Says the guy who owns Lebron.
I'm for having no max salary, for the following reasons:
1. The 9-cat fantasy impact of Durant and LeBron last year was worth closer to $30 in our league than it was $20. Consequently, not only are the owners getting unmatched production, but they are getting it with close to a 50% discount mandated by our rules. This is less than ideal to say the least. In a competitive redraft auction league, you'd expect to pay close to half of your budget for one of these guys. Expecting to pay 40% of your budget in this league is not unreasonable.
2. If there was no max salary, there would be no need for an auction tie-breaker. There is no flawless tie-breaker system so if we can do without one, all the better.
3. Currently, it is close to impossible for anyone other than the current owner to get hold of a max player. Scraping the max would change this in a fair way, rather than an arbitrary way.
If not having a max salary is too scary for some reason, then a weaker option would be to bump the max up to 30M. This would solve problem 1 above, but 2 and 3 would almost certainly still be there.
Of course with a hard cap and minimum roster size of 11, there would still effectively be a max salary of 72.5M (with 10 minimum contracts). Giving any one player anything close to this would obviously be ridiculous so for all intents and purposes it would be correct to say there is no max.
Is there a chance that people will overpay for players? Sure, they do it now and have to live with the consequences. I don't see how raising the amount we're allowed to spend changes anything fundamentally. It just allows the top players to get paid what they are worth.