propose, devolves into a series of single holdings very quickly. Successful markets have always existed hand in hand with some sort of oversight mechanism from a state or other body. The CBA performs that function in this context. Because the NBA doesn't own any of the teams, it's still a free market.

 

[jacobdrj]

Besides, anyone who has studied capitalism at even a cursury level knows that a completely unregulated free market, as you propose, devolves into a series of single holdings very quickly. Successful markets have always existed hand in hand with some sort of oversight mechanism from a state or other body. The CBA performs that function in this context. Because the NBA doesn't own any of the teams, it's still a free market.

I agree and understand that an unregulated free market is bad bad bad, econ 101, but submit that there has to be a better way, like, say, contraction