PDA

View Full Version : Van Gundy: Eliminate Draft Altogether; Treat All Rookies As Free Agents. Thoughts?



Rentzias
10-02-2017, 12:20 PM
Detroit Pistons coach Stan Van Gundy, however, has another idea: eliminate the NBA draft all together. In addition, he suggested that max contracts be eliminated. Via the Detroit Free Press:
"I'd get rid of it, just get rid of the draft altogether," Van Gundy said when asked lottery reform. "We'd just deal with the salary cap. Make all [rookies] free agents coming in and if I want to go give a guy $50 million a year, good, but I got to do it under the cap.
"I think if you did that and you had no individual max on players, we'd start to get some parity in the league, but the league really doesn't want parity. They want the super teams, and I get that. It's worked well, business-wise."
Van Gundy added that he's not concerned about the Draft Lottery reform, as the team won't be tanking under his watch.
"I don't even worry about that stuff," Van Gundy said. "We're not a team that's ever going to try to maneuver into higher picks anyway so it really doesn't matter to me. Before we do that, somebody else will be coaching. It's hard enough for me to lose. I'm not going to try to lose.
While it's unlikely to happen anytime soon, eliminating the draft would be pretty fascinating. Making all incoming rookies free agents would lead to some very tough and interesting decisions -- both for the players and teams.

Hawkeye15
10-02-2017, 12:33 PM
fine with it.

with the escalation of rookie scale deals a few years ago, the value of having a #4, versus #8 pick, is barely different anyways. Let rookies be free agents. You might get a guy or two who MUST play for the Lakers, and is willing to take less money, but very few first year players are leaving money on the table...

warfelg
10-02-2017, 12:35 PM
Terrible idea TBH.

Vinylman
10-02-2017, 12:47 PM
unless you implement a club system like soccer it won't work.

and talk about AAU coach corruption ... It would make the current NCAA situation looking like childs play.

jaydubb
10-02-2017, 12:56 PM
Terrible idea... There'll be teams that have a hard time signing rookies and they will never get better.. I mean, who wants to play for Milwaukee? I doubt giannis woulda signed there if he was given the option to sign with any team.. Ditto KAT and the Timberwolves.. If I were Kat and I was coming into the league and could sign with any team, I woulda signed with the spurs no questions asked.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

valade16
10-02-2017, 01:29 PM
The NFL already tried a no cap on rookie salaries and what ended up happening is that rookie salaries became out of control. I could easily see the same thing happening to the NBA.

Teams would be shelling out $15-$20 mil per season for the next "can't miss" prospect.

Hawkeye15
10-02-2017, 01:36 PM
The NFL already tried a no cap on rookie salaries and what ended up happening is that rookie salaries became out of control. I could easily see the same thing happening to the NBA.

Teams would be shelling out $15-$20 mil per season for the next "can't miss" prospect.

then let them fail

Heediot
10-02-2017, 01:41 PM
The NFL already tried a no cap on rookie salaries and what ended up happening is that rookie salaries became out of control. I could easily see the same thing happening to the NBA.

Teams would be shelling out $15-$20 mil per season for the next "can't miss" prospect.

It was out of control in the 90's already with the nba.

In football money is more precious as there are 22 starting spots. In Basketball there is 5. So there's that element.

I am fine with the idea.

Vinylman
10-02-2017, 01:43 PM
The NFL already tried a no cap on rookie salaries and what ended up happening is that rookie salaries became out of control. I could easily see the same thing happening to the NBA.

Teams would be shelling out $15-$20 mil per season for the next "can't miss" prospect.

the NBA put the rookie scale in so the vets could get the money (players wanted as much as owners) ... it happened 2 CBA's ago... top picks use to get paid a ton in the NBA until then... The NFL players did it after they saw the NBA players do it.

valade16
10-02-2017, 01:44 PM
then let them fail

The problem was the entire league started failing because the precedent was set. Agent for player A would go to the team and say "Player B got X amount, we want that or more" or "last year Player C got X, we want 10% more".

It was so destructive that actually signing a premier rookie became a bad thing because of the financial hit you'd take.


It was out of control in the 90's already. In football money is more precious as there are 22 starting spots. In Basketball there is 5.

I am fine with the idea.

And yet we are at a point where salaries are out of control for people even with a salary cap and narrowly defined amounts people can get. It's why there are stretch provisions and amnesty provisions in nearly every collective bargaining agreement.

Allowing teams to pay an unlimited amount for players who have yet to step on the court is a terrible idea for the financial solvency of teams.

valade16
10-02-2017, 01:45 PM
the NBA put the rookie scale in so the vets could get the money (players wanted as much as owners) ... it happened 2 CBA's ago... top picks use to get paid a ton in the NBA until then... The NFL players did it after they saw the NBA players do it.

And there's a reason both leagues no longer do it. It was a terrible. Every team had massive amounts of money and debt tied to players who either sucked or didn't play any longer.

Heediot
10-02-2017, 01:51 PM
And yet we are at a point where salaries are out of control for people even with a salary cap and narrowly defined amounts people can get. It's why there are stretch provisions and amnesty provisions in nearly every collective bargaining agreement.

Allowing teams to pay an unlimited amount for players who have yet to step on the court is a terrible idea for the financial solvency of teams.

That's fine with me, if someone wants to take a chance let them do it. No guts no glory. Do your due diligence and research before shelling out the dough. No matter what the cba structure, there will always be teams looking smart and teams looking dumb. Everything is relative in accordance to the context/dynamic/situation.

At least in a free agency scenario, teams are bidding on talent instead of slot. It changes the dynamics. Nobody is going to go nuts over Anthony Bennett vs. KAT.

valade16
10-02-2017, 01:55 PM
That's fine with me, if someone wants to take a chance let them do it. No guts no glory. Do your due diligence and research before shelling out the dough. No matter what the cba structure, there will always be teams looking smart and teams looking dumb. Everything is relative in accordance to the context/dynamic/situation.

At least in a free agency scenario, teams are bidding on talent instead of slot. It changes the dynamics. Nobody is going to go nuts over Anthony Bennett vs. KAT.

Making it a true free market sounds good in theory with the "due diligence" and stuff, but one need only look at a capitalistic economy to see the inevitable result. It won't result in some teams being good and some being bad. It will result in 1-3 teams being trillion dollar rich good and every other team being permanently inferior.

Especially because winning increases revenue and thus the team that wins has more to spend on players, and the cycle continues.

It's a bad idea, one which relegates essentially 1-3 teams permanently ahead of everyone else.

Vinylman
10-02-2017, 01:59 PM
And there's a reason both leagues no longer do it. It was a terrible. Every team had massive amounts of money and debt tied to players who either sucked or didn't play any longer.

Agreed ... that is why a club model is so much better if there is going to be complete FA.

valade16
10-02-2017, 02:02 PM
We can see the effect of "bidding" for the top talent at the collegiate level.

In the SEC, Kentucky has won 48 Championships, the next most is LSU with 11.
In the ACC, UNC has won 31 Championships, Duke 19 and the next most is Virginia at 7.
In the Big XII, Kansas has won 17 Championships, Texas is next with 3 and the rest of the league has won a combined 8.
In the Pac-12, UCLA has won 31 Championships, Cal and Arizona are second with 15 apiece.

The Big Ten is the only conference with any sort of basketball parity and that's because they're a conference primarily made up of teams who try harder in football. If you look at conference champions in NCAA Football, it results will be roughly the same.

A "free market" system would take the number of teams in the NBA from 30 to 3-4. The rest of the teams might as well rename themselves the Washington Generals.

Vinylman
10-02-2017, 02:06 PM
We can see the effect of "bidding" for the top talent at the collegiate level.

In the SEC, Kentucky has won 48 Championships, the next most is LSU with 11.
In the ACC, UNC has won 31 Championships, Duke 19 and the next most is Virginia at 7.
In the Big XII, Kansas has won 17 Championships, Texas is next with 3 and the rest of the league has won a combined 8.
In the Pac-12, UCLA has won 31 Championships, Cal and Arizona are second with 15 apiece.

The Big Ten is the only conference with any sort of basketball parity and that's because they're a conference primarily made up of teams who try harder in football. If you look at conference champions in NCAA Football, it results will be roughly the same.

A "free market" system would take the number of teams in the NBA from 30 to 3-4. The rest of the teams might as well rename themselves the Washington Generals.

The current system has already done this though... :eyebrow:

I agree with your point but the bolded seems ironic when you think about the current state of affairs

Heediot
10-02-2017, 02:09 PM
Making it a true free market sounds good in theory with the "due diligence" and stuff, but one need only look at a capitalistic economy to see the inevitable result. It won't result in some teams being good and some being bad. It will result in 1-3 teams being trillion dollar rich good and every other team being permanently inferior.

Especially because winning increases revenue and thus the team that wins has more to spend on players, and the cycle continues.

It's a bad idea, one which relegates essentially 1-3 teams permanently ahead of everyone else.

Didn't SVG propose that you have to be under the cap to sign the rookies, does that change your line of reasoning?

Lets say GS wants to sign Marvin Bagley, do you think they have the cap room to do it? They would have to trade away and salary dump Klay, Dray, and probably Iggy for at least 2 of the three. Would you mortgage two all star guys for a rookie?

Also since there are no picks and if someone wants to dump Joakim Noah to sign a rookie or a free agent, they would have to throw in other prospects or assets to sweeten the pot. Maybe I am missing something about your stance.

valade16
10-02-2017, 02:11 PM
The current system has already done this though... :eyebrow:

I agree with your point but the bolded seems ironic when you think about the current state of affairs

I agree the current system has. But what specifically created this problem? It was the salary cap increasing to the point where every team could afford to pay the top Free Agent's that year an obscene amount of money and unsurprisingly the top player chose to go to the top team, and is now willing to take a pay cut to stay.

What makes people think it would be any different for Rookies than it has been for Free Agents?

hugepatsfan
10-02-2017, 02:14 PM
I agree the current system has. But what specifically created this problem? It was the salary cap increasing to the point where every team could afford to pay the top Free Agent's that year an obscene amount of money and unsurprisingly the top player chose to go to the top team, and is now willing to take a pay cut to stay.

What makes people think it would be any different for Rookies than it has been for Free Agents?

The rookies wouldn't have had their "set for life" payday yet. So they're definitely going to be less willing to turn down money as a general rule.

valade16
10-02-2017, 02:16 PM
Didn't SVG propose that you have to be under the cap to sign the rookies, does that change your line of reasoning?

Lets say GS wants to sign Marvin Bagley, do you think they have the cap room to do it? They would have to trade away and salary dump Klay, Dray, and probably Iggy for at least 2 of the three. Would you mortgage two all star guys for a rookie?

Also since there are no picks and if someone wants to dump Joakim Noah to sign a rookie or a free agent, they would have to throw in other prospects or assets to sweeten the pot. Maybe I am missing something about your stance.

The problem with that is the teams that are under the salary cap are generally only there because they have dumped all high priced contracts to get rookies on rookie salary deals.

So those teams wouldn't be under the salary cap if their strategy was to stockpile young players as the young players would now be just as expensive as anyone else. How many seasons of getting a top level rookie would it take to go over the salary cap? 2? 3?

valade16
10-02-2017, 02:18 PM
The rookies wouldn't have had their "set for life" payday yet. So they're definitely going to be less willing to turn down money as a general rule.

Agreed, but that is in and of itself a problem isn't it? The top level rookies will be looking for "set for life" paydays for their initial contract and as soon as 1-2 are signed to those the market is set.

If you are a rebuilding team, you have a far less likely chance of getting better in a system where you have to pay 2 unknowns $15-$20 million apiece than a system where you draft 1-2 unknowns and pay them $8 million total.

Heediot
10-02-2017, 02:23 PM
The problem with that is the teams that are under the salary cap are generally only there because they have dumped all high priced contracts to get rookies on rookie salary deals.

So those teams wouldn't be under the salary cap if their strategy was to stockpile young players as the young players would now be just as expensive as anyone else. How many seasons of getting a top level rookie would it take to go over the salary cap? 2? 3?

I can see inevitable problems, but the same holds true for any salary cap structure. Right now 2/3 of the league are in luxury tax. Let teams figure it out through trial and error.

IndyRealist
10-02-2017, 02:34 PM
Teams do not want rookie free agency, because they want cost controlled talent that minimizes their risk if a player is a bust.

Players do not want rookie free agency because there is a finite amount of player salary. If rookies get more, vets get less.

Fans do not want rookie free agency, because all the best players will flock to the major markets and form superteams. Their endorsement money will more than make up for any amount they sacrifice to get under a hard cap.

It's really a bad idea for everyone, except the rookies.

warfelg
10-02-2017, 03:04 PM
Teams do not want rookie free agency, because they want cost controlled talent that minimizes their risk if a player is a bust.

Players do not want rookie free agency because there is a finite amount of player salary. If rookies get more, vets get less.

Fans do not want rookie free agency, because all the best players will flock to the major markets and form superteams. Their endorsement money will more than make up for any amount they sacrifice to get under a hard cap.

It's really a bad idea for everyone, except the rookies.

When are people going to learn that is SVG thinks it's a good idea that means DON'T DO IT!

hugepatsfan
10-02-2017, 03:09 PM
Agreed, but that is in and of itself a problem isn't it? The top level rookies will be looking for "set for life" paydays for their initial contract and as soon as 1-2 are signed to those the market is set.

If you are a rebuilding team, you have a far less likely chance of getting better in a system where you have to pay 2 unknowns $15-$20 million apiece than a system where you draft 1-2 unknowns and pay them $8 million total.

