What if there was no salary cap???

I did read an interesting article yesterday prodding at the types of salaries that NBA players would be on with no salary cap.

Predicting that LeBron would be a 50 million per year player, with Davis, Curry and Durant close behind.
 
I watched Grantland and they said the same thing! why is it that NBA has a "salary cap" and makes their players wear "professional attire" before and after games now.
I know the 2nd question was to "make the NBA more appealing to the public" but no other sport has theses kind of rules in USA from what they said (i believe NHL was though!).
 
I do agree the idea of a salary cap is weird, because in all other business ventures someone who earn what they are worth.

That being said, I can understand the idea of keeping the market more competitive. It would be interesting if they did something to keep superstars on certain markets, for example, you could have 1 player on your roster who'se salary doesn't count toward the salary cap, that way you could offer them whatever you feel they are worth, and if they wanted to go to a team with a superstar who is already on the non-counted salary, they'd really have to make a sacrifice. That way you could also keep the cap as it is and there would be a lot more cash free'ed up from the 'superstars' wage that could go to the other players.

This idea can probably be picked apart as I only just thought of it, but I could see potential in keeping superstars in lesser markets and go back to the days of a stud player being drafted and staying as the face of the franchise for most of their career.
 
I guess we all forget that the cap is there to provide one important goal; punish the teams with sh1teloads of money for paying out huge salaries over the cap and share that wealth amongst the less cash viable teams.

Teams getting hit with the 'repeater tax' is really going to hurt.

Next offseason with a new CBA being negotiated will be interesting.. especially with Bron as VP of the NBAPA... I think he might want to get paid! haha
 
The cap is VERY necessary imo.

As an example, the Lakers not only get the "TV Money" that all teams will get next season, but they have always sold the rights to their own games to a local nerwork for around $200mil per year, so as a business, the Lakers now have that much more to play with.

There is no chance EVER that other teams will be able to sell their tv rights the way LA do, so how can you allow LA to spend $200m more per year than other teams??
 
Imagine Steve Ballmer going... f*ck it, I'm going to spend 500 million next season and get whoever the hell I want.
Then proceeds to buy every available star from the teams just scraping by.

I agree that the cap, the threshold and repeater taxes, the revenue sharing among the league is necessary to keep playing field even.

It would be a terribly boring league without these limits.
 
I'd go Lebron, Curry, Davis, Durant, CP3/Kobe - not necessarily because a couple of those are the best available but because they're's some cashed up owners who would just smash the offers out there.


I like the idea of having a super player you can pay as much as you want and a legacy player also who's salary doesn't count towards the cap. If the owners want to pay then why not. They have money but they're not stupid, none will offer Lebron $300m and say come play for the Clippers, it will still be competitive for the top players.

I don't know the revenue numbers etc but it does seem like the NBA players are way behind baseball and NFL in terms of what the generational players get so I'm all for chance to see how it goes.
 
Back
Top Bottom