if the nba got rid of the max contract

[King Emmanuel]

how many teams would line up to sign kevin durant to a 10 year 300 million dollar deal?

[Clipper Nation]

Kirby would rip up the 48.5 and sign for 480.5 instead :lol

[mkurts]

It would mean Lebron James could sign for a 5 year, 1 billion dollar contract

[Jacob1983]

No team would do it. Besides, 10 year contracts in pro sports are never fulfilled by the original team or even the player himself.

[Captivus]

Then surely teams would offer player more money...maybe a few more years too.
10 years seems too risky.

[Killakobe81]

Cubes and durant weigh in from ESPN:

Cubes: "If you give up guarantees, it's a trade-off," Cuban said before Tuesday night's preseason opener against the Houston Rockets.

Cuban mentioned a system similar to the NFL's in which guaranteed money is part of negotiations for each contract. NBA contracts are fully guaranteed unless the parties agree on other terms.

Durant: In the wake of that news, Durant suggested that the league should no longer have a maximum restriction on individual player contracts. Durant, who is due to be a free agent in 2016, said several maximum-salaried players generate much more revenue than they are paid.

"Look at it like this, Kobe Bryant brings in a lot of money to Los Angeles, that downtown area," Durant said, according to The Oklahoman. "Clippers are getting up there; Chris Paul, Blake Griffin and those guys are bringing in a lot of money as well. Look at Cleveland, look at Miami when LeBron [James] was there.

"These guys are worth more than what they are making because of the money that they bring to that area. That's a conversation you can always have, but until it's changed, you never know what will happen to it."


Like I said brace yourself, you guys can keep talking that Lebron doesn't need the money ...it's not about that Of course he gets endorsements so does KD. It's about respect and being compensated for the value you bring to your franchise and the league. OKC may not have trouble paying whatever it takes to keep their first legit franchise star. But if you guys believe that Kobe is some anomaly, some selfish guy who doesnt care about winning because he wants a fair cut for all the money he makes the Lakers right now ...yal are stupid or naive and have no heads for business and are ONLY thinking like a fan or Republican :lol These stars want their money and it's Lebron and Durant who are losing out the most in the current cBA ...

These stars are getting no where close to their value based on how much they earn. The owners lied about their earnings ... knew the won in the last CBA but now will have to come up with something to appease these stars. Yes, the cap increases in two years if nothing changes (strike or lockout) but that is problematic because teams like the Rox and Cavs with stars in hand have even MORE Money to spend. The Lakers and Brooklyn in cap hell now can probably offer three max deals in 2017. all this money going around and Lebron and durant will expect to get their cut because a restriction has been placed on their max salary. I know this scraes you small market fans but cap armageddon is coming ... Ity will be a haves or have nots battle and the star players will side with the haves.

My guess is like cube said they will eliminate or soften max to maybe get something back like fixed costs (maybe making you have to have 6 years service before max eligible?) or making only signing bonus or a certain number of years guaranteed. Either way Im going to enjoy the chaos I told you scros the players got hosed in the CBA, and after the Bucks and Clips sales the players started to realize it and now with the new TV deal they are pissed.

[ambchang]

The entire premise of the max salary is to level the playing field. In a truly open economy structure, the big markets like New York, LA, and Chicago will have an advantage in landing marquee free agents, meaning the small market teams will always have trouble attracting big names because they just do not have the financial ability to pay those $100M contracts.

The salary cap will help even that out, but in the case of say a Lebron, if a salary cap is at $70M, no team will give him a $50M contract because it would be difficult to fill out the roster of 14 guys with the remaining $20M (a little over $1.4M each), so essentially, you are putting in a max contract in place.

Having a max contract hurts the superstars of the league, but helps the semi stars, and this is the price you pay as being part of a union. Because, let's face it, there are not a lot of options for ball players to make anything remotely close to what they are making. There are options in Europe and China for big contracts for big stars, but I doubt there is much of a market for $20M to $30M contracts over seas. You also have to deal with different labour laws, significant disruptionin life for players who have trouble going to Minnesota right now, cultural changes, risks of not being paid, non-guaranteed contracts, weaker medical staff (translating to shorter careers), and a whole bunch of other stuff. Without a legitimate option, the union is the only way for you to get a "fair" shake of the profits.

