Is A Hard Cap Really Good For The NBA?

The 2011 NBA Draft was last night and a lot of players achieved their childhood dreams. Some moves were booed and others were cheered by the crowd as NBA Commissioner David Stern announced the picks. But now that the draft is over, the NBA negotiations on a new collective bargaining agreement now take center stage.

The players and the owners seem to not be on the same page. The owners want a hard cap, shorter contracts and less money and they want to keep the escrow from the 2010-2011 season for themselves. The players like the soft cap, want the same type of money and feel the escrow should be shared with the player. Well, I hear all these points, but the toughest point to sell will be the hard cap. Looking at the hard cap and the things it with current salaries, all NBA fans should be worried.

When you look at the hard cap, it would basically prevent teams from going over the league set minimum amount of cap space. This would mean teams like the Lakers, whose payroll is $90 million, would be in trouble. The Big 3 in Miami would be forced to breakup due to the fact that their salaries alone take up almost all the cap space and with no wiggle room, Miami wouldn't be able to sign veterans to their minimum or even rookie to their rookie contracts. Another example of a team that would be in trouble would be the New York Knicks. They are paying hefty salaries for Chauncey Billups, Carmelo Anthony and Amar'e Stoudamire. No solft cap means less of a chance they can have some manueverability to get pieces they need.

My message to the owners is they need to think long and hard before settling on a hard cap. I understand that most of the teams in the NBA are losing money, but the hard cap won't make it any better. That means more players out of jobs in the NBA. That means more teams not as competitive as they could be. This means you possibly not seeing the money you used to make come playoff time because you couldn't get that piece you needed to make the playoffs. Now make your decision based off those statements owners. Does the hard cap look so appealing now?

13 Responses

  1. 7Boss1

    I’m so tired of these greedy owners. I’d rather see contraction than a hard cap. Have they not looked at the ratings and the success of the league over the last few years. Some teams may be losing money but overall things are fine the way they are

    • Actually 22 of the 30 teams in the NBA are reporting losses in money. And as far as the owners, its their fault. They paid these salaries and now they want to make the players suffer for it in my opinion. How about exercising a little financial responsibility?

  2. Sorry bud, but this time I have a big problem with what you’re saying. Hard Cap is the best thing that could happen to the NBA.

    More teams not as competitive as they could be???? Whaaaa??? A hard cap means way more competitive teams because the talent is spread out when star players are unable to migrate to a select few teams. More competitive teams means a better product for the NBA. When you have teams that don’t have the cash to spend over the cap, they are able to compete because everyone is on more or less a similar playing field. You look at the NHL and the unbelievable races they have had since the lockout when a hard cap was implemented and you’ll see why a hard cap is best for the competition in the league. Teams are forced to spend above a minimum and below a maximum, no exceptions. In the NHL, it allows the smaller markets such as Nashville and Carolina to compete on an equal playing field. Do you really want an 8 team league and 22 other scraped together rosters that have no opportunity to compete. You can see that in the NBA 30 teams already means a watered down product but concentrating them in a few big markets is ridiculous. At least when you spread the talent because of a hard cap there will be more stars on more teams that will be more competitive with each other. The same amount of team’s still make the playoffs under a hard cap if I’m not mistaken. I don’t see how teams are losing money that they used to make come playoff time because they couldn’t get someone by going above the salary cap? That’s just giving big markets special preference, which hardly seems fair at all. One team not making the playoffs and losing money simply means another team does and makes more money. A hard cap makes being a GM a lot more difficult. You have to be more shrewd and clever in your ability to work under the cap.

    Also, I get kind of bored with CBA stuff so I haven’t looked into what the NBA wants to do with revenue sharing but I know that the NHL’s revenue sharing also allows the teams that don’t make as much money. In the NHL, the clubs that are eligible for revenue sharing are the ones that: (1) are ranked in the bottom half (bottom 15) in League revenues, and (2) operate in markets with a Demographic Market Area of 2.5 million or fewer TV households. This benefit is also extended to the players in the NHL as the players’ share will be 54% to the extent League revenues in any year are below $2.2 billion; 55% when League revenues are between $2.2 billion and $2.4 billion; 56% when League revenues are between $2.4 billion and $2.7 billion, and 57% when League revenues in any year exceed $2.7 billion. I’m sure there will be revenue sharing in the NBA and if it’s anything like the NHL it does mean NBA teams won’t be losing as much money.

