NBA What’s the point of having a soft cap?

[CROTT]

Just seams to have a clauses to pretty much have teams spend what ever they want, if they pay the luxury tax. In the NHL what if Tampa kept their team together could they have kept winning the cup?

Click to read more...

 

[Neutrinos]

Unless you're working in construction, what's the point of having a hard cap?

 

[No Fun Shogun]

To give teams the excuse that they can't spend anymore while still allowing teams to spend more if they so desire. And because players like being paid.

 

[Voight]

NFL has a hard cap but the NFL salary cap doesn't actually exist, its more of a theory

 

[Melrose Munch]

so you don't see planned mediocrity like you do with a hard cap. see: NHL

 

[KevFu]

so you don't see planned mediocrity like you do with a hard cap. see: NHL

But you do see wide-spread terribleness.

It's difficult (hard?) to say the hard cap isn't better when the Sharks were a laughingstock to open the season and they have nine wins now at almost the halfway point, while the NBA has FIVE teams in single-digit wins, including the 3-win Pistons.

Since 2006, Minnesota has had more NBA seasons with under 20 wins than the NHL has had "teams under 50 points per 82 games."

I'd rather be mediocre than have a .244 win percentage.

 

[Melrose Munch]

But you do see wide-spread terribleness.

It's difficult (hard?) to say the hard cap isn't better when the Sharks were a laughingstock to open the season and they have nine wins now at almost the halfway point, while the NBA has FIVE teams in single-digit wins, including the 3-win Pistons.

Since 2006, Minnesota has had more NBA seasons with under 20 wins than the NHL has had "teams under 50 points per 82 games."

I'd rather be mediocre than have a .244 win percentage.

People have got to learn to draft better. Scouting is a problem in North American sports, soccer players don't bust nearly as often.

Also, accept your limits as a franchise. Some places will not get the biggest athletes; in many cases, you're on an NTC. Find a way to work around that. The reality is many teams in the big 4 are terrible because they are not prime free-agent destinations...which means we have too many teams, to begin with (that's a conversation for another day, though).

The cap also does nothing to stop tanking. The cap is about the owners pocketing extra money, not fairness.

 

[KevFu]

People have got to learn to draft better. Scouting is a problem in North American sports, soccer players don't bust nearly as often.

Also, accept your limits as a franchise. Some places will not get the biggest athletes; in many cases, you're on an NTC. Find a way to work around that. The reality is many teams in the big 4 are terrible because they are not prime free-agent destinations...which means we have too many teams, to begin with (that's a conversation for another day, though).

The cap also does nothing to stop tanking. The cap is about the owners pocketing extra money, not fairness.

Agreed on that last point about owners pocking money. That's why everyone voted for it.

(And I don't think Tanking is a "problem." Trying to prevent tanking is stupid. If that's your strategy, that's your strategy. If you know you're going to suck, you should suck with a lower payroll. That's just good business sense.)


The hard cap is better for fan engagement across the board. You're not a miserably last as you are in the NBA, and you don't need an MBA to play armchair GM.