Reply With Quote
I always figured the higher spending by teams like Dallas and NY found the $$ going to smaller market teams or raising the salary cap levels. 'sides from that.....more advertising for the NBA?
Sorry, I didn't want this to get buried.
So...it seems like every team can spend as much as they want...?
...what 'level playing field'? What's the point?
I always figured the higher spending by teams like Dallas and NY found the $$ going to smaller market teams or raising the salary cap levels. 'sides from that.....more advertising for the NBA?
It's supposed to level the playing field because the luxury tax is redistributed to the teams with lower payrolls.
Some people will argue that a salary cap is merely a vehicle for the owners to retain a higher percentage of the revenues.
I wonder what a "celery cap" would look like?
Anyone else ever ponder that one??
Well, yeah, it is meant to maintain the players' share of league revenues at a certain level. That's why they collectively bargain it.
It also maintains a certain degree of financial parity between large- and small-market teams. Big-market teams can spend a lot of money, but they can't bury the small-market teams with it, because they have to pay those same small-market teams for the "privilege" of being so profligate.
And under the old system, wasteful spending was severely punished again because it absolutely killed roster flexibility. Teams that wrote bad contracts were locked down under them for years. The new system lets up on that a little bit.
The cap does work, but it does so in a subtle way.
Without a cap, the Knicks or Lakers or Bulls or Mavericks or Blazers would be allowed to just go out and sign any available free agent, no matter what the cost, and through that process, could build super teams. If there was no cap, in the summer of 2000, the Lakers could have s ed out $200 million to Tim Duncan, and matched Shaq and Kobe and Tim and won every le for the next 8-10 years.
The cap works by depriving teams of that possibility. It makes teams that are over the cap deal for players, which means that they have to give up something, generally speaking, to get something. The Mavs are substantially over the cap, but that's because they paid big money to their own guys and dealt away other players to acquire big names and big contracts. (Raef LaFrentz, Nick Van Exel, Erick Dampier, Antoine Walker, Antawn Jamison, Jerry Stackhouse to name a few, have all come to the Mavs via trade). If the Mavs hadn't been required to deal to get those guys, they could have a roster full of All-Stars -- they could have both Jamison and Stackhouse, among other possibilities.
I think the cap actually serves its purpose -- you haven't seen teams with astronomical payrolls dominating the league, have you? (unlike the cap-less baseball, in which the wealthy few are almost guaranteed postseason chances; or pre lockout hockey, where 4-5 super teams dominated for a long, long time).
I'm pondering the celery cap.
You can get 60 count Celery Caps at any Walgreens or CVS.
Didn't I just say that??
This reminds me of the Fedex commercial where they're brainstorming on ideas and the staff person recommends using Fedex shipping and no one says anything, and then the boss repeats the exact same message and everyone is like "damn good idea boss!"
The salary cap and the CBA in general gives teams like Cleveland a glimmer of hope in retaining franchise-quality players like Lebron. Without it the fate of the Spurs franchise would have rested on whether TD could have turned down an 8 year / $160-180 million contract from ORL / NY / somebody.
It would be exactly like this only different.
If the mavs, for example, are over the salary cap, they are required to "give away something" to spend more money on someone? That's it? Why can't they just give up their scrubs, pay a ton for all-stars, pay the lux tax, and try to Yankee a le?
FYI, I'm only trying to understand...I'm sure it works as it should. I'm just not seeing how yet.
A team cannot just "give up their scrubs." Even if they cut players their salaries count against the cap. They would have to work out a trade for a similar salaried player.
There are complicated rules about how teams are able to add salary when they are over the salary cap.
Dallas could not just throw unlimited money at any player. Since they are over the cap, they are only allowed certain "exceptions." Now, for a team's own free agents who have been with the team for a while, this "exception" is up to the maximum allowable salary. That's how Dallas builds such a huge payroll. But for free agents on other teams, the "exception" is only up to the league's median salary.
So, if a team wants to be able to offer more than the median salary to a prospective free agent, then they have to get far enough under the salary cap to do so.
This way, a team usually has an advantage over other teams in keeping its own players.
There are also rules about trades and stuff, so teams can't rig the system. You can't, for example, if you're over the cap, trade some minimum-salary scrub for a player who makes $15 million a year. The total salaries exchanged in a trade have to match within a certain percentage.
What Dallas usually does is trade their own overpaid players for somebody else's overpaid players.
Usually a high salary team is not that good because the salaries don't equal worth. When a team like dallas or MN last year makes trades, you usually give up something of worth, like a top young prospect coupled along with a guy that's contractss going to expire at the end of the year. In the short term, the team that took on the high-salaried player(s) are bennefitting, in the end the teams that get their room to maneuvar under the salary cap benefit. If you take a look at Atlanta, under an AVERAGE GM in a few years should be a le contender, they've had some top young draft picks, loads of salary cap room, all there missing is that elite player.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions