Disappearance of Max Contracts A Thing of Beauty For NBA

By Court Zierk @courtzierk on October 7, 2014

With the massive TV deal now finalized, many people, including myself, have begun to prognosticate on the ripple effect the influx of revenue may have on the league. This has even led to some people questioning whether the concept of max contracts may completely disappear once the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is eligible to be renegotiated in 2017.

The limits around maximum salaries were put into place following the 1998-99 lockout that shortened the NBA season to 50 games, and obliterated the All-Star Game. In many ways, it was Kevin Garnett – a third-year player at the time — who was indirectly responsible for the imposition of max contracts, following his staggering $126 million contract extension.

Many owners viewed this as the straw that finally broke the camels back, and ultimately united to prevent these massive windfalls from becoming the norm. After an extended lockout, players and owners finally agreed on the language of a CBA, which was ratified in late January of 1998. Included in the new CBA were provisions governing the maximum amount a player could make as a percentage of the salary cap.

These provisions still exist today. The simplest interpretation is that a player coming off of a rookie contract is eligible for up to 25 percent of the salary cap, players with seven to nine years of experience can receive up to 30 percent and players with 10 or more years of experience can be awarded 35 percent of the cap.

As part of the most recent CBA, the players were basically backed into a corner, and reluctantly agreed that less of the league’s total revenue would be allocated for player’s salaries (51 percent down from 57 percent). Combine that fact with the exponentially increased revenue streams beginning in 2016, and players are not going to be happy with being bound to maximum salaries.

There are already rumors heating up that LeBron James could partner with the head of the players’ union, Chris Paul, to push for the abolition of max contracts. If this happens, it could set into motion a chain of joyous events for NBA fans.

The NBA has never had much parity. Dating back to 1980, only nine different teams have won a championship, a mark far eclipsed by every other major sports league around. That was partly driven by the lack of free agency prior to the 1988 season, when Tom Chambers became the first unrestricted free agent, but even when free agency was instituted, it didn’t really become a common practice to leave one’s team until the mid ’90s. Even then, superstars rarely decided to change teams.

By the time max salaries were implemented, the Los Angeles Lakers and San Antonio Spurs already had the core of their teams firmly entrenched, so dealing with the acquisition of new players while accounting for max salaries was far less of an issue. These two teams would go on to win nine of the next 12 championships.

Now, as we enter the age of superstars conglomerating on teams to form three-headed, ego-laced buzzsaws, max salaries are actually facilitating this process by evening out the amount of money to be distributed across the team.

By eliminating the constraint of a salary ceiling, players like LeBron command extraordinary money on the open market, and signings of players like Kevin Love become impossible without blowing past the luxury tax threshold line, thereby eliminating the owner’s motivation for such a move.

So super-teams — like the Miami Heat of recent lore and the current Cleveland Cavaliers – become an impossibility and talent becomes more evenly distributed across the league.

James may not be connecting these dots as he pushes for the removal of max contracts, but I implore you NBA fans, please do not stand in his way. This is exactly what the league needs.

Court Zierk is a Columnist for www.RantSports.com. Follow him on Twitter @CourtZierk, “Like” him on Facebook or add him on Google