RealGM

Base it on a team's cap space. A team can bid as high as they want to offer a contract to a player if they have the cap space. The only rule is that the contract length must be 4 years. The team that offers the most gets that player. You must own a draft pick in order to bid and win a player. If you want 2 players in the 1st round of the auction, you must own 2 1st round draft picks.

There are no cons to this model compared to the current model
1. It eliminates tanking, teams would be looking to win because there is no incentive to be the worst team in the NBA.
2. It's a fairer process, why should 1 team be awarded a generational talent like Zion based on tanking and luck? At least here, the team that takes Zion will have to manage their salary AND be smart about it. Imagine spending all of their cap space on a talent that ends up busting. You have to weigh the risks and the rewards.
3. Good teams that make the Playoffs are further rewarded because they are not excluded from drafting elite talent, if they make the Playoffs but also have a ton of cap space, why should that be penalized?
4. It's fairer for the players, why should Zion get paid the rookie scale contract if he's already better than most NBA players? He should be paid his market value from year 1.
5. Draft picks are still valuable like I said, consider it the ticket to the draft. They can still be traded and be a part of deals.
6. It will even out the compensation for an NBA player throughout the life of his career. Right now the reason veterans get such loaded deals like the supermax is because for the first 4 years of their career they were getting paid way under market value. We won't have as many albatross contracts to players in their 30s.

I'm sure that somebody will bring up some reasons why this probably won't work, but I think it sounds like a good idea - You've got a "yes" vote from me!

Slavery implications?

They used to do a regional thing before the official Draft started.

--Mags

this is too much related to slavery, they would never do this, plus how would it even work? they dont want auctions.

One big issue I see is that it becomes inconsistent with the league's current model of having max salary. So let's say that a guy like Zion (or even someone with greater potential like Lebron) is available. Is there a maximum amount of money that you can bid on Zion? If not, then, can Zion make more than anybody currently in the NBA? Because that would be very odd that a rookie can make money above the max. And if there is a ceiling that Zion can make, what if multiple teams bid the ceiling? Who gets Zion then?

19 (now 18) year olds getting huge per year contracts to start sounds like a bad idea. Many of them don't start showing their potential till year 3 or 4 anyways. I think OP is not considering the development phase of prospects and the process that comes with it

Can you imagine white owners sitting in their chairs holding their bid while announcers calls black mans to enters the stage and we held auction. And announcer goes "We have now young 19 year old, healthy, perfect white teeth, good strenght etc. Let's go 1st offer 1M, we have 1 M, can we get 2M. "

Are you nuts. Are you ok in your head?

This is an interesting idea. But maybe only for the lottery teams. I don't think a contender outbidding others for Williamson should be allowed.

That wouldn't be a good look. Would be like a livestock or slave auction.

Why not?
American fans would still come with excuses to justify it is not " slavery".


so...

TheFinishSniper wrote:Can you imagine white owners sitting in their chairs holding their bid while announcers calls black mans to enters the stage and we held auction. And announcer goes "We have now young 19 year old, healthy, perfect white teeth, good strenght etc. Let's go 1st offer 1M, we have 1 M, can we get 2M. "

Are you nuts. Are you ok in your head?

I can imagine it just fine. I don’t see race so I don’t see what the problem is. I’m sure racists would have a problem with it though.

TheFinishSniper wrote:Can you imagine white owners sitting in their chairs holding their bid while announcers calls black mans to enters the stage and we held auction. And announcer goes "We have now young 19 year old, healthy, perfect white teeth, good strenght etc. Let's go 1st offer 1M, we have 1 M, can we get 2M. "

Are you nuts. Are you ok in your head?

Most likely, if this idea gets implemented (and no way it will), at least on the surface, it will look nothing like this. Basically, the process itself will not be revealed to the public and probably only the final results will be announced.

Slave reference is a little dramatic. These are athletes making millions. Lebron has created some real gems in society

I spit out my drink reading this thread title.

My first thought wasn't that this could evoke images of slavery, and I still don't like the idea. It becomes an arms race of teams trying to manipulate their cap situation where their contracts are expiring at the same time. It could deadlock bad teams into remaining bad without a quality young player to show for it because they couldn't get out of their cap hell.

Please stop making threads.

The optics would be horrible.

magnumt wrote:Slavery implications?

They used to do a regional thing before the official Draft started.

--Mags

I dunno about slavery but the combines do come with a certain bit dog show/horse auction feel (trying to take race out but not sure I didn't make it worse).

Hmm... could tweak it a bit, by having GM's bid for the draft position... then have the draft takes place a week or 2 later. Players get the amount that was bidded on their draft position.

Not sure if i like it tbh, but its an interesting idea.