Eh. Most rebuilding teams aren't attractive destinations to good players anyway. So spending $8M instead of $15-20M just gives them the chance to spend on crap players that they should have avoided anyway lol

Heediot
10-02-2017, 03:15 PM
Teams do not want rookie free agency, because they want cost controlled talent that minimizes their risk if a player is a bust.

Players do not want rookie free agency because there is a finite amount of player salary. If rookies get more, vets get less.

Fans do not want rookie free agency, because all the best players will flock to the major markets and form superteams. Their endorsement money will more than make up for any amount they sacrifice to get under a hard cap.

It's really a bad idea for everyone, except the rookies.

There are plenty of risks, I'll agree. There are risks now too. I rather spend 15 million on Luka Doncic vs. Mozgov.

warfelg
10-02-2017, 03:17 PM
Eh. Most rebuilding teams aren't attractive destinations to good players anyway. So spending $8M instead of $15-20M just gives them the chance to spend on crap players that they should have avoided anyway lol

That's exactly what the NBPA wants anyways....

valade16
10-02-2017, 03:25 PM
Eh. Most rebuilding teams aren't attractive destinations to good players anyway. So spending $8M instead of $15-20M just gives them the chance to spend on crap players that they should have avoided anyway lol

lol, true.

SfgiantsJD3
10-02-2017, 03:38 PM
The only way this works is if the players take risk for performance; i.e. be able to adjust the contract up or down based on performance and be terminated and not owed money if they don't perform at x level.

THE MTL
10-02-2017, 05:49 PM
While this idea is stupid, I do agree about getting rid of the max. Nowadays, players just stupidly ask for the max or given the max

IndyRealist
10-02-2017, 08:14 PM
There are plenty of risks, I'll agree. There are risks now too. I rather spend 15 million on Luka Doncic vs. Mozgov.

But why spend $15M on Doncic when you can spend $5M on him and lock him in for 2 years PLUS 2 team option years, from an owner's perspective? Given that you can get him cost controlled, you can get him AND afford to take a risk on a vet.

Jeffy25
10-02-2017, 11:03 PM
Very against it.

Lakers, Knicks, Celtics, and super teams get all the good players, bad teams get nobodies.

The divide of the leagues parity is already at an all time high, why would there be interest in making it worse?




Btw, rip out of the salary cap. It just takes money from the players and puts it in the owners pockets. This would make it even worse.

Saddletramp
10-02-2017, 11:15 PM
Yeah, endorsement money killed this idea before it was even brought up .

Raps18-19 Champ
10-02-2017, 11:21 PM
If there was a hard cap, I would be fine with it.

AllBall
10-02-2017, 11:37 PM
It's a good thing SVG is not running the leauge.

The NBA already is moving more and more to a farm system, which is where the real solution is. They've already realized that the NCAA is turning out garbage product on top of the long list of other issues. 1 good draft year every 10 years is not good. Every other top world sport has a farm system that is legitimate. From Baseball, to Soccer to Formula1.

Scoots
10-03-2017, 12:41 AM
Let's just throw all the dice up in the air. Hard cap, maximum 1 year contracts, no draft.

Heediot
10-03-2017, 08:29 AM
But why spend $15M on Doncic when you can spend $5M on him and lock him in for 2 years PLUS 2 team option years, from an owner's perspective? Given that you can get him cost controlled, you can get him AND afford to take a risk on a vet.

What makes the proposal interesting to me is. It's a free for all and your getting paid off of perceived value/potential vs. draft slot. So if a team does their homework and trusts their efforts, take that risk. If you have the cap to sign the guy, so be it. I see where all y'all are coming fromn, but I don't think SVG's idea is all doom and gloom and only benefits the big market teams. You can only manipulate the cap so far, but if your willing to shell out 100M + luxury tax bills annually then that's up to them.

Even though a guy like Bennett or Olowakandi was a first overall pick they may not get the same offer as a Jahlil Okafor (even though he is kind of a bust) coming out of college.

I think this will force teams to be more creative in terms of building a roster, re-building and tanking.

IndyRealist
10-03-2017, 08:46 AM
What makes the proposal interesting to me is. It's a free for all and your getting paid off of perceived value/potential vs. draft slot. So if a team does their homework and trusts their efforts, take that risk. If you have the cap to sign the guy, so be it. I see where all y'all are coming fromn, but I don't think SVG's idea is all doom and gloom and only benefits the big market teams. You can only manipulate the cap so far, but if your willing to shell out 100M + luxury tax bills annually then that's up to them.

Even though a guy like Bennett or Olowakandi was a first overall pick they may not get the same offer as a Jahlil Okafor (even though he is kind of a bust) coming out of college.

I think this will force teams to be more creative in terms of building a roster, re-building and tanking.

I get why people think it's interesting. The question was why would an OWNER want.this system over the current one? Or players, for that matter?

IndyRealist
10-03-2017, 08:48 AM
Very against it.

Lakers, Knicks, Celtics, and super teams get all the good players, bad teams get nobodies.

The divide of the leagues parity is already at an all time high, why would there be interest in making it worse?




Btw, rip out of the salary cap. It just takes money from the players and puts it in the owners pockets. This would make it even worse.

The total amount all players combined make is fixed. The salary cap does not raise or lower that amount. It's actually tye opposite. The total projected money the players will make the coming year determines the cap.

Heediot
10-03-2017, 08:51 AM
I get why people think it's interesting. The question was why would an OWNER want.this system over the current one? Or players, for that matter?

True, true. Most owner's and players will not agree. A bit risky for the owners, and player's are more self-interested vs. what they say to the media.

The idea in general though has it's merits to me though.

warfelg
10-03-2017, 08:54 AM
I get why people think it's interesting. The question was why would an OWNER want.this system over the current one? Or players, for that matter?

There is no answer. Also...trading picks would never happen again. What do you do with the future picks traded? Teams have nothing to add in. This would more effectively kill trading and improvement of bad teams than anything else.

And you know, the only way a "rookie free market" would work is if the NBA adopted half the MLB's style. Based on record the year before you get a certain amount for signing your rookies. So say the Bulls finish with the worse record this year, in the 2019 offseason they get say $25mil (outside the cap) to sign rookies. I say outside the cap just in case a bad team is over the cap. Since your record dictates you pick a year out there's less incentive to tank. And instead of trading picks, you can trace up to 50% of you available rookie cap. So say the Magic trade with Utah, they can send 50% of their cap for said year; and if the Magic end up with a $14mil cap, they only have $7mil and if Utah had $18mil, they now have $25mil.

Heediot
10-03-2017, 09:15 AM
There is no answer. Also...trading picks would never happen again. What do you do with the future picks traded? Teams have nothing to add in. This would more effectively kill trading and improvement of bad teams than anything else.

And you know, the only way a "rookie free market" would work is if the NBA adopted half the MLB's style. Based on record the year before you get a certain amount for signing your rookies. So say the Bulls finish with the worse record this year, in the 2019 offseason they get say $25mil (outside the cap) to sign rookies. I say outside the cap just in case a bad team is over the cap. Since your record dictates you pick a year out there's less incentive to tank. And instead of trading picks, you can trace up to 50% of you available rookie cap. So say the Magic trade with Utah, they can send 50% of their cap for said year; and if the Magic end up with a $14mil cap, they only have $7mil and if Utah had $18mil, they now have $25mil.

