Here’s the problem: Hunter has staked his position on the “no hard cap” stance, so even a high hard cap like you proposed might not be acceptable if also coupled with a large BRI giveback. So to make it politically acceptable for the players, the owners’ offer has to be dressed up such that while it may act like a hard cap, it technically isn’t one. The easiest way I can think of is a luxury tax with very steep penalties. As you said, the current luxury tax works as a deterrent on poorer teams, but not on rich teams. Raise the penalties though, and it would deter ever richer teams. Ideally we’d want the penalties so high that ALL teams are deterred, making it effectively a hard cap. And since ideally we don’t expect the luxury threshold to be breached, it should be decoupled from the actual revenue sharing scheme.

I think though that if teams are going this far, they might as well make it a hard cap straight out. However, the need for an appearance of compromise might result in this sort of monstrosity.

To the Rashard problem above, I think as long as the orginal team still has some detriment on their cap space, it would be a solid idea. I think the NBA in general, is more concerned about having the contract in the league. The players, actually, in the interest of fairness to other players, shouldn’t like “Rashard” contracts either though. Any money going to Rashard isn’t going to another player, since its more or less a zero-sum system. If I was an owner, I would make the seemly counter-intuitive argument to the players (that its in their best interest) for shorter contracts and less guaranteed money, on this “zero sum” basis.

The cash flow question is an interesting one. I am by no means an expert on NBA cash flow. But, how much does that “albatross” player hurt the franchise not just on the court, but also with the fans. Feelings like “Our ownership is so dumb, look at that 20 million a year guy sitting on the bench.” can cause a fan base to become disgruntled. Does getting rid of that player and allowing the roster to move help the revenue stream by ending a bad era more quickly? Take the Wizards. They, for the most part, have a young, exciting team. Losing Rashard, even if they only use the 25% they saved to replace him with a 4 million a year player, would probably help the franchise to be more appealing to fans. Get the monkey off the back sort of thing. That would have 0 impact on their cash flow while allowing Rashard to get out of the picture, which would brighten fans outlook and, hopefully, the dollars they spend.

One last thought on cash flow:

Put the ratio on an escalating scale. First year the original team pays at a ration of 75:25, second year 70:30, third 65:35, etc. etc.

Makes it slightly less appealing to pick up the waived player by other teams, but loosens up some cash flow for the original team over time. Changes the dynamic a bit, not sure for the better, but those types of tweaks could make the system work.

Probably not a perfect system, but we have to do something during the lockout, right??