If these guys have issues with it, they should have hit the books and become an entrepreneur to make billions, because they aren't making remotely the same kind of money anywhere else if they weren't playing in the NBA.

[Killakobe81]

The entire premise of the max salary is to level the playing field. In a truly open economy structure, the big markets like New York, LA, and Chicago will have an advantage in landing marquee free agents, meaning the small market teams will always have trouble attracting big names because they just do not have the financial ability to pay those $100M contracts.

The salary cap will help even that out, but in the case of say a Lebron, if a salary cap is at $70M, no team will give him a $50M contract because it would be difficult to fill out the roster of 14 guys with the remaining $20M (a little over $1.4M each), so essentially, you are putting in a max contract in place.

Having a max contract hurts the superstars of the league, but helps the semi stars, and this is the price you pay as being part of a union. Because, let's face it, there are not a lot of options for ball players to make anything remotely close to what they are making. There are options in Europe and China for big contracts for big stars, but I doubt there is much of a market for $20M to $30M contracts over seas. You also have to deal with different labour laws, significant disruptionin life for players who have trouble going to Minnesota right now, cultural changes, risks of not being paid, non-guaranteed contracts, weaker medical staff (translating to shorter careers), and a whole bunch of other stuff. Without a legitimate option, the union is the only way for you to get a "fair" shake of the profits.

If these guys have issues with it, they should have hit the books and become an entrepreneur to make billions, because they aren't making remotely the same kind of money anywhere else if they weren't playing in the NBA.

Great points. but ultimately doesnt matter. As part of a union Lebron and Durant are the stars. If it's a union of engineers (do they have unions?) the very top of that union is going to want to make sure they are compensated appropriately. OF course they dont want hard caps on their salary in the prime of their careers. A spart of a union you fight for a minimum salary, health-benefits, annual increases etc. But why would they want a had cap on a "max salary?
Sure, the middle class is doing well in the current CBA and that is great. I am sure the stars wont throw them under the bus ...BUT Where there is smoke there is fire. The league's two brightest stars have both came out publicly in the past two days and the salaray cap doesnt even increase for two years (scheduled). Zack Lowe wrote a great article this weekend click here (http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nbas-new-tv-deal-blow-up-the-salary-cap/)

Highlights:

1. This is a huge moment for the NBA and Adam Silver — perhaps an even bigger test than the Donald Sterling fiasco
2. Two years ago, smart teams began projecting a rising salary cap, and industry experts wondered if the new TV deal might crack $2 billion per year on average.Ha, ha. The New York Times was the first to report last night that Disney/ESPN $2.7 billion per year, on average, over nine years to retain exclusive broadcasting national broadcast rights. Executives wondered what the TV cash bonanza might mean for the salary cap, for contract extension talks under way now, for the prospects of a lockout in 2017
3. The importance of the league’s cap situation cannot be overstated. The salary cap rises and falls hand in hand with league revenues, and this TV contract will be the largest injection of revenues in NBA history.
4. The league right now projects a jump to $66.5 million for 2015-16, a modest rise pegged to the final year of that modest $930 million TV deal. If the new TV deal kicks in for the 2016-17 season just shy of $2 billion, the cap could exceed that same $14 million leap, all the way to around $80-plus million, in a single year.
5. Already, teams have started lobbying for scenarios that most benefit them. The league and players union would both seem to have some interest in avoiding any giant one-year leap in the cap number, a mega-jump that would most likely occur ahead of the 2016-17 season — just in time for free agency in July 2016, headlined by Kevin Durant.
6. Durant hitting free agency under an $80 million–plus cap would be the craziest summer show in league history
7. The Nets, even with Deron Williams’s atrocious contract still on the books, could suddenly find themselves with two maximum cap slots — enough for Durant and a costar. The Knicks, with Carmelo Anthony locked into what today looks like a better deal, might be able to add two more max or near-max players over the next three summers.
8.The Lakers, with Kobe Bryant’s disastrous extension wiped away that summer, could sniff three max cap slots. The Lakers’ cap flexibility yielded nothing of note last summer, but a Lakers team with the ability to offer a package deal to multiple stars is the ultimate NBA bogeyman.
9. High-profile stars have planned for this with short-term deals that set them up to enter free agency whenever it most benefits them. LeBron James, working on a one-year deal with the Cavaliers,3 is the most famous example, but Dwyane Wade also went the short-term route with Miami, and any star player set for free agency this summer should at least consider signing a one-year deal and jumping back in for the July 2016 madness. Players just below the All-NBA-level — guys like Ryan Anderson, Amir Johnson, and Mike Conley — who might otherwise consider contract extensions should probably opt against them and enter free agency.