I think teams can still make trades, it just makes it harder for teams to salary dump in SVG's proposal. Which is kind of a good thing. Mark Cuban may rather invest money on a rookie vs. taking on Bogut and Barnes for GS to sign Durant. GS would have to work their ***** and be ultra creative to create room for a Durant. Would teams want to take on a 12 plus million dollar declining injury prone Bogut, or risk that money on a guy (or a few guys) with upside and also helping out GS become a monster to boot?

It does make it harder for teams to re-build for sure though. Would I rather sign with Min/Phi or BK/Sac if all things being equal in terms of Cap. On the other hand it forces bad teams to find ways to open up cap room to sign premium prospects or free agents.

Vinylman
10-03-2017, 09:27 AM
The total amount all players combined make is fixed. The salary cap does not raise or lower that amount. It's actually tye opposite. The total projected money the players will make the coming year determines the cap.

huh?

BRI determines the cap #'s ... players are making way more than the cap at this point because of teams signing players with exceptions...

The players always make more than the theoretical cap determined by the CBA because teams can go over the cap and sign players with exceptions

Vinylman
10-03-2017, 09:29 AM
I think teams can still make trades, it just makes it harder for teams to salary dump in SVG's proposal. Which is kind of a good thing. Mark Cuban may rather invest money on a rookie vs. taking on Bogut and Barnes for GS to sign Durant. GS would have to work their ***** and be ultra creative to create room for a Durant. Would teams want to take on a 12 plus million dollar declining injury prone Bogut, or risk that money on a guy (or a few guys) with upside and also helping out GS become a monster to boot?

It does make it harder for teams to re-build for sure though. Would I rather sign with Min/Phi or BK/Sac if all things being equal in terms of Cap. On the other hand it forces bad teams to find ways to open up cap room to sign premium prospects or free agents.

Cuban had to take that deal (bogut) or hope someone else would so they could get Barnes... if no one takes bogut then GS likely matches the Barnes deal.

The league are their own worse enemies when it comes to making super teams

Scoots
10-03-2017, 09:43 AM
The idea that "all the best rookies would go to the big market teams" doesn't hold water. Yes, LA, NY, and Miami have cultural and weather and business opportunities to sell the ideas to rookies to maybe get them to take less money, but with 1/3 of the teams under the cap next year only 1/3 of the teams would be in the market for rookies. LA, NY, and Miami would quickly hit the cap and no longer be able to sign any rookies let alone "all the top rookies".

Heediot
10-03-2017, 09:50 AM
Cuban had to take that deal (bogut) or hope someone else would so they could get Barnes... if no one takes bogut then GS likely matches the Barnes deal.

The league are their own worse enemies when it comes to making super teams

It's interesting, Cuban still wanted to compete for Dirk's sake, but would you rather have 30+ on Bogus and Barnes or 30+ on Say Ben Simmons and Jaylen Brown? Last years' rookie crop was weak though. NOt too sure which direction he goes, but I have a feeling if SVG 's system was in place at the time, there is less then 20 percent chance Kd makes it to GS. No way the rest of the league will make it that easy for them to form that kind of team.

Vinylman
10-03-2017, 10:24 AM
It's interesting, Cuban still wanted to compete for Dirk's sake, but would you rather have 30+ on Bogus and Barnes or 30+ on Say Ben Simmons and Jaylen Brown? Last years' rookie crop was weak though. NOt too sure which direction he goes, but I have a feeling if SVG 's system was in place at the time, there is less then 20 percent chance Kd makes it to GS. No way the rest of the league will make it that easy for them to form that kind of team.

everyone thinks Cuban is smart but he really is pretty dumb... he actually sent a second to the warriors for bogut... when he should have been asking for a pick

IndyRealist
10-03-2017, 10:50 AM
huh?

BRI determines the cap #'s ... players are making way more than the cap at this point because of teams signing players with exceptions...

The players always make more than the theoretical cap determined by the CBA because teams can go over the cap and sign players with exceptions

The players never make more than the amount determined by BRI. A percentage of their checks are held in escrow to insure this. Going over the cap does not pay players more, in aggregate.

Vinylman
10-03-2017, 11:54 AM
The players never make more than the amount determined by BRI. A percentage of their checks are held in escrow to insure this. Going over the cap does not pay players more, in aggregate.

Really? so if a guy making 30 million a year has 10% withheld and his team is over the cap and a guy on a team at the cap making the minimum also has 10% withheld they both lose salary equally (percentage) if the BRI comes in lower?

I did not know that. That is ****ing crazy and would mean teams not going over the cap are funding the competitive imbalance because teams going over know they are going to get it back via the escrow... or does that kick back to the team not reflect what was held for their players and simply a flat amount by team in aggregate?

valade16
10-03-2017, 12:06 PM
The idea that "all the best rookies would go to the big market teams" doesn't hold water. Yes, LA, NY, and Miami have cultural and weather and business opportunities to sell the ideas to rookies to maybe get them to take less money, but with 1/3 of the teams under the cap next year only 1/3 of the teams would be in the market for rookies. LA, NY, and Miami would quickly hit the cap and no longer be able to sign any rookies let alone "all the top rookies".

So if you are a losing team that is over the cap you are beyond F'd? lol

Rivera
10-03-2017, 12:19 PM
im not against this if you have a hard cap. if you have a hard cap, its going to depend on teams to save for the next big team while continunig to build a balanced roster. I feel like championship teams would have a harder tme to rebuild and a much harder fall. For example when the Cavs are over the cap and have no room for rookies. no way for them to build the future while maintaining the present without shifty cap movement and foresight

this doesnt penalize lower market teams either, because its a hard cap that big markets cant go over. But for this to actually work. you need a hard cap

Vinylman
10-03-2017, 01:01 PM
WTF is the deal with the ads on this site... they are huge today

it is ****ing annoying

Heediot
10-03-2017, 01:07 PM
im not against this if you have a hard cap. if you have a hard cap, its going to depend on teams to save for the next big team while continunig to build a balanced roster. I feel like championship teams would have a harder tme to rebuild and a much harder fall. For example when the Cavs are over the cap and have no room for rookies. no way for them to build the future while maintaining the present without shifty cap movement and foresight

this doesnt penalize lower market teams either, because its a hard cap that big markets cant go over. But for this to actually work. you need a hard cap

The luxury tax is what is going to keep teams from monopolizing all the talent. Even in the current system, it is hard for teams to hoard and over-pay for all the talent. If your willing to shell out the loot like the Cavs have or the Warriors will for luxury tax go ahead. Owners have to choose between talent and money when it comes to the luxury tax.

FlashBolt
10-03-2017, 02:07 PM
College players are going to start playing selfish and stack their stats... this rewards selfishness. No thanks.

