The solution is removing the max contract rule

[329 Services]

It should be open, When you get guys like Harison Barnes earn as much as Durant. This superteams will happen always. The solution is removing max contract rule. Let guys like lebron , durant earn 100 /75 million and not be on stacked teams.
As long as max contract rule exists, players will stack up teams.

[329 Services]

this is goddamn true

[bdreason]

Or perhaps just raise the %. If a team wants to spend 50% of their cap on one player, let them.

That might lead to more bad teams, and even more player collusion though.

[tmacattack33]

True.

Durant was looking at 25 million from every team. So he joined the best team possible for 25 million.

If the decision was 45 million with the Thunder vs 25 million with Golden State, it would change things.

[konex]

It's so obvious. You don't see players orchestrating superteams in baseball cos there's no max. Baseball has no cap as well but I think you need to have a hard cap. No max + a hard cap = No superteams

[Genaro]

I like the idea Scalabrine gave the other day. Each team get one max contract worth 40M and the max other players can get is 30M, so it will be a harder decision to make superteams with guys like Kyrie and Lebron, KD and Curry, KD and Westbrook, Lebron and Wade, etc, cause it would be harder to walk away from 10 plus millions a year.

[r0drig0lac]

Blazers going 8 peat ...

[knicksman]

But the players dont want it. Lol and they dont want hard cap either.

[Sarcastic]

The owners wanted this so teams could protect themselves from.... themselves.

[1~Gibson~1]

If the owners want full of control of the players then get rid of the cap and maximum number of years.

Until then, free agents will continue to do what is in their best interest. That is how it should be, anyways.

[Bimbo Coles]

Or perhaps just raise the %. If a team wants to spend 50% of their cap on one player, let them.

That might lead to more bad teams, and even more player collusion though. This. Contracted players' percentage of the pie should automatically increase to make way for the overall increase. It would ensure role players are paid to scale.

[Sarcastic]

This. Contracted players' percentage of the pie should automatically increase to make way for the overall increase. It would ensure role players are paid to scale.


Why the f would anyone want to pay you more than the contract you signed? And if the salary cap goes down, the players lose money? No one is agreeing to that shit.

[Bimbo Coles]

Why the f would anyone want to pay you more than the contract you signed? And if the salary cap goes down, the players lose money? No one is agreeing to that shit. No, it's simple. Contracts should be converted to a percentage of the allocated cap; they would no longer be represented as a monetary figure. For example, if player A took up 20% of the cap last season, that number shouldn't diminish based on some capricious jump in revenue that is out of everyone's hands. He should be entitled to 20% under the newly increased cap. As it is now, clever GMs, if that isn't too much of an oxymoron, know they aren't accountable for yesterday's bad moves. It's open slather.

[NumberSix]

The whole salary cap idea is stupid to begin with.

[PJR]

When you eliminate the max contract, it blows up the market for the mid-level players. They won't agree to that.

[Im Still Ballin]

Free Market Principles.

[Sarcastic]

The whole salary cap idea is stupid to begin with.


So no salary cap like baseball? I agree.

[Facepalm]

Need a hard cap with no max contracts.

[j3lademaster]

It's so obvious. You don't see players orchestrating superteams in baseball cos there's no max. Baseball has no cap as well but I think you need to have a hard cap. No max + a hard cap = No superteamsIt is obvious, and I'm sure the collaboration of Einsteins that is ISH isn't the only group to think of that. But the owners are very powerful billionaires and I'm sure are fighting this around every corner.

[iamgine]

No, it's simple. Contracts should be converted to a percentage of the allocated cap; they would no longer be represented as a monetary figure. For example, if player A took up 20% of the cap last season, that number shouldn't diminish based on some capricious jump in revenue that is out of everyone's hands. He should be entitled to 20% under the newly increased cap. As it is now, clever GMs, if that isn't too much of an oxymoron, know they aren't accountable for yesterday's bad moves. It's open slather.
Yeaps, this would be simple and fair. It also eliminates the hesitance of committing to a long term contracts.

[DMAVS41]

I'd rather tweak the current system just a little first before that.

Like just adding a clause that any player staying with a team 10 years or more is able to sign a contract in which only half of the number goes against the cap.

Not my idea, but it is something I've heard that would be a nice wrinkle to help franchises that do a great job building teams for a decade around a star.

Needs to be a reward for that imo.