New Possible Rule

[NetsGM]

I don't like the idea.  I'm already overpaid couple of my guys.  If you want to put a hard cap then you should do it from the start of the league not at middle of no where.

That's why I said it would be many years down the road.

I would do something like:
By 2015 you need to be below $110 million
By 2018 you need to be below (whatever final # we decide).

That gives teams times to let current contracts expire.

[BucksGM]

I'm not a particular fan of the idea.

But I think the best way to do this would be to put it off until the last current contract expires.  

For example, in 4 years I'll be paying my top 6 players a combined $103 million, unless Pierce retires.  Some teams would almost certainly have to pawn off some of their best players.

[BullsGM-old]

Personally I think the SSBA is perfectly fine the way it is.  However, like most issues regarding this league, I'm neutral.  I don't really care which direction we go in.  I'll adjust  

[HawksGM]

I really like this idea, I was wondering what the penalty would be for a team who is over the hard cap?

[KingsGM-old]

I really like this idea, I was wondering what the penalty would be for a team who is over the hard cap?

There would be no penalty. You just won't be able to make deals if it gets you over the 100 mio, nothing more. Just like you can't trade players cause of 24 hour or 60 day rule, or sign a free agent if if you don't have enough cap etc etc.

[KingsGM-old]

Eh, but in real NBA you also have Marc Cuban, the Sixers, The New York Knicks and Allan Houston getting 20 mio a year.

All 3 of those teams you have listed have lost significant players due to salary concerns (Mavs getting rid of Finley and Nash, Knicks and 76ers both using their luxury tax cut, 76ers trading Marc Jackson for a 2nd round pick and refusing to use either Mashburn's contract or their trade exception because we don't want to add salary).

BTW, KMart was ONLY traded because the Nets wouldn't do so financially.  If you remember, Kerry Kittles (himself an expiring contract) was traded for a  2nd round pick that summer also.

I'm sorry, but unlimited spending is NOT realistic as to the NBA.  Not even for the Cubans, Comcast's or NY's of the world, and certainly not for guys like the Bucks.

well, i don't think you answer me anything. Mavs did get rid of Finley but ONLY cause of his age and cause they have young surging players that can replace him (Daniels, Howard). It was the same story with Nash. He's over 30 and off course you're hesitant to give him a new, almost the max contract. That's pretty much the same as here.

As i said, it's all about being a contender. Owner doesn't have the problems with money as long as you have a great shot or you're a heavy canditate for a title. Nets and Dallas, rightfully so, choosed to part ways with their stars cause they knew that they won't bring them the title any time soon. So why would they spend the money if they're gonna be the same with or without them? Always near the top, but never at the top?

You just brought some examples from this year. All of that teams are paying the price for their mistakes from the past. That forced them to act the way the act (Comcast is probably fed up with overpaying medoiocre guys like Corlis Williamson, Kenny Thomas etc. The players they probably felt that were the "missing pieces" so now, after years of delussions they decided to be sparefull). But what about the past seasons? Look at the money Cuban was giving to the players? Look at the Knicks in the 90's, the Sixers, look at the Dampier's and Houston's of the world etc.

Frankly, i pretty much don't care about this rule cause i was never near and i probably never will be at 100, but i'm just saying i would love to be realistic as can be, cause spending a crazy, large amount of money on your team is reality IMO.

[MavsGM]

I really like this idea, I was wondering what the penalty would be for a team who is over the hard cap?

There would be no penalty. You just won't be able to make deals if it gets you over the 100 mio, nothing more. Just like you can't trade players cause of 24 hour or 60 day rule, or sign a free agent if if you don't have enough cap etc etc.

In other league that I was in, they too had hard cap and the penalty for a over the hard cap was they would loss their first round pick and cann't sign any FA(include their own).

[CavsGM]

There would be no penalty because you would not be able to become over the hard cap. That's the whole point of it. Lol.

[CavsGM]

In real life, teams would never sign a guy to a 1 year, 10 million dollar contract just to use as a trade piece. Here, the money is meaningless so there is no difference between signing a guy to 1 year for 1 mil or 1 year for 10 mil.

[NetsGM]

So you're telling me Dallas wouldn't be better with Finley and Nash?  

And that's a perfect example, here there's NO worry about age and contracts, because if a guy retires he doesn't count against the cap.  I have no problem giving Earl Boykins the 4 year, 52 mil deal at age 32 I gave him, because I'll be over the cap regardless.  

Tim Duncan, AT AGE 33, is given a 7 year, 224 million dollar deal.  For real.  That doesn't happen in the NBA.

All the teams in the NBA who spent frivously are feeling the adverse effects of it.  It's costing them.  It doesn't cost us.

cause spending a crazy, large amount of money on your team is reality IMO.

It's not.  I"ve showed you how every team that does so has been hurt because of it.

[HawksGM]

i wasn't sure if it was an option on FBB to put a hard cap in or or if bods was just going to enforce one, never played around with it, but from what you guys are saying it appears that you can

[OldNuggetsGM]

I like the idea.

[CelticsGM]

First, let me say I like a hard cap, as proposed, but i doubt it will have much influence on this league. We only have a handful of teams over this hard cap now and some only due to signing trade fodder to big short term deals.

But on the other hand I'd really really like a higher salary cap soon. We're playing with the initial 43.8 mio for more than 6 seasons now and it's time for some "upgrade". Do it to the rookie salary scale too and all corresponding values (min, max, ...), but I don't see a reason keeping it at the current level forever.
A higher cap would favor teams who manage the cap better allowing them to offer more (and better) FA contracts. Last FA period with only ONE team (i know technically it were four but after own resignings only the Blazers were left) below the cap is not good for the league since the competition factor in FA falls away.

And finally ...

... cause spending a crazy, large amount of money on your team is reality IMO.

I believe that's why they invented the luxury tax, to keep salaries undercontrol (and even though it has never been executed so far, it DID have an effect on salaries being much lower now than before i believe)

[HeatGM]

i like the idea of a hard cap...however gms should choose if they want to follow the hard cap in the season or not...the penalty is that they would lose their first round pick if they would go over the hard cap..

because a gm thinks he can win it all after resigning a huge contract and would go over the cap....he wouldnt mind giving up a first round pick.....

if he thinks the player isn't worth the pick then he wont resign....

hmmm.... i think it would be a good idea it would provide more thinking  

[NetsGM]

because a gm thinks he can win it all after resigning a huge contract and would go over the cap....he wouldnt mind giving up a first round pick.....

if he thinks the player isn't worth the pick then he wont resign....

And if the GM is on a great team he might WANT to give away his pick, so what thinking is involved there?

Don't like that idea.  And I like keeping the cap constant as wel.