How To Stop NBA Players From Forming Super-Teams
By: Will Burchfield
@burchie_kid
Earlier this afternoon, a caller on the Karsch and Anderson Show dialed in to defend Kevin Durant's decision to leave Oklahoma City, harping on the motives set forth by the NBA's contractual restrictions.
And he made a great point.
In short, the NBA needs to stop suppressing individual salaries. By imposing a limit on the amount of money a player can make over a given contract, be it for one year or up to five, the league is encouraging its stars to join forces and tip the balance of the league. The max contract rule was instituted, in part, to help smaller-market teams retain their star players. It ensures that deep-pocketed GMs can't simply outbid their more conservative counterparts to stockpile the best players on the most popular teams. It's a nice idea, in theory.
The drawback (aside from it not really working) is that the league's top players – its very, very top players – lack the financial distinction they deserve. True franchise-altering superstars should be in a different pay stratum than the interchangeable All-Stars beneath them. But by placing a ceiling on annual income, the NBA has thrust most of its high-level players in a financially homogenous heap.
Part of this, to be sure, is a product of the rising salary cap (which is a product of the ridiculous $24-billion TV deal the NBA signed in 2014.) Suddenly, teams across the league have a whole lot of financial maneuverability they didn't have before, enabling them to doll out huge raises to players that may not fully deserve them. Overpaying a guy by a few million bucks per year, most teams tend to believe, is better than watching him play for someone else.
But not all players share the reciprocal view. That is, some stars are content sacrificing an extra year of term to play for a more competitive team, under the knowledge they'll make the same amount of money per year. The only real motivation to do otherwise would be the opportunity to earn a higher annual salary, which is exactly what the max contract obstructs.
Consider the comparison of Durant and, say, Mike Conley. Mike Conley is a terrific player. He is also nowhere near as good as Durant. But Conley's new five-year, $153-million contract will pay him the same amount of money next year as Durant's new deal with the Warriors. Both players will receive $26,540,100 in the 2016-17 season, and neither one of them could have earned more.
And that's the problem. The only financial incentive for Durant to remain in OKC was the afterthought of securing a fifth year on a new deal – a factor, ironically, which would have cost him money down the line as the salary cap continues to grow. For Conley, five years and $153 million is the type of financial security he can't pass up; for Durant, it's the type of financial restriction he's trying to avoid. So he signed a less binding two-year deal with the Warriors, putting him in position to win a couple rings and cash in again shortly down the line.
There are a few solutions to this problem. First, most simply, the NBA could do away with the max contract completely. That would allow the elite of the elite, the true game-changers, to earn the kind of money they deserve in relation to the rest of the league. In a league with no limit on annual salary, Durant could conceivably make $40 million per year – maybe more. But he wouldn't make that with the Warriors, not with Golden State needing to fit its other stars under the salary cap.
Outside of scrapping the max contract altogether, the NBA could go in a couple of different directions. They could increase the financial ceiling for teams re-signing a current player, the same way they allow teams to offer such players an extra year of term. If the Thunder were permitted to invest, say, 40 percent of their cap in Durant's contract but the rest of the league was limited to 30 percent (as it's currently constituted), Durant would be further incentivized to stay in OKC.
Finally, the NBA could – and absolutely should – apply stipulations to how much a player can earn per year. This, again, would help balance the pay scales at the top of the league, differentiating the Durants and the LeBrons and the Currys from everyone else. The criteria could vary – MVP awards and All-Star Game appearances would be a good place to start – but a player's maximum potential salary should be tied to the weight of his resume. Think the "Derrick Rose Rule," but across all of free agency.
Durant, by virtue of being a seven-time All-Star and former MVP, deserves the chance to make more money than most of his peers. And he would absolutely be presented with it, if the league modified its policy on max contracts. In so doing, the NBA would dissuade – indeed, even prevent – its superstars from assembling these garish Super-Teams. Again, if Durant was making something closer to $40 million a year – which he totally deserves if Conley is making $26 million – he wouldn't be playing next season alongside Stephen Curry and Klay Thompson.
In choosing Golden State over Oklahoma City, Durant wasn't forced to walk away from more money. He simply signed with the team that gives him the best chance to win a championship moving forward. And who can blame him? It came down to two employers, one significantly better than the other, without any difference in annual pay. He would have been crazy – or a heroic freaking masochist – not to go to Golden State.
Look, it's hardly a given that Durant would have stayed in OKC even with the chance to earn significantly more money. It's quite possible he would have forgone the payday to play for a potential dynasty.
But at least the NBA would have given him reason to think twice.