Heediot
10-03-2017, 02:13 PM
College players are going to start playing selfish and stack their stats... this rewards selfishness. No thanks.

It shouldn't matter if you do your homework. Talk to coaches, watch film, analyze metrics. Stats are not the only things that are measured. If you play for Coach K or Cal, your going to have to sacrifice a bit from what I've seen recently. Maybe if you go to a middling school with a desperate coach, he'll give you the green light.

FlashBolt
10-03-2017, 03:33 PM
It shouldn't matter if you do your homework. Talk to coaches, watch film, analyze metrics. Stats are not the only things that are measured. If you play for Coach K or Cal, your going to have to sacrifice a bit from what I've seen recently. Maybe if you go to a middling school with a desperate coach, he'll give you the green light.

Even in today's NBA, we see it happening. What makes you think it won't in regards to rookies - where players are judged based on production? It just turns the NBA into an absolute joke where teams are going to get destroyed by the salary cap paying some rookie who most likely, will end up being a bust.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
10-03-2017, 03:44 PM
Maybe some kinda money pool where if you got the worst record ya have first choice at a player. But also if ya hate the draft you can carry half your money pool to the next draft. Also for a money pool you can spend it all on one guy like a top pick. Or like 3 or 4 cheap guys if they are willing to take the low price. Still will have its ups and downs over paying some one and done kid. Could be a ton of busts and them teams stuck. hahahah

Rivera
10-03-2017, 03:46 PM
The luxury tax is what is going to keep teams from monopolizing all the talent. Even in the current system, it is hard for teams to hoard and over-pay for all the talent. If your willing to shell out the loot like the Cavs have or the Warriors will for luxury tax go ahead. Owners have to choose between talent and money when it comes to the luxury tax.

the luxury tax has nothing to do with my post because i said HARD CAP. With a Hard cap there is no such thing as luxury tax

please read before responding

MILLERHIGHLIFE
10-03-2017, 03:49 PM
Funny that SVG says he doesn't have to worry he's not tanking. That's what he thinks. Only decent piece they got this offseason was Bradley. Jackson and Drummond been horrible lately with huge contracts. They were shopping Drummond this summer and no takers. Jackson a bit toxic.

Heediot
10-03-2017, 03:53 PM
Even in today's NBA, we see it happening. What makes you think it won't in regards to rookies - where players are judged based on production? It just turns the NBA into an absolute joke where teams are going to get destroyed by the salary cap paying some rookie who most likely, will end up being a bust.

Teams destroy their own cap no matter how you implement the cba or structure the cap. There are always teams that know how to beat the system and always teams that **** up.

I can see the downside of giving an unproven player all that money, but no system is flawless.

It SVG's idea perfect? No. but it has its merits IMO.

Teams are destroying their own cap right now. Half the league or something like that is paying the tax.

There has never been a time where some part of the league front offices aren't ****ing up their own team. That's just how competition works.

The real question is who loses out if rookies and unproven guys based on potential get bigger money? Probably guys like Evan Turner, Biyombo, Leonard Meyers, Miles Plumee types. Personally I'd rather pay 15 million to Porter or Ayton vs. Evan Turner or Allen Crabbe.

Heediot
10-03-2017, 03:55 PM
the luxury tax has nothing to do with my post because i said HARD CAP. With a Hard cap there is no such thing as luxury tax

please read before responding

Yeah a hard cap doesn't let teams go over a certain point like the NHL/NFL. You don't need to implement that kind of cap to avoid teams from stockpiling on players.

FlashBolt
10-03-2017, 04:04 PM
Teams destroy their own cap no matter how you implement the cba or structure the cap. There are always teams that know how to beat the system and always teams that **** up.

I can see the downside of giving an unproven player all that money, but no system is flawless.

It SVG's idea perfect? No. but it has its merits IMO.

Teams are destroying their own cap right now. Half the league or something like that is paying the tax.

There has never been a time where some part of the league front offices aren't ****ing up their own team. That's just how competition works.

The real question is who loses out if rookies and unproven guys based on potential get bigger money? Probably guys like Evan Turner, Biyombo, Leonard Meyers, Miles Plumee types. Personally I'd rather pay 15 million to Porter or Ayton vs. Evan Turner or Allen Crabbe.

Yes, but teams don't destroy their cap by investing on a young player who is just "hyped." And that's exactly what will happen. Teams will go into a bidding war and then they'll start sucking because they have no idea how to develop a player who lacks the NBA experience. The only merit is this will completely eliminate a team to tank. The downside is, you'll have many teams playing like they are tanking because they just plain suck.

Heediot
10-03-2017, 04:18 PM
Yes, but teams don't destroy their cap by investing on a young player who is just "hyped." And that's exactly what will happen. Teams will go into a bidding war and then they'll start sucking because they have no idea how to develop a player who lacks the NBA experience. The only merit is this will completely eliminate a team to tank. The downside is, you'll have many teams playing like they are tanking because they just plain suck.

I think in a free agent scenario/dynamic, people will not be forced to give a guy a certain amount because they are not paying for draft slot but paying for perceived value/potential. There will still be **** ups because desperate gm's do desperate things, and less intelligent gm's do less intelligent things (rookie contracts or contracts in general). I see where your coming from, but I would like to see how this kind of market works out.
If a gm pays off of hype and not his due diligence then he deserves what he gets.

jericho
10-03-2017, 05:24 PM
I have a better idea. Make a round robin elimination tournament for the 16 teams that don't make the playoffs and the team that wins it gets first place 2nd place gets the 2nd pick then after that they can use the point system from the fiba tournaments for the 3rd and 4th pick and so on and so forth. That would eliminate tanking and promote competitiveness.

Saddletramp
10-03-2017, 05:25 PM
I have a better idea. Make a round robin elimination tournament for the 16 teams that don't make the playoffs and the team that wins it gets first place 2nd place gets the 2nd pick then after that they can use the point system from the fiba tournaments for the 3rd and 4th pick and so on and so forth. That would eliminate tanking and promote competitiveness.

That's even worse. So teams that barely miss the playoffs or have an injured star or two for most/all of the year will get a top pick? And that will incentivize tanking by the low tiered teams at the end of the year. "8th seed or #1 pick?"

IndyRealist
10-03-2017, 06:09 PM
That's even worse. So teams that barely miss the playoffs or have an injured star or two for most/all of the year will get a top pick? And that will incentivize tanking by the low tiered teams at the end of the year. "8th seed or #1 pick?"

+1. That's even more harsh than a flat lottery. It's not removing incentive to tank, it's punishing teams for being bad.

jericho
10-03-2017, 06:15 PM
That's even worse. So teams that barely miss the playoffs or have an injured star or two for most/all of the year will get a top pick? And that will incentivize tanking by the low tiered teams at the end of the year. "8th seed or #1 pick?"

