Jakkal Show full post »
DanH
elT wrote:


I don't look at players as a monolith interest but rather a huge number of individual interests where some are shared and aligned. So that Khris or Tobias not making that money is those two not making that money, doesn't matter where it goes. This individual freedom and chance would go away for such players with hard cap.

Superstars can do whatever when it comes to money given how much they are making from other opportunities their status brings. LeBron's shoe deal is worth a billion of dollars. Literally. That is just shoes. We've just seen Kawhi and Durant leave 50M$ on the table to go play somewhere else. So they could still take far less that whatever the system allows and team up. Or they could take a huge chunk of it. But either way, there would be less for non-superstars. And there's no guarantee of competitive balance.

We've talked about this before. I really don't want to go over it again. Carlito might not have mentioned hard cap with or without max but you did in one of previous discussions where part of the motivation was paying guys what they are really worth e.g. LeBron getting majority of cap space. And we do know such system would hurt majority of players and why nobody is expecting to ever be agreed to by player's union. And promise of competitive balance is false, there's no guarantee guys wouldn't team up for a few years for far less, dominate and then go back to getting maxed out. All the while, the current system has just served us brand new champion franchise and quite a lot of suspense for fans and opportunity for a lot of teams to win it all going into next season.




Okay, sure, we've had that discussion before and if you'd responded with that to a suggestion of mine about a hard cap it would have made sense.

I was just pointing out that the post you actually responded to had no such implication.

Again, though, I don't think assuming those two players making that money goes away makes any sense. So long as you have the individual max salary, in theory with more available cap room to all teams you should see more players driven up to the max via bidding wars, not less. It's the low end role players who get compressed down from the sub-MLE salaries to the minimum that would be squeezed, if anyone. While the MLE level guys probably stay the same or increase a bit with a more open competitive market.

I also don't really understand your logic with saying that those two players are your only concern. So, the fact that their higher contracts means less money for someone else doesn't bother you at all? Your only rooting interest here is the borderline max contract guys, and who gives a crap about every other player in the league?
Quote 0 0
moremilk
DanH wrote:


Hard cap level would be defined based on revenue. Likely around 120M-130M with today's numbers, with a cap floor around 100-110M.


That's too low imo, it's less than the luxury line, should be higher ( especially if you compensate by having higher maxes).

I think your premise that a higher/unlimited max would squeeze the average guy is only partially correct.

Right now, for a 9 year guy that's very good, but not quite a superstar, it's not a huge penalty to pay 30% of max instead of say 25%. So teams have an incentive to bid up these guys, which is why you get a guy like demar making the max.

I really don't think that if the max was 40%, guys in that value bracket would still be bid up to their max - it would be far too damaging to the team.

Initially, maybe that would happen, but in a few years, more and more teams will realize that it's not a winning strategy and market prices will drop.
Quote 0 0
moremilk
At its core, the primary advantage of having superstars is how overvalued they are in terms of salary. When a team that has LeBron and Davis pays the same salaries as a team that has demar and Kyle, clearly they have a huge advantage.

Demar and Kyle were worth their pay, or maybe slightly less in demar's case - so the issue wasn't us overpaying for them.

If LeBron and Davis combine for 80% of the cap though, that levels the playing field a bit, as the extra 20% we'd get could pay for a third star. They still have a big edge, but it's not as pronounced.
Quote 0 0
moremilk
As for the hard cap, I'd envision it as more of a hard luxury cap. Right now, a team like gsw, given their massive financial advanage, could, in theory, have paid up to 400M if they kept Durant. So the deterrent that the stuff luxury was supposed to be turns into another advantage for the lucky few teams that can afford it.

By hard capping the luxury fees + payroll at a reasonable amount, they couldn't just pay their way into maintaining a superteam.

A hard luxury line would essentially eliminate superteams.
Quote 0 0
DanH
moremilk wrote:


That's too low imo, it's less than the luxury line, should be higher ( especially if you compensate by having higher maxes).

I think your premise that a higher/unlimited max would squeeze the average guy is only partially correct.

Right now, for a 9 year guy that's very good, but not quite a superstar, it's not a huge penalty to pay 30% of max instead of say 25%. So teams have an incentive to bid up these guys, which is why you get a guy like demar making the max.

I really don't think that if the max was 40%, guys in that value bracket would still be bid up to their max - it would be far too damaging to the team.

Initially, maybe that would happen, but in a few years, more and more teams will realize that it's not a winning strategy and market prices will drop.


It's not up to you and me where the hard cap would be set. It's a function of expected average team salary.

Right now with a soft cap the expected average team salary is about 10% above the soft cap, or about 120M. Hard cap systems tend to have teams run right up against it, so the hard cap would likely be set only a little above that number. Obviously scaling up with revenue.

The open market is the incentive to bid up those guys. Keeping a soft cap below the hard cap is what suppresses markets - taking that away would likely increase the bidding wars on star and pseudo-star players, increase the number of situations like the Lakers found themselves in (cap space but no star to bid on, so overpriced quality role players), but decrease the number of teams with leftover MLE and taxMLE sized pockets of money to give low level role players.

I agree that pseudo stars would not get bid up to the higher maxes - but they would still likely be bid up to their current contract values and maybe a bit higher.
Quote 0 0
moremilk
DanH wrote:


It's not up to you and me where the hard cap would be set. It's a function of expected average team salary.

Right now with a soft cap the expected average team salary is about 10% above the soft cap, or about 120M. Hard cap systems tend to have teams run right up against it, so the hard cap would likely be set only a little above that number. Obviously scaling up with revenue.

The open market is the incentive to bid up those guys. Keeping a soft cap below the hard cap is what suppresses markets - taking that away would likely increase the bidding wars on star and pseudo-star players, increase the number of situations like the Lakers found themselves in (cap space but no star to bid on, so overpriced quality role players), but decrease the number of teams with leftover MLE and taxMLE sized pockets of money to give low level role players.

I agree that pseudo stars would not get bid up to the higher maxes - but they would still likely be bid up to their current contract values and maybe a bit higher.


The hard cap I suggest is a not a true hard cap, it's more of a luxury cap. I think that would be easier to sell, since few teams go over 150-160m in combined salaries and luxury penalties.

The league would retain the other luxury rules, the hard cap would just replace the stiffer penalties that clearly favour rich teams who can afford them. Once you hit a certain luxury limit, it acts like the current hard cap for teams that do S&T while over the cap.
Quote 0 0
moremilk
DanH wrote:
I agree that pseudo stars would not get bid up to the higher maxes - but they would still likely be bid up to their current contract values and maybe a bit higher.


Yes, but superstars will still make more money. It would still be better to have LeBron over demar, but the value difference will be smaller.

Of course, if you were to allow max salaries to go to 60%, it would reduce it even more.

But a higher max is not as useful without some kind of hard cap, even one that is very high would still make a difference.
Quote 0 0