Lie i said should be interesting because you are right they cant blow up the cap completely just to appease stars, but they must do SOMETHING and I dont think they want to see a huge one year jump in cap space.

[benstanfield]

I like how USA can have this conversation about star athletes but when McDonald's employees who are ripped off just as hard for the value they generate want $15/hour, that kills jobs and is liberal propaganda.

[ambchang]

Great points. but ultimately doesnt matter. As part of a union Lebron and Durant are the stars. If it's a union of engineers (do they have unions?) the very top of that union is going to want to make sure they are compensated appropriately. OF course they dont want hard caps on their salary in the prime of their careers. A spart of a union you fight for a minimum salary, health-benefits, annual increases etc. But why would they want a had cap on a "max salary?
Sure, the middle class is doing well in the current CBA and that is great. I am sure the stars wont throw them under the bus ...BUT Where there is smoke there is fire. The league's two brightest stars have both came out publicly in the past two days and the salaray cap doesnt even increase for two years (scheduled). Zack Lowe wrote a great article this weekend click here (http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nbas-new-tv-deal-blow-up-the-salary-cap/)

Highlights:

1. This is a huge moment for the NBA and Adam Silver — perhaps an even bigger test than the Donald Sterling fiasco
2. Two years ago, smart teams began projecting a rising salary cap, and industry experts wondered if the new TV deal might crack $2 billion per year on average.Ha, ha. The New York Times was the first to report last night that Disney/ESPN $2.7 billion per year, on average, over nine years to retain exclusive broadcasting national broadcast rights. Executives wondered what the TV cash bonanza might mean for the salary cap, for contract extension talks under way now, for the prospects of a lockout in 2017
3. The importance of the league’s cap situation cannot be overstated. The salary cap rises and falls hand in hand with league revenues, and this TV contract will be the largest injection of revenues in NBA history.
4. The league right now projects a jump to $66.5 million for 2015-16, a modest rise pegged to the final year of that modest $930 million TV deal. If the new TV deal kicks in for the 2016-17 season just shy of $2 billion, the cap could exceed that same $14 million leap, all the way to around $80-plus million, in a single year.
5. Already, teams have started lobbying for scenarios that most benefit them. The league and players union would both seem to have some interest in avoiding any giant one-year leap in the cap number, a mega-jump that would most likely occur ahead of the 2016-17 season — just in time for free agency in July 2016, headlined by Kevin Durant.
6. Durant hitting free agency under an $80 million–plus cap would be the craziest summer show in league history
7. The Nets, even with Deron Williams’s atrocious contract still on the books, could suddenly find themselves with two maximum cap slots — enough for Durant and a costar. The Knicks, with Carmelo Anthony locked into what today looks like a better deal, might be able to add two more max or near-max players over the next three summers.
8.The Lakers, with Kobe Bryant’s disastrous extension wiped away that summer, could sniff three max cap slots. The Lakers’ cap flexibility yielded nothing of note last summer, but a Lakers team with the ability to offer a package deal to multiple stars is the ultimate NBA bogeyman.
9. High-profile stars have planned for this with short-term deals that set them up to enter free agency whenever it most benefits them. LeBron James, working on a one-year deal with the Cavaliers,3 is the most famous example, but Dwyane Wade also went the short-term route with Miami, and any star player set for free agency this summer should at least consider signing a one-year deal and jumping back in for the July 2016 madness. Players just below the All-NBA-level — guys like Ryan Anderson, Amir Johnson, and Mike Conley — who might otherwise consider contract extensions should probably opt against them and enter free agency.