It will actually make the bottom teams build a good team in order to compete in the draft tournament. Instead of having teams like Philly which build a team to give the top teams in the league a practice game. All the bottom teams will get better. So it will not be an easy 1st pick guarantee for those middle of the pack teams.

Also for teams that trade away their pick I would put the other teams nbdl team on said tournament since their main team is in the playoffs.

No draft system is perfect but I believe this will make front offices run their team better and build them better for either a playoff run or top draft pick run.

Saddletramp
10-03-2017, 08:25 PM
It will actually make the bottom teams build a good team in order to compete in the draft tournament. Instead of having teams like Philly which build a team to give the top teams in the league a practice game. All the bottom teams will get better. So it will not be an easy 1st pick guarantee for those middle of the pack teams.

Also for teams that trade away their pick I would put the other teams nbdl team on said tournament since their main team is in the playoffs.

No draft system is perfect but I believe this will make front offices run their team better and build them better for either a playoff run or top draft pick run.

So if the Warriors were involved and had traded for the Grizzlies pick and the Grizzlies were relaxed in this tournament it'd make any kind of sense? When would this tournament commence? During the playoffs?


That's silly and isn't even worth bringing up.

jericho
10-03-2017, 08:47 PM
So if the Warriors were involved and had traded for the Grizzlies pick and the Grizzlies were relaxed in this tournament it'd make any kind of sense? When would this tournament commence? During the playoffs?


That's silly and isn't even worth bringing up.

Reading comprehension my friend. 2nd paragraph. The warriors would have to use their nbdl team then. Besides it's only the bottom 16 teams in the tournament. Top 16 go by their regular order. The tournament could begin anytime before draft night. Even during the playoffs.

IndyRealist
10-03-2017, 08:49 PM
Reading comprehension my friend. 2nd paragraph. The warriors would have to use their nbdl team then. Besides it's only the bottom 16 teams in the tournament. Top 16 go by their regular order. The tournament could begin anytime before draft night. Even during the playoffs.

There are 30 NBA teams, not 32.

jericho
10-03-2017, 08:59 PM
There are 30 NBA teams, not 32.

My bad 14 lol
Still soon to be 16 with extension coming soon

Saddletramp
10-03-2017, 09:11 PM
That idea will never float. A round robin tournament a the end of the year? And then nbadl teams are involved? That's one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard.

Scoots
10-03-2017, 09:49 PM
So if you are a losing team that is over the cap you are beyond F'd? lol

Yep.

Scoots
10-03-2017, 09:50 PM
im not against this if you have a hard cap. if you have a hard cap, its going to depend on teams to save for the next big team while continunig to build a balanced roster. I feel like championship teams would have a harder tme to rebuild and a much harder fall. For example when the Cavs are over the cap and have no room for rookies. no way for them to build the future while maintaining the present without shifty cap movement and foresight

this doesnt penalize lower market teams either, because its a hard cap that big markets cant go over. But for this to actually work. you need a hard cap

SVG did say you could only sign rookies with cap space. That essentially makes it a hard cap for rookie deals.

Scoots
10-03-2017, 09:51 PM
College players are going to start playing selfish and stack their stats... this rewards selfishness. No thanks.

Hehe ... do you think they don't already?

Jeffy25
10-03-2017, 10:13 PM
The total amount all players combined make is fixed. The salary cap does not raise or lower that amount. It's actually tye opposite. The total projected money the players will make the coming year determines the cap.

What? That has nothing to do with what I stated or argued. I'm not referring to how the cap works. I'm referring to the lunacy that a cap system even exists.

jericho
10-03-2017, 11:04 PM
That idea will never float. A round robin tournament a the end of the year? And then nbadl teams are involved? That's one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard.

You sound like a bitter man dude. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's a dumb idea. The reason to incorporate the nbdl team for those situations helps in a variety of ways. First it gives said team exposure. Those players in the nbdl could use that opportunity to showcase their talents and get a potential call up. Second it would make teams think twice about trading those picks. Try to look at some positives maybe you'll see things in a different light.

LOb0
10-04-2017, 12:22 AM
Terrible idea. You know how many bums would be getting 25 million a year?

Saddletramp
10-04-2017, 03:32 AM
You sound like a bitter man dude. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's a dumb idea. The reason to incorporate the nbdl team for those situations helps in a variety of ways. First it gives said team exposure. Those players in the nbdl could use that opportunity to showcase their talents and get a potential call up. Second it would make teams think twice about trading those picks. Try to look at some positives maybe you'll see things in a different light.

Not being negative but they will never even attempt this or think about it as a possibility. In that sense, it's a dumb idea.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
10-04-2017, 10:10 AM
Its a decent idea. If ya take example Lakers maybe have $60M. They miss on LeBron and PG13 and CP3 and everyone else. Then they go wild after rookie pool with $60M. Could sink or swim. But could have a quick turn around if ya hit on the good rookies. Still have to go through the rookie learning curve and wall. But in a good deep draft no draft could be interesting.

JasonJohnHorn
10-04-2017, 10:47 PM
What you end up getting if you treat rookies as free agents is ridiculous rookie deals. This happened back in the 90's when you had a guy like Vin Baker asking for a 100 million on a rookie contract before he even plays a game.

Teams sunk big money into guys like Danny Ferry and fawked up their entire team for half a decade because of it.


Also...it would make it really easy for teams like LAL and even NY to dominate. Teams that win have big followings nationally, (LAL, Bos, Chi-town) and teams that are in big markets also have big followings (NY). So players coming up want to go to the team they are a fan of, and those teams will have an unfair advantage over the rest of the league. It would make things worse.


The only idea of his that might work is getting rid of a max, but only if you put a firm cap up. Teams will only be willing to pay certain players half of their cap space, then they have to pay the rest of the team. That means more mid-level deals and less huge deals.

But what might end up happening is a pay-scale disparity that is huge. Some All-Stars will be getting crazy money, others will be getting the MLE, and starters/rotation players will be getting vet mins.

I'd see a bunch of problems, but... there are a bunch of problems with the current system.

bagwell368
10-09-2017, 01:30 PM
Cities with no state tax, great weather, and big media get all the best guys.

The North gets screwed - not NY and not Boston, but Detroit, Toronto, Milw, etc... not so many top guys going there.

MIami scores big! LAL...

rhino17
10-09-2017, 03:17 PM
I don't mind it. But it would also favor the better markets. All the good players would want to play in LA, GS, Miami, Houston, etc. It already happens with free agents, so making to drafted players would work the same way.

Scoots
10-09-2017, 09:54 PM
Cities with no state tax, great weather, and big media get all the best guys.

The North gets screwed - not NY and not Boston, but Detroit, Toronto, Milw, etc... not so many top guys going there.

MIami scores big! LAL...

CA is at 12.5% income tax and 9.25% sales tax ... FL is at 6% sales tax. Yeah, that makes a difference.

FlashBolt
10-09-2017, 10:37 PM
CA is at 12.5% income tax and 9.25% sales tax ... FL is at 6% sales tax. Yeah, that makes a difference.

