I once read an article about how parity in sports cannot happen so long as contracts are not given on the basis of player and team performance...or something. Anyway, I believe the NBA should give out contracts based on performance. So here's my proposal if I were at the negotiating table.
Every team should be able to give a fixed total of (on average) $66.6 million. Contracts should then be offered not in exact numerical amounts but in percentages based on the team's cap. The soft cap would 100%, and a hard cap of 110%. The value in dollars of 100% will be based on the teams regular season record, (see table for details). Teams can only exceed the soft cap through imbalanced trades, no MLE or other exceptions. The BRI is split on teams based on their performance.
|TOTAL (M)||PER TEAM (M)||25%||20%||15%||10%||5%||2.00%|
*the current total of all contracts in the NBA amounts to approximately $2B
*teams swap percentage contracts in trades, Ex. if contract A is 12% and contact B is 11%, team A gets a 99% cap while team B gets 101%. Trade difference should not exceed 2% (or whatever the league decides is fair), MAX CAP at 110%, then no trades exceeding said percentage can take place
*A new clause is added that each team may only offer one (1) 25% contract, called the "star contract", and it may be split into smaller percentages amongst players. The team may only use the star contract again if the previous one expires. Teams may trade star contracts.
*The maximum contract a team may offer (besides the star contract) is 20%
Why a system like this should be done:
- Some players want to be able to earn based on performance (Derrick Rose), it helps both Owners and players, here, if they win they make more money
- It keeps bloated contracts in check (even if I was the best player on the best team, I'd still make less than Rashard Lewis)
- It makes teams profitable, balanced, and most importantly COMPETITIVE
Why players go for it:
- While contracts are no longer fully-guaranteed, they are partially guaranteed, in the sense that, if you were offered 25%, the minimum salary you would get is 15M
- This new system applies the old BRI split, which is 57% for the players, the contracts' values go up depending on the league's profits
- Players don't need to fight the hard cap anymore, because they get their 57 percent
Why the small time owners go for it:
- This system works like a hard cap, because teams don't offer money but percentages
- Player contracts are now based slightly on performance, so players that don't perform well lose money, and this will motivate them to play better
- The new star contract this means that teams that already have a star (e.g. Thunder, Bulls) must offer their star contracts to their stars, and therefore will be less attractive to other big free agents, because they can't give the star contract anymore, this also helps teams with stars keep their own players because once their star's star contract expires, they can just offer it again, while big teams that already used their star contract can't
- Small cities that win can make big bucks (e.g. Thunder)
Why the big time owners go for it:
- While they can't grossly outspend other teams anymore, they can rest assured that they can't get outspent as well, maximizing their own profits
Why either the players or owners DON'T go for it:
->probably for alot of reasons I can't think of
Feel free to comment how improbable this proposal is.
Should the NBA be based on performance?
It should, but it's not gonna happen, (7 votes)
It should, and it can (0 votes)
It should not, because players deserve the right to play their heart out in their contract year, and laze around after signing a max contract. (0 votes)
It should not, for some other reason (4 votes)
11 total votes