Lie i said should be interesting because you are right they cant blow up the cap completely just to appease stars, but they must do SOMETHING and I dont think they want to see a huge one year jump in cap space.

The difference between an normal union and the NBA union is the shortage of both supply (members) and demand (management/teams). However way you put it, there will always be only 30 teams, and to top it off, they all work for one single association, that, essentially, is a union for owners. It's not like a scenario where an engineer can use the other job opportunities as leverage. A player has very little to no leverage because they cannot find a remotely comparable situation with comparable pay anywhere else. The only leverage players have is to quit en mass (strike), but that turns into a millionaire vs. billionaire situation, with said millionaires made up of predominantly athletic freaks with little money management skills.

The league, at any given time, has 2 to 3 mega stars that really deserve almost unlimited pay. In a no max contract with salary cap situation, there will be 27 to 28 teams that are not going to end up with one of those mega stars but with money to burn, which means that they will pay extra to get semi stars to fill out their roster and give fans false hope for the season, further marginalizing the role players. Most of the members are role players, and the premise of the union isn't to do with production, it's to do with tenure, so they will set out to protect those minimally skilled players. At the end, fractures in the relationship will appear between stars and role players, and the entire thing will collapse.

A max salary is essentially a way for owners to stop themselves from being idiots, while also creating collusion to say "hey, I won't ever pay more than this amount no matter how good the player is". No doubt it protects the owners more than the players, and it's unfair, but the reality is, without it, the entire union will see a good amount of in-fighting.

[TDMVPDPOY]

without a pro league, these clowns will be hustling

if league goes bankrupt, u dont see these clowns chipping in money to restart a league

[Killakobe81]

The difference between an normal union and the NBA union is the shortage of both supply (members) and demand (management/teams). However way you put it, there will always be only 30 teams, and to top it off, they all work for one single association, that, essentially, is a union for owners. It's not like a scenario where an engineer can use the other job opportunities as leverage. A player has very little to no leverage because they cannot find a remotely comparable situation with comparable pay anywhere else. The only leverage players have is to quit en mass (strike), but that turns into a millionaire vs. billionaire situation, with said millionaires made up of predominantly athletic freaks with little money management skills.

The league, at any given time, has 2 to 3 mega stars that really deserve almost unlimited pay. In a no max contract with salary cap situation, there will be 27 to 28 teams that are not going to end up with one of those mega stars but with money to burn, which means that they will pay extra to get semi stars to fill out their roster and give fans false hope for the season, further marginalizing the role players. Most of the members are role players, and the premise of the union isn't to do with production, it's to do with tenure, so they will set out to protect those minimally skilled players. At the end, fractures in the relationship will appear between stars and role players, and the entire thing will collapse.

A max salary is essentially a way for owners to stop themselves from being idiots, while also creating collusion to say "hey, I won't ever pay more than this amount no matter how good the player is". No doubt it protects the owners more than the players, and it's unfair, but the reality is, without it, the entire union will see a good amount of in-fighting.

That is what kills me. I know you would call it colluding but why do these billionaires especially the self made ones fail to run their teams like their business? You wouldn't overpay to keep the 10th best district or store manager why overypay the 10 the best Sg or center? They have an anti-trust exemption stop overpaying shifty players!!! That to me causes in-fighting .. just as much as anything else on a team ...

[TDMVPDPOY]

the current cba where u can only have 1 player allotted to the 5yr max contract or superteams

is makinig owners overpay scrubs to take on franchise player roles, when in fact they are not....

[ambchang]

That is what kills me. I know you would call it colluding but why do these billionaires especially the self made ones fail to run their teams like their business? You wouldn't overpay to keep the 10th best district or store manager why overypay the 10 the best Sg or center? They have an anti-trust exemption stop overpaying shifty players!!! That to me causes in-fighting .. just as much as anything else on a team ...