    Also, you say that a hard cap means more players out of a job. Hardly. There is still a minimum roster amount. A hard cap only means lower salaries for everyone, not less players. The salaries become lower as a result of the hard cap and star players aren’t making $20 million a year anymore. If everyone is making less money it means that there are still the same amount of jobs available, the only thing is that players salaries go down. Moreover, a hard cap can shift up or down from year to year based on how much revenue the league itself is pulling in. Basically, the league makes more money, the cap goes up. . The cap in the NHL has gone up to $64 million because the league is doing better and better. In 2005 the salary cap was $39 million.

    A hard cap is best for any sport if they want to ensure the best competition. I don’t know anything about how the NFL works but I know they have a hard cap so look at they’re product. The competition is unreal with so many teams able to compete against each other. Each year different teams make the playoffs. That’s what it is all about. It’s not about having the same teams win year after year after year. Don’t give preferential treatment to major markets.

    Sorry for the very lengthy comment. I couldn’t help it.

    • But the thing you are missing is what happens to teams that have max contract people with a shrunk cap space? Also, the next thing you are missing is that in any sport, the big markets are where most of the money is made. New York and LA are the biggest media markets. And another thing, where the money will be missed is the teams that needed that one player to make the playoffs will not get that player due to hard cap, causing losses of revenue they could have had in the playoffs.

      • I think I addressed your last thing about teams not making the playoffs causing revenues. I said doesn’t that just mean someone else gets in the playoffs and makes money? Who cares that one market doesn’t get in because they couldn’t get some player they needed. That’s the hard cap for you, figure it out. Someone loses, someone wins. Isn’t that sports?

        I’m not sure if you read everything I wrote but that’s where revenue sharing comes in with regards to the second thing you say I’m missing. Big markets make money, smaller markets get a cut of that. If you want 30 teams in a league then you need that.

        Lastly, I have no idea what teams will do with max contract players and shrunk cap space. They’ll have to figure that out but it will be a continual problem if they don’t ever implement a hard cap. If not now, then teams will continue giving max contracts and then you will continually have this problem. They have smart people, they can figure out a way around it. The max contracts will always be a problem in the short term unless the NBA does something about it.

        • I may have missed some things you said, but we just agree to disagree.

    • i agree

  3. You know what I think is the best? Whatever the players and owners can agree on..If its a hard cap, fine. If its a soft cap, fine.

    Doesn’t matter to me…as long as there is b-ball being played I’m good

  4. scotty

    I feel the hard salary cap is the way 2 go.Think it keeps teams on a even playing field.More talent is spread out amongst all the teams.Think it would make the NBA more competitive.That would bring in more money they could use 2 pay the players more money.And also the owners r gonna pocket some of that cash 2.Think its a win/win

    • Not a win/win. The problem is that owners have spent irresponsibly and now want to make players pay for it. What happened to financial responsibility?

  5. Fedupfan

    Contraction and sorry Hard caps suck. More competitive my behind. try watered down crapy basketball with a hint of blandness. The league needs story lines like the villanis Heat or the rise of the Mavs, or the hard working Bulls. Where is the free enterprise? If a team is failing fold it. I am sure all 22 teams are not suffering as bad as it sounds. They could be losing a dollar and Stern would list them as the one of the 22 teams. Plan better. increase the luxury tax and create arbitration. Besides no offense but who’s bright idea was it to put teams in Memphis, OKC, Sacramento, Utah, anyway. Ironically those teams might be making money. Hmm. As far as some of this other stuff. The players need to take a stand and say fine screw you and I’m off to Europe. Im not a lawer so don’t know if they have that right as players who are under contract. I mean the owners are protected if there is a lockout are the players?

    • I don’t know if contraction is the way to go and also, the league can’t just have teams in big markets. They need teams in different markets like Utah and Sacramento. I do agree that the players aren’t protected when it comes to the lockout, but do I think many of them will go to Europe? No. The thing that you have to think about is that these players have families and their families may not want to go over there. The decision isn’t just about them.

  6. I’ll honestly be ok with whatever they agree on, as long as i have my NBA next season

Leave a comment