NBA payroll solution- Hard Cap + Franchise Tag
OK, I've got a potential solution for the NBA's lockout woes.
Here's the basic problem between the two sides. The NBA lost $300 million, as claimed by the owners. A lot of the NBA owners have signed players to poor contracts that end up crippling their franchises. Meanwhile, a few teams (Miami, Lakers, Boston) have worked the system to their favor, leaving a sport looking like baseball- a few elite teams and a bunch of teams that either have no chance or a very small window.
And most of the bad contracts aren't for the elite players- the Kobe Bryants, the LeBron James. It's for players like Rashard Lewis, Gilbert Arenas, and Vince Carter that are hurting the franchises.
So here's my solution:
1) Establish a hard cap- whatever xx% of the NBA's revenue is- and that hard cap is not allowed to be exceeded for players 2-15 on the roster
2) This would set an average player's salary at $Y per year. The maximum any one player under the hard cap could earn is $3Y per year (ie, if last year the average salary was $4 million a year, then the most under player under the hard cap could earn would be $12 million)
3) Each NBA team is allowed to sign one player as a "Franchise" Player. The player is not required to agree to the tag (unlike the NFL, where the player has no choice). However, the "Franchise" player has NO salary limitations. Kobe Bryant could sign with the Lakers for $100 million a year, if he and the Lakers so choose.
4) Each NBA player is only allowed one "Franchise" player. Everyone else has to be under the hard cap rules.
5) All contracts are guaranteed for the first four years. Any subsequent would be both player and team options.
6) Rookie contracts would apply for three years, after which they could become free agents.
Here's the fallout from these rules:
1) Overall, salaries wouldn't go down- but they would be less spread out. The top players would earn the most, but the second tier stars would earn a lot less.
2) Top players would stop trying to form superteams and instead try to become the "Franchise" player for a franchise. Ideally, the thirty best players would each go to a different team, spreading the wealth for each franchise.
3) Teams would have to decide which players are worth the "Franchise" tags. If they chose not to apply a player with that tag, they would have a little more money for the hard cap, but would need all of their players to fit under the hard cap.
4) Players would get to free agent status earlier in their career and keep their guaranteed contracts
5) Teams would make much fewer franchise-crippling decisions. There's always going to be bad decisions- but with this plan, after your first bad decision with the franchise tag, it would limit the amount of damage for any other move.
Thoughts?
Here's the basic problem between the two sides. The NBA lost $300 million, as claimed by the owners. A lot of the NBA owners have signed players to poor contracts that end up crippling their franchises. Meanwhile, a few teams (Miami, Lakers, Boston) have worked the system to their favor, leaving a sport looking like baseball- a few elite teams and a bunch of teams that either have no chance or a very small window.
And most of the bad contracts aren't for the elite players- the Kobe Bryants, the LeBron James. It's for players like Rashard Lewis, Gilbert Arenas, and Vince Carter that are hurting the franchises.
So here's my solution:
1) Establish a hard cap- whatever xx% of the NBA's revenue is- and that hard cap is not allowed to be exceeded for players 2-15 on the roster
2) This would set an average player's salary at $Y per year. The maximum any one player under the hard cap could earn is $3Y per year (ie, if last year the average salary was $4 million a year, then the most under player under the hard cap could earn would be $12 million)
3) Each NBA team is allowed to sign one player as a "Franchise" Player. The player is not required to agree to the tag (unlike the NFL, where the player has no choice). However, the "Franchise" player has NO salary limitations. Kobe Bryant could sign with the Lakers for $100 million a year, if he and the Lakers so choose.
4) Each NBA player is only allowed one "Franchise" player. Everyone else has to be under the hard cap rules.
5) All contracts are guaranteed for the first four years. Any subsequent would be both player and team options.
6) Rookie contracts would apply for three years, after which they could become free agents.
Here's the fallout from these rules:
1) Overall, salaries wouldn't go down- but they would be less spread out. The top players would earn the most, but the second tier stars would earn a lot less.
2) Top players would stop trying to form superteams and instead try to become the "Franchise" player for a franchise. Ideally, the thirty best players would each go to a different team, spreading the wealth for each franchise.
3) Teams would have to decide which players are worth the "Franchise" tags. If they chose not to apply a player with that tag, they would have a little more money for the hard cap, but would need all of their players to fit under the hard cap.
4) Players would get to free agent status earlier in their career and keep their guaranteed contracts
5) Teams would make much fewer franchise-crippling decisions. There's always going to be bad decisions- but with this plan, after your first bad decision with the franchise tag, it would limit the amount of damage for any other move.
Thoughts?