Mattya wrote:Oriole8159 wrote:Mattya wrote:
The Blazers are going to be paying close to 200 million with their current roster. The Nets had a ridiculous salary with the KG, Pierce, Lopez team. The Knicks revenue is almost twice that with a crap product. Same with the Lakers. And that is probably after revenue sharing from the Lakers and Knicks tv deals. Those teams just are significantly wealthier than a majority of other teams. They can afford pretty much whatever team the conceivably want to put together.
You think small market non ultra billionaire owners are going to compete with that? It isn't going to happen.
none of those examples worked though, so not sure they prove the point you're trying to make. bad organizations even in big cities are still bad organizations. and I'm also not convinced that teams will magically compound their salaries just because the optio is out there all of a sudden; these are billion dollar companies now, so they aren't being run like toys in the past. With billions of dollars at stake, you still need to be responsible with payroll.
But how about compromising on that with a flat team salary cap (say $150-$200 million??) but no player maximum? That way players can let the market set their own max levels, but teams that "overpay" have less resources to fill out the rest of their roster.
invariably some owners will go all in and fail and embarrass themselves, but as with any business the market will adjust accordingly.
Considering I'm making most of this up on the fly, I don't think it's half bad.
None of those examples work for teams being willing to spend 200 million on their salaries? Despite them actually doing so? Big market teams don't need to be responsible with no salary cap or max contracts. There is a reason why the knicks are still handing out stupid contracts to Tim hardaway. They make money no matter what.
What you are now suggesting would hurt lower end players settling for minimum contracts more than it already does.
It hasn't resulted in a championship, or even close, so yes it hasn't worked. and even if we wanted to go uncapped, I really don't think teams would be interested in kicking up to over $300 million just because they could. There's a difference between the Knicks giving Tim Hardaway a bad contract because they have money they need to spend, and the Knicks actively going over $300 million just because they can. again, these teams are no longer toys.
and no it wouldn't hurt lower end players. Remember you're taking out most of the 19-21 year olds already as they'll still be in college, and most of the 21-24 year olds are on their rookie controlled deals then.
since the total payroll pool of dollars doesn't change, that automatically means more money to go the players 25 and up. the union wouldn't allow for less total dollars going to the players, so that automatically means more money open to veterans.
thus if you do the model of uncapped players but in a capped team environment, a team may only be able to afford two uncapped players.
and again, I'm open to adding in other controls if needed. This is obviously a very complex issue.
Add in a features similar to the max extensions eligibility before a player is eligible to get a fully uncapped deal perhaps? So someone like Wiggins or Otto Porter that haven't made any all star games, any all NBA teams, or any all defensive teams wouldn't be eligible for an uncapped deal yet on their 2nd contract.
A feature like that though would allow a team to potentially get 3-4 of these good but not super good yet players under contract, while other teams may only be able to get two uncapped players. that way it's much easier for teams to compete that don't have super good uncapped players, but that have done a good job of drafting and developing their existing players.