They are colluding to underpay the best superstars, that's the problem. And with that underpaying system, the only way owners can keep superstars are:
1) Be in a huge market where there is an avalanche of advertising dollars avaialble for added earnings for the superstar
2) Cater to every whims and wants of a superstar, and that include building a championship team around them. The way to do that is to get high quality players around them, which means overpaying them because there is a market for these players

The difference between running a normal business and the NBA is that there is a very limited supply and demand. If you don't pay a store manager, the store manager will jump ship and go to your competitor, and you will be able to find a comparable one at the salary you want. You can't do that with a Chandler Parsons or a Gordon Haywood. They are decently good players who are not worth their contracts, but if you lose them, you can't really just go out and get another one, so you overpay them to appease the superstars and the fans.

Then of course, there are idiot owners who just like to outbid themselves because they overvalue certain players by being tunnel visioned.

[DMC]

What will happen is that big market franchises will have all of the talent. That's what front running faggots want, but it would destroy the NBA.

[Killakobe81]

What will happen is that big market franchises will have all of the talent. That's what front running faggots want, but it would destroy the NBA.

I get your concern, but Lebron pays for a small-market team. so does Durant. if the salary cap goes up and if OKC or CLE (more so Cleveland who has done so in the past) are willing to pay huge deal and can sign some support why would they leave a small market for a big one?

[Franklin]

the market will take care of it imho. Just like in the soccer world you got some elite players like Ronaldo and Lionel Midget, and they get paid 2x or even 3x the money an average star player (like Harzard) makes, but it's not like there's no limit to their salary. No one would pay Midget 30m a year no matter how good he is tbh.

[Thebesteva]

Stupid dumb fuck LEbron, gets paid 20 million a year and still isnt good enough for him.

[Infinite_limit]

Let's make the uneducated NBA prima donnas even more entitled.

Not a single NBA players should be earning more than $150,000 / Season.

[Chinook]

What will happen is that big market franchises will have all of the talent. That's what front running faggots want, but it would destroy the NBA.

Market has little to do with it. Taking out max salaries wouldn't take away the cap or the new tax rules. If anything, no max salaries would kill the idea of superteams, since no one can afford to pay multiple superstars what they're worth. We'd see a lot more teams with one star surrounded by crap.

Durant comes off as a jerk, and James does especially. So long as there's a salary cap (which is never going to go away), the max salary is the only thing that is protecting middle-class players. As good as Durant is, he pretty much got shut down by two players making a combined $6 Million. No way should he go to his teammates and ask them to take paycuts for his sake. He may not think of it that way, but that's the reality of what he and Lebron are suggesting.

With the cap going up so much, it's ludicrous for players to want to get rid of the max. The new max will be higher than any current player besides Kobe has experienced. I don't see how any of them can say they deserve more than a $6 Million APY raise.

[Clipper Nation]

Personally, I actually hope they do get rid of the max contract... would make roster-building so much easier since Ballmer could just buy everyone....

[tim_duncan_fan]

Let's make the uneducated NBA prima donnas even more entitled.

Not a single NBA players should be earning more than $150,000 / Season.

OMG stop being such a jealous faggot.

[DMC]

Market has little to do with it. Taking out max salaries wouldn't take away the cap or the new tax rules. If anything, no max salaries would kill the idea of superteams, since no one can afford to pay multiple superstars what they're worth. We'd see a lot more teams with one star surrounded by crap.

Durant comes off as a jerk, and James does especially. So long as there's a salary cap (which is never going to go away), the max salary is the only thing that is protecting middle-class players. As good as Durant is, he pretty much got shut down by two players making a combined $6 Million. No way should he go to his teammates and ask them to take paycuts for his sake. He may not think of it that way, but that's the reality of what he and Lebron are suggesting.

With the cap going up so much, it's ludicrous for players to want to get rid of the max. The new max will be higher than any current player besides Kobe has experienced. I don't see how any of them can say they deserve more than a $6 Million APY raise.

Only true if the team salary cap remains. I think players want more for everyone, otherwise it's a team decision to sacrifice the rest of the team for the one superstar.

[Chinook]

Only true if the team salary cap remains. I think players want more for everyone, otherwise it's a team decision to sacrifice the rest of the team for the one superstar.

That's the important part. The players want more for everyone, but the superstars want more for themselves first. The NBA is simply not going to get rid of the salary cap, and the players don't have the leverage to make them. It doesn't matter that the biggest names are pushing to take away the max. Agents will make sure it doesn't happen.