the sea duck wrote:Invictus88 wrote:the sea duck wrote:
Absolutely! The apron penalties are by design. This idea is meant to be a little more "carrot" than "stick" for those parameters. It's a shift in both perception and utility that I believe would benefit the league. And I believe, despite the intentionality of the current dilemma, there's an appetite for an improved version/some regret even on the part of the owners.
I'll also add that you are correct. This idea is not primarily for fans (though the hardcore fans will engage). It's meant to be a trade currency intra-league because the league does not have one. It uses its real assets as tradable currency. This makes sense, but why? The major reason is that its all they have. What if it was not all they have? What if there was a currency that can be used to grease trades instead of trying to figure out how many 2nd round picks make up for some trade imbalance? In the real world we don't throw in extra chickens to buy a cow and a flashlight. We have units of representative value that can be more precise. LTCs can add that precision and allow chickens to be chickens.
I think it's overkill if the primary reason for doing this is to avoid liberal use of 2nd rounders as collateral. I make that inference only because you've mentioned that aspect repeatedly in justifications.
The lack of a more granular medium besides 2nd rounders isn't such an impediment or a primary reason why deals stall. It's that the parties involved are so far apart otherwise in terms of expectations / the difference between some players actual value and compensation is so big that those gaps can't be bridged. A more granular currency being available doesn't solve that.
The new CBA basically requires that GMs can no longer suck at being financially responsible in order to be successful as a team. This is surprisingly / sadly a new concept for some of the more... fortunate.. organizations / owners. That's it.
Edit: Also, folks have the ability to add straight cash to transactions that is completely independent of salary cap restrictions (check me on this though). If that's the case then there is technically already an alternative medium that is established and exists. It's just not used that often.
for sure, i've emphasized the 2nd rounders because they are the asset that is most often acquired primarily for their tradability (or highest ratio of currency-utility-to-roster-value). but in reality all assets serve as proxies for what would be a currency, if one existed.
your point about granularity is taken, but i believe that is somewhat of a separate issue. some deals will never be perceived as equal to both sides, otherwise the league would constantly be trading and never have set rosters. this isn't about finding out how to make all trades doable. this is about having a marketplace with a sufficient currency to allow it to function better. there's a bias that deals don't happen because the value can't be made to match. certainly sometimes. but sometimes deals explicitly do not happen because the units available to trade are limited. this happens all the time when teams try to acquire an extra pick here and there or try to involve an extra team (this sometimes results in wildly overvalued picks, which is unfortunate. a deal between real players can effect the entire market for draft picks). this happens because the value cannot be equaled with the existing units of value. two teams clearly interested in the headline of a trade, but need a little extra to sell it to their owners and fans, maybe themselves-- quite common. not every failed deal is for lack of granularity, but many are. and it's a shame it is only because there is a structural deficiency.
i'd like to add that i agree that any system should require GMs to be good at their jobs. LTCs can encourage that both by how they are awarded and in how they force team executives to navigate a marketplace with both hard assets and a more fluid currency.
to your point about cash considerations: i included cash as one type of asset. but 1) they have severe limitations and 2) LTCs are considerate to the poor owners by adding a currency that does not cost them any additional real world money directly. this is inline with their CBA goals.
Two teams not having pieces to make a deal work does not necessitate the introduction of a new form of currency (especially if said currency is awarded / provisioned based on some arbitrary criteria meant to generate additional value that is not present within the current system).
If those two teams don't have workable pieces then they shouldn't be making a deal. This is not a problem that inherently needs to be solved. And if they make one anyways then that means that one of the two has adjusted their valuation of one or more components such that an agreement is still made. And that is perfectly fine too.
I think this thread is largely trying to develop a solution for a problem that doesn't really exist because I think that you find this fun to think and hypothesize about. (good!) But I'm not on board with any attempts to make this manifest in reality.
I think I've spent enough time in this thread giving my thoughts so I'll bow out and let the discussion continue. Thanks for being very civil.
