Re: does the nba need a salary cap????????????????????
The NBA does have a salary cap. You acknowledge this yourself by saying that they go over the cap and are subject to be penalized by the Luxury Tax. How can they go over a cap that isn't there? The NBA salary cap is structured to allow teams to keep their players when their contracts expire. (Which is why NJ can offer Kidd more money than SA even though the Spurs have more money under the cap.)
The salary cap isn't what is keeping teams from succeeding. Expansion, bad drafting, and bad scouting is what has hurt the league.
from Conrad Brunner, Indiana Pacers
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
A. Actually, the cap was designed as a leveling device between small- and large-market teams and has worked about as well as could be expected. The intent is to prevent big-market, big-money franchises from spending as much as they want while raiding the rosters of less-profitable teams. With the cap, everyone is operating under the same financial rules, regardless of the revenue a franchise generates.
The biggest exception to the salary cap allows a team to exceed the cap to re-sign one of its own free agents. For example, the Pacers can go over the cap to re-sign Jermaine O'Neal, Reggie Miller and Brad Miller this summer. If another team wanted to sign one of those players, it would have to have enough room under the salary cap to absorb the hefty first-year salary - and very few teams are in that position. In O'Neal's case, for example, a team would probably need to be nearly $13 million under the cap in order to make an offer (assuming he receives the maximum contract allowed for a player of his experience). There are other exceptions that allow a team to exceed the cap, the biggest of which is a mid-level slot of roughly $4.5 million.
Of course, there is a new dynamic in place: the luxury tax. Exceeding the salary cap brings no penalty. But if a team exceeds the luxury tax - a figure around $10-15 million higher than the salary cap - it must pay a dollar-for-dollar penalty to the NBA. Say, for example, the luxury tax is set at $55 million, and a team with an existing payroll of $49 million re-signs its own player to a contract with a first-year salary of $13 million. That would bring the payroll to $62 million, meaning the team would have to pay a $7 million penalty to the NBA. In effect, that turns the $13 million contract into a $20 million cost.
In general, the cap has done its job. It rescued the NBA from very hard economic times and in fact made the league an economic model others have since followed.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
The NBA does have a salary cap. You acknowledge this yourself by saying that they go over the cap and are subject to be penalized by the Luxury Tax. How can they go over a cap that isn't there? The NBA salary cap is structured to allow teams to keep their players when their contracts expire. (Which is why NJ can offer Kidd more money than SA even though the Spurs have more money under the cap.)
The salary cap isn't what is keeping teams from succeeding. Expansion, bad drafting, and bad scouting is what has hurt the league.
from Conrad Brunner, Indiana Pacers
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
A. Actually, the cap was designed as a leveling device between small- and large-market teams and has worked about as well as could be expected. The intent is to prevent big-market, big-money franchises from spending as much as they want while raiding the rosters of less-profitable teams. With the cap, everyone is operating under the same financial rules, regardless of the revenue a franchise generates.
The biggest exception to the salary cap allows a team to exceed the cap to re-sign one of its own free agents. For example, the Pacers can go over the cap to re-sign Jermaine O'Neal, Reggie Miller and Brad Miller this summer. If another team wanted to sign one of those players, it would have to have enough room under the salary cap to absorb the hefty first-year salary - and very few teams are in that position. In O'Neal's case, for example, a team would probably need to be nearly $13 million under the cap in order to make an offer (assuming he receives the maximum contract allowed for a player of his experience). There are other exceptions that allow a team to exceed the cap, the biggest of which is a mid-level slot of roughly $4.5 million.
Of course, there is a new dynamic in place: the luxury tax. Exceeding the salary cap brings no penalty. But if a team exceeds the luxury tax - a figure around $10-15 million higher than the salary cap - it must pay a dollar-for-dollar penalty to the NBA. Say, for example, the luxury tax is set at $55 million, and a team with an existing payroll of $49 million re-signs its own player to a contract with a first-year salary of $13 million. That would bring the payroll to $62 million, meaning the team would have to pay a $7 million penalty to the NBA. In effect, that turns the $13 million contract into a $20 million cost.
In general, the cap has done its job. It rescued the NBA from very hard economic times and in fact made the league an economic model others have since followed.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
Comment