cl2117 wrote:Texas Chuck wrote:cl2117 wrote:
As if suggesting there is a small competitive imbalance that could potentially be improved on is some ridiculous position. I know some people take it to the extreme and say outlandish things like it ruins the league, but the vast majority of the people just acknowledge that it's a gap in the system that, in general, favors some teams over others and could be improved upon.
My rant is specifically against the extreme. And no it wasn't remotely the minority here. And I have said repeatedly that the Lakers specifically and other good teams do have an advantage.
I just have not heard a solution to fixing that worth doing.
I mean jbk is suggesting that Blake or Drummond's only options should be completely giving up every cent. That's never going to happen. That's not realistic or worth our time. But if their teams don't want them and want to save even a little money and clear a roster spot they should be allowed. Even if jbk is frustrated about it. And once free those players should be able to sign with whomever they want.
Open to arguments despite what jbk accuses me of. But just because I listen to bad arguments does not require me to accept them. I listen. I strongly disagree with him. Just as he does with me clearly.
Fair enough, I'm not around enough to claim to know what is/was the majority/minority viewpoint. But I know that the majority of the time I've brought the topic up either here/GB/real life I get shouted down for overengineering or making a mountain out of a molehill. And I'm not out here claiming the sky is falling because Blake Griffin went to the Nets, just pointing out the obvious that it's a competitive advantage for the elite to have that pipeline favor them down the stretch.
I also don't claim to have a solution to the problem, but that shouldn't preclude us from spitballing ideas.
For example I think a totally valid option would be to change the buyout waiver process to a bidding system. Teams can use salary cap space or exceptions to "bid" for a player instead of having to absorb their entire salary, which is unrealistic in basically every scenario and makes the current waiver process pointless. Teams now have to compete for these guys and give up something of genuine value for them instead of waiting to clear and taking them on the minimum.
Does it limit player mobility? Absolutely, but why should we change the competitive landscape for the playoffs so that a player who wants out can get full mobility and double dip with two teams paying him to play 1/4 of the season with a contender?
I certainly agree something has to be done. The play-in was actually a good start because it makes more teams feel competitive.
The ability to use all of your cap resources to "bid" for a guy also makes the most sense. What mechanism that would need to be included would be a way to withhold a proportion of salary should a player be a bad actor. If Blake, for example, was moved and didn't want to report, was tanking in practice etc, basically doing what would result in a team suspension or fine, it should be based on annual earnings rather than game checks.
The term of the waiver add should also match the term of the contract. If it's a 2 year deal, then a player has to go to wherever for 2 years and counts at whatever that cap number is.
The main reason that I agree this is a big problem is that as we saw the buy out guys all went to top teams. Knicks were interested in a trade for Drummond, but for whatever reason that fell through. Agents are deterring the movement and preventing teams traditionally outside the top 6 in finals odds of adding a guy that could help them advance an extra round. The idea that a guy bought out and not claimed cannot play the remainder of the season is also appealing for that reason. I would also probably add something in terms of salary there. A vet min or a -NBDL flyer guy being cut should have as many kicks at the can as they are able.
The idea of removing the max or pushing the max is appealing. I think the majority of players like the Max because it helps the starter-8th man level guys get paid by artificially limiting the top dogs pay. Push it to 50% of the cap and super-teams become a rarity.
My 2 cents.
They butted heads when on the same team but there doesn't seem to be much lasting resentment between them
