The Andrew Wiggins Thread

[Mattya]

and if he stayed in school and dominated at Kansas and refinded his game more, he could come into the league and not have to wait 3 years still for his team to know truly what type of player he really is. Just look at how dominant Tim Duncan was his rookie year. That's a far better way to ensure parody for teams picking so early.

you're probably right though that Wigs isn't the case study for this as he would have been one of the guys to come out of high school, but it would do a helluva lot of good for the teams that routinely got burned on one and dones in the past decade. And I don't necessarily mean the guy busted like Anthony Bennett, but could just as much mean the team HAD to give him a good sized 2nd contract just to keep him under team control to see what he could become. Port is perfect examples of that with Meyers Leonard and Mo Harkless. But if teams picking in the lottery don't need to guess so much on these guys' potential, they'll be far more likely to become better.

Or he would be less refined than he is now.

Anthony Bennet isn't a good example either. Was anybody not shocked the he was the top pick? I don't think anyone had him any higher than the Bobcats pick. He is still a bust but I think the massive expectations and criticisms when he struggled completely ruined that guy's mind.

The Harkless and Leonard situations really aren't comparable to Wiggins though. I think Harkless has a good contract, but Leonard just hasn't been good.

Even if they had to stay in college later, teams still have a lot of guessing. Even really good college players picked later in the draft turn out terrible.

I think Wigs would be more refined in multiple years at Kansas than he would have been coming into the league after 1 year. I get that it's never going to be a perfect system, but it would increase the level of competition in college (and I say this as someone who also hates the NCAA so by no means do I want to do them any favors) so Wigs would have to raise his all around game, which would make him better equipped to help his new NBA team year 1. That's one less year that the team wastes on his development before they have to commit to $100 million + contract.

And you're right on Bennett in a vacuum, but go down the list of guys that he was up against that year... Porter (soph), Zeller (soph), Len (soph), Noel (fr), McLemore (fr), Caldwell-Pope (soph), Burke (soph). The only upperclassman in the Top 9 was Oladipo, and many say Orl picked him because he was at least safe and less risky. So Bennett ended up being the wrong guess obviously, but all the other players were just as big guesses.

I know there's not a way to eliminate the guessing entirely, and I'm not expecting that there should be as this is business and they're big boys, but I just don't think the system is working in the owner's favor anymore, and it's a big problem for parody.
It's very hard to nail a Durant/Westbrook/Harden, or luck into #1 picks back to back years like we did, while still guessing right on a Fr in Lavine at 13. Most teams that languish in the lottery, especially small market teams that aren't attractive for FAs, have such a small chance of actually organically building a championship roster, and it doesn't help that they have to start committing over 30% of their available cap to players that they aren't really sure of what they have.

But how much more developed is he that he would be now? There are posters here who think he hasn't improved at all.

And the best players from that draft were Giannis and Gobert, both huge question marks.

[Mattya]

and I'm fine with taking risk, but when we're talking about 35% (or whatever the percentage ends up being) of your entire cap, then I think it's okay to start questioning the system.

What is the alternative? I don't see any system change that would result in Wiggins getting paid less.

you could go completely uncapped, which would at least allow you more flexibility to add better role players around your perceived stars if they don't hit their max potential.
you could increase the super max even more so true true star players got an even higher amount of the pie, which would help disburse the talent across the league. If the Butler trade never happened, we'd probably extend Lavine and the combined annual salaries of Lavine and Wiggins would be higher than the salary for just Steph Curry, which is crazy. It would be much harder for "super teams" to be put together, and teams could actually make the decision about whether to invest in multiple "lesser stars" like Wiggins and Lavine or go with a few big big stars with lesser talent around them.

I now neither of those are perfect either but to be honest, it's not necessarily my job to come up with the solution. I'm just a rube like all the rest of us, so I don't necessarily have to have the solution before I can identify that there's a problem.

I don't see either of those changing anything. There are still teams like Brooklyn or Sacto who will create as much space as possible just to take your players away.

[Oriole8159]

Or he would be less refined than he is now.

Anthony Bennet isn't a good example either. Was anybody not shocked the he was the top pick? I don't think anyone had him any higher than the Bobcats pick. He is still a bust but I think the massive expectations and criticisms when he struggled completely ruined that guy's mind.

The Harkless and Leonard situations really aren't comparable to Wiggins though. I think Harkless has a good contract, but Leonard just hasn't been good.

Even if they had to stay in college later, teams still have a lot of guessing. Even really good college players picked later in the draft turn out terrible.

I think Wigs would be more refined in multiple years at Kansas than he would have been coming into the league after 1 year. I get that it's never going to be a perfect system, but it would increase the level of competition in college (and I say this as someone who also hates the NCAA so by no means do I want to do them any favors) so Wigs would have to raise his all around game, which would make him better equipped to help his new NBA team year 1. That's one less year that the team wastes on his development before they have to commit to $100 million + contract.

And you're right on Bennett in a vacuum, but go down the list of guys that he was up against that year... Porter (soph), Zeller (soph), Len (soph), Noel (fr), McLemore (fr), Caldwell-Pope (soph), Burke (soph). The only upperclassman in the Top 9 was Oladipo, and many say Orl picked him because he was at least safe and less risky. So Bennett ended up being the wrong guess obviously, but all the other players were just as big guesses.

I know there's not a way to eliminate the guessing entirely, and I'm not expecting that there should be as this is business and they're big boys, but I just don't think the system is working in the owner's favor anymore, and it's a big problem for parody.
It's very hard to nail a Durant/Westbrook/Harden, or luck into #1 picks back to back years like we did, while still guessing right on a Fr in Lavine at 13