I don't see players flocking to Orlando, Miami, Phoenix, or Indiana, though. I mean even Dallas has had trouble attracting free agents. Houston for awhile couldn't get anyone. Not once have I heard people joining the Spurs because of their lack of state income tax but because they like their system. I'm sure it does factor into it but I think with how sports players are being taxed is for example, 82 NBA games, 41 are taxed at the state in which they reside in and the other 42 in which they are playing at. Meanwhile, we've seen players flock to Golden State, Clippers, and there have been numerous players interested in the Lakers.

Scoots
10-09-2017, 10:49 PM
I don't see players flocking to Orlando, Miami, Phoenix, or Indiana, though. I mean even Dallas has had trouble attracting free agents. Houston for awhile couldn't get anyone. Not once have I heard people joining the Spurs because of their lack of state income tax but because they like their system. I'm sure it does factor into it but I think with how sports players are being taxed is for example, 82 NBA games, 41 are taxed at the state in which they reside in and the other 42 in which they are playing at. Meanwhile, we've seen players flock to Golden State, Clippers, and there have been numerous players interested in the Lakers.

KD is "flocking" now? He's the only premium FA the Warriors have signed in my lifetime (that I can think of). Or are you talking about JaVale McGee who nobody signed for anything over the minimum? Or the injured and mostly ignored Omri Casspi? Yeah, I'm sure the rest of the league is trembling in anger that the Warriors snatched those prime FAs away from the Bucks et al.

Which premium FA have the Clippers signed in their "flock"?

I wasn't expressing an opinion on where players are going to go as free agents, but the cost of living in CA is going to be some factor, but mostly for players who are going to a losing team for the money.

Actually, premium free agents signing with a different team is incredibly rare these days ... this year it's just Hayward to Boston, and maaaaybe Milsap to Denver. But after them it gets pretty bleak.

Redick to Philly
George Hill to Sacto
Gallinari to LAC
Gibson to Minny

adidas2307
10-10-2017, 12:05 AM
It will actually make the bottom teams build a good team in order to compete in the draft tournament. Instead of having teams like Philly which build a team to give the top teams in the league a practice game. All the bottom teams will get better. So it will not be an easy 1st pick guarantee for those middle of the pack teams.

Also for teams that trade away their pick I would put the other teams nbdl team on said tournament since their main team is in the playoffs.

No draft system is perfect but I believe this will make front offices run their team better and build them better for either a playoff run or top draft pick run.

Pardon my French but how the **** do the bottom teams ever get to build a good team if they're consistently losing in the first round of the tourney. Think about it. You said later that the idea isn't stupid, but it sounds silly to me.

I like getting rid of the draft. It works in soccer, albeit with a club system. Yeah the top market teams will attract the bigger prospects, but it's no different now with actual free agents. If you're a bad team you just have to slowly build from within and find those gems (ala Leicester City a couple years ago).

Vinylman
10-10-2017, 06:49 AM
KD is "flocking" now? He's the only premium FA the Warriors have signed in my lifetime (that I can think of). Or are you talking about JaVale McGee who nobody signed for anything over the minimum? Or the injured and mostly ignored Omri Casspi? Yeah, I'm sure the rest of the league is trembling in anger that the Warriors snatched those prime FAs away from the Bucks et al.

Which premium FA have the Clippers signed in their "flock"?

I wasn't expressing an opinion on where players are going to go as free agents, but the cost of living in CA is going to be some factor, but mostly for players who are going to a losing team for the money.

Actually, premium free agents signing with a different team is incredibly rare these days ... this year it's just Hayward to Boston, and maaaaybe Milsap to Denver. But after them it gets pretty bleak.

Redick to Philly
George Hill to Sacto
Gallinari to LAC
Gibson to Minny

unless a players situation with his current teams sucks they will always re-sign because they can get more money and years... Additionally bird rights are going to have a bigger impact going forward since there will be less and less cap available except on HORRID teams

Its crazy how much power the Players have now because of stupid rules inacted by owners... demanding trades will continue because other owners can't get players any other way. FA is basically dead for top tier guys other than ******* like KD (had to :D )

Scoots
10-10-2017, 11:14 AM
unless a players situation with his current teams sucks they will always re-sign because they can get more money and years... Additionally bird rights are going to have a bigger impact going forward since there will be less and less cap available except on HORRID teams

Its crazy how much power the Players have now because of stupid rules inacted by owners... demanding trades will continue because other owners can't get players any other way. FA is basically dead for top tier guys other than ******* like KD (had to :D )

I agree.

For the most important FAs winning and culture is the most important thing (not money), even if it's in Minneapolis or OKC.

Vinylman
10-11-2017, 07:41 AM
I agree.

For the most important FAs winning and culture is the most important thing (not money), even if it's in Minneapolis or OKC.

yeah... the NBA is so different because star players can make so much more money off the court than their counterparts in MLB/NFL

If a guy like Klay Thompson can make that much dough on a shoe deal then it really isn't hard to take 4-5 million less a year on your playing contract

Scoots
10-11-2017, 11:18 AM
yeah... the NBA is so different because star players can make so much more money off the court than their counterparts in MLB/NFL

If a guy like Klay Thompson can make that much dough on a shoe deal then it really isn't hard to take 4-5 million less a year on your playing contract

Well, if more top NBA players were not so prideful about wanting "premium" shoe deals with the big names Klay never would have had a chance to get that deal.

Vinylman
10-11-2017, 11:51 AM
Well, if more top NBA players were not so prideful about wanting "premium" shoe deals with the big names Klay never would have had a chance to get that deal.

oh I am glad he got it... its just weird that a guy who is what 20-25 in the league at best gets that kind of money off the court

Think about the off field deals the guy who is 20-25 in those other sports get... yikes!

Rivera
10-11-2017, 05:02 PM
What you end up getting if you treat rookies as free agents is ridiculous rookie deals. This happened back in the 90's when you had a guy like Vin Baker asking for a 100 million on a rookie contract before he even plays a game.

Teams sunk big money into guys like Danny Ferry and fawked up their entire team for half a decade because of it.


Also...it would make it really easy for teams like LAL and even NY to dominate. Teams that win have big followings nationally, (LAL, Bos, Chi-town) and teams that are in big markets also have big followings (NY). So players coming up want to go to the team they are a fan of, and those teams will have an unfair advantage over the rest of the league. It would make things worse.


The only idea of his that might work is getting rid of a max, but only if you put a firm cap up. Teams will only be willing to pay certain players half of their cap space, then they have to pay the rest of the team. That means more mid-level deals and less huge deals.

But what might end up happening is a pay-scale disparity that is huge. Some All-Stars will be getting crazy money, others will be getting the MLE, and starters/rotation players will be getting vet mins.

