Should Cap be removed from the NBA?

[Rose'sACL]

it is not like it has created parity. Only 8 teams have won the finals since cap was created in the 80s.
The only thing this does right now is limiting the max a player can make. Owners are the only ones benefiting from this right now.

[played0ut]

NBA teams big corporations. Corporations what to price gauge, price fix, and do anything for the bottom line (NBA teams trying to win through any means by paying, enticing players etc).

Salary cap is like government regulation on capitalism, trying to make sure there is adequate competition, preventing monopolies (most powerful corporations owning everything), to nake things better for the consumer (us citizens, and nba fans).

[bk33]

so there will be more parity without cap? :wtf:

[Rose'sACL]

so there will be more parity without cap? :wtf:
why does that matter? there is no parity with the cap.

[hawkfan]

It would allow the Knicks and Lakers to just spend and spend.

[T_L_P]

Without the cap only 3 or 4 of the teams probably would have won.

The cap does create parity. It allows the best organisations the chance to win. As much as people hate it, at least half the NBA teams are poorly run.

[Droid101]

It would allow the Knicks and Lakers to just spend and spend.
Knicks have been doing that since 2000 with no measurable result.

Spurs have been staying under the luxury tax and still win.

So... who cares?

[chopchop20]

League should remove restrictions on max salary per season.

Overall salary cap should be raised about 25%. Don't think you could remove it entirely; it would give players too much power.

[Droid101]

And yes, they should remove the cap. Make the luxury tax hit harder and harder the more you spend. Remove maximum and minimum salaries. Let agents negotiate what they want.

[OnFire]

The Salary cap is pure and simple to limit Team losses while they are treading water for 20 years until they sell the team for a big payout. It doesn't generate this big parity. Bad teams literally don't even try to compete, so as long as that is the case there isn't parity. Salary Cap or No Salary Cap.

[StephHamann]

yes they should remove it

lakers VS knicks

Lakers:

Griffin
Love
Durant
Harden
Curry

Knicks:
Anthony
James
George
Wade
Irving

:bowdown:


























:facepalm

[longtime lurker]

And yes, they should remove the cap. Make the luxury tax hit harder and harder the more you spend. Remove maximum and minimum salaries. Let agents negotiate what they want.

Not a bad idea. They should just have a hard cap at 100 million and get rid of max and min salaries. That way teams could afford to pay Lebron 30-40 million a year and still have change left over to put a team around him. Players win and teams that actually want to compete win as well.

[TheMan]

MLB has no cap limit, yet the have alot more parity than the NBA. I'm not sure when cap limit started in the NBA, I know it was in the 80s so I used '85 as a starting point and since then, baseball has seen 18 different teams win a WS. That's more than double the NBA...

[Meticode]

MLB has no cap limit:lol , yet the have alot more parity than the NBA. I'm not sure when cap limit started in the NBA, I know it was in the 80s so I used '85 as a starting point and since then, baseball has seen 18 different teams win a WS. That's more than double the NBA...
More variables in MLB. And 1 player doesn't make a such a big impact as it does in the NBA.

[9512]

I said this before. Do it like European soccer when you divide the league into 1 top league and a B league.

OR

do an NBA and ABA leagues. One league that does team ball (NBA) and a free flowing playground league one man show type (ABA).

That way it will keep the serious teams who wanna win (spurs, heat lakers etc) and those who are complacent and just wanna rack up revenue of tickets and jersey sales (pre CP3 clippers, bucks, hawks, kings) both separated without any pretenses.

[Nash]

yes, first of all, this ain't socialism.. if you have money and want to spend it then go ahead.

but most importantly, success in the nba makes no sense. it is all about being lucky. from lottery balls to however strong the draft is that year.

also, it takes years to rebuild. what is up with that? You have to literally tank and play like shit for years in order to get a chance to MAYBE succeed.

further, guys like kobe and lebron are underpaid. those guys make the nba so much money and should not have to limit their income. without the talents the nba aint shit.

[OnFire]

The Nets spend, and would spend, more than both combined, and they still lose.

A poor run team with unlimited money is just like NBA players with new money throwing it out the window and still being broke in 5 years.

The way NBA teams rebuild elminates parity. If you aren't even trying to win then why should you get a revenue share. In all of these leagues, they should just dump the teams that can't afford to compete.

They had to threaten grievences against the Miami Marlins owner for spending less on players and his farm system than the revenue share he was getting from the teams that try. Dump these guys they are bad for your leagues.

[OnFire]

I said this before. Do it like European soccer when you divide the league into 1 top league and a B league.

OR

do an NBA and ABA leagues. One league that does team ball (NBA) and a free flowing playground league one man show type (ABA).

That way it will keep the serious teams who wanna win (spurs, heat lakers etc) and those who are complacent and just wanna rack up revenue of tickets and jersey sales (pre CP3 clippers, bucks, hawks, kings) both separated without any pretenses.

I don't think they will format it like soccer. Not even the MLS business model is reflecting Euro Soccer, which is a complaint of hardcore fans. I think the MLS is trying to use the NCAA as its minor league like the NBA and NFL does.

They do have some path to promotion, but it doesn't seem to work all that similarly to Euro Leagues.

[thefatmiral]

Knicks have been doing that since 2000 with no measurable result.

Spurs have been staying under the luxury tax and still win.

So... who cares?
exactly, its about team cohesiveness not just buy the best players and put them on a team. if lakers and knicks want spend all the money for big names, it will help sell tickets but it won't get them much of a competitive advantage. insert pics of failed super teams.

[T_L_P]

No salary cap: Lakers surround Kobe and Shaq with another fringe star; they win it all in 03 and 04, Shaq may not leave (if it really was about money).

#parity

[longtime lurker]

No salary cap: Lakers surround Kobe and Shaq with another fringe star; they win it all in 03 and 04, Shaq may not leave (if it really was about money).

#parity

If you don't want to spend to field a team, then don't own a team period.

[T_L_P]

If you don't want to spend to field a team, then don't own a team period.

But not everybody can spend to win.

The best run organisations should be the most successful ones. Not just ones who have unfathomably rich owners.