I'd see a bunch of problems, but... there are a bunch of problems with the current system.

that doesnt happen if you have a hard cap

TylerSL
10-11-2017, 10:32 PM
Honestly I don't like it. I think what the NBA needs to do is just stop the lottery and just adopt the MLB and NFL draft format, with the pick order based off record alone. Teams in the MLB and NFL develop better than NBA teams because of that. It's not impossible for NBA teams to develop, see Golden State, but it's a lot harder and takes a lot of luck. Free Agency and trading is the most effective way to team build in the NBA and I think the biggest reason for it is because the draft is left to chance and the G-League isn't a real development league like it should be. The league should also get rid of RFA and add a year to rookie contracts. Rookie deals would be five years long and players can become unrestricted free agents after five seasons.

Now this system brings up the whole tanking question. In another draft thread I proposed a solution to fix tanking, and that solution was this; stop sharing money with teams that are tanking. The NBA is a socialistic society where owners pool the profits through revenue sharing. Teams in the luxury tax pay tax penalties that are allocated to the non tax-paying teams. The Lakers share their regional television revenues and big market teams share with small market teams all the time. All the league needs to do is start forcing teams that they believe are tanking to starting paying a penalty to the other NBA franchises. It's not hard to spot when teams are tanking. Refusing to sign veteran players, having a payroll just at the minimum, benching their better players, not dressing players. It's obvious to spot and the league can target teams that do that.

On top of paying a tanking tax, teams that are tanking should not be eligible to receive any revenue sharing for that season. The NBA can grow with a team or two losing money, in fact nine NBA teams lost money last season but the 30 teams as a whole made a total profit of $530 million. If the NBA was serious about stopping tanking they would go after teams' bottom line. If the NBA threatened teams' revenue just watch how fast tanking would stop.

As to letting young players become free agents. It's not the worst idea in the world because teams would have to be able to fit them in their cap, but I still think it would give smaller market teams a disadvantage. The way I propose, adopting the MLB and NFL draft system, where the best players go to the worst team would help teams develop faster. All teams get equal chance and with no restricted free agency players can become free agents only after five years and not seven or eight. Teams are incentivized to try and win because of tax penalty. Everyone wins.

Scoots
10-11-2017, 11:54 PM
oh I am glad he got it... its just weird that a guy who is what 20-25 in the league at best gets that kind of money off the court

Think about the off field deals the guy who is 20-25 in those other sports get... yikes!

I didn't think you were against it ... I was just saying that he wouldn't have had that chance if any of the bigger stars were at all interested in non-traditional shoe companies.

Vinylman
10-12-2017, 09:56 AM
I didn't think you were against it ... I was just saying that he wouldn't have had that chance if any of the bigger stars were at all interested in non-traditional shoe companies.

oh gotcha... I thought I might have been vague

Rivera
10-12-2017, 10:34 AM
im surprised at many of you guys who hate this. i feel it would be a game changer and a different way to GM. You have a hard cap. and you bid on rookies with the space you have in your hard cap. if you dont have any, you cant get any rookies

i actually love this because its different and it will challenge nba gms to build differently with a hard cap

IndyRealist
10-12-2017, 12:02 PM
im surprised at many of you guys who hate this. i feel it would be a game changer and a different way to GM. You have a hard cap. and you bid on rookies with the space you have in your hard cap. if you dont have any, you cant get any rookies

i actually love this because its different and it will challenge nba gms to build differently with a hard cap

I don't hate it. But anyone with the ability to implement it would be completely against it on every level. Owners want to minimize their risk on a bust, which rookie scale contracts do. It also lets them guarantee that they can get quality players into undesirable markets, keeping the entire league going. The players union does not contain a single player that would benefit from the change, since all of them already have contracts. So why would they push for it? All that would do is take money out of the pool for non-rookies in the future.

Zero chance of it ever happening.

zn23
10-12-2017, 12:26 PM
Awful idea that will create a farm system for big market teams and will hurt the chances of small market teams from getting players.

Heediot
10-12-2017, 01:25 PM
I don't think a farm system would be created. If the big market teams want to ignore the luxury tax and spend in the 100 of millions/billions, you can only hoard so much talent (that you currently have) and also invest in expensive potential, then yeah there is a possibility of a farm system is likely. The tax gets worse when teams are repeat tax offenders, **** goes up exponentially.

The cons of all this, is your paying for the unknown and potential and the middle class for veterans shrink. personally though I am all for this experiment.

Rivera
10-12-2017, 01:33 PM
Awful idea that will create a farm system for big market teams and will hurt the chances of small market teams from getting players.

you cant create a farm system if your not under the cap even if its soft or hard. so this wouldnt happen.

and the nba already has a farm system. its called the G League

zn23
10-12-2017, 04:46 PM
you cant create a farm system if your not under the cap even if its soft or hard. so this wouldnt happen.

and the nba already has a farm system. its called the G League

Farm system maybe isn't what I was looking for, more like recruitment.

The great part of the current draft process is that players don't get to choose where they go, at least not for the first 4 years. That's fair imo. The worst team should get their shot at the best player available in the draft.

Flashback to the 2015 NBA draft, you think KAT would go to the TWolves if he had a choice? Or would he go to the Lakers who were the 2nd pick that year? The Wolves would have to way overpay for a 19 year rookie to convince him to go to Minnesota and not LA or anywhere else.

Rivera
10-12-2017, 05:23 PM
Farm system maybe isn't what I was looking for, more like recruitment.

The great part of the current draft process is that players don't get to choose where they go, at least not for the first 4 years. That's fair imo. The worst team should get their shot at the best player available in the draft.

Flashback to the 2015 NBA draft, you think KAT would go to the TWolves if he had a choice? Or would he go to the Lakers who were the 2nd pick that year? The Wolves would have to way overpay for a 19 year rookie to convince him to go to Minnesota and not LA or anywhere else.

KAT would go to the TWolves if he had the most amount of money offered to him. These are young kids mostly coming out of college who dont have $$$ you think KAT or someone who came up through harder times would sign with lebron for the minimum? or make millions of dollars for many years ?

if you really think that KAT would chose the league minimum to play with lebron vs coming fresh outta college making 10s of millions you're crazy

Rivera
10-12-2017, 05:25 PM
Farm system maybe isn't what I was looking for, more like recruitment.

The great part of the current draft process is that players don't get to choose where they go, at least not for the first 4 years. That's fair imo. The worst team should get their shot at the best player available in the draft.

Flashback to the 2015 NBA draft, you think KAT would go to the TWolves if he had a choice? Or would he go to the Lakers who were the 2nd pick that year? The Wolves would have to way overpay for a 19 year rookie to convince him to go to Minnesota and not LA or anywhere else.

it would also cause teams to rethink there strategy. like lets say the 76ers cleared out cap space and there were able to sign Fultz/Tatum and Josh Jason to add to Embiid and Simmons because they offered 10 mil each and had the room

that team would be FUN

these arent aging vets who already made millions of dollars and are ring chasers, most of these guys come from poverty looking to make there first millions, they aint playing with lebron or the warriors for the minimum if you can make more


but this is also why i proposed a hard cap if your gonna make this idea happen to force teams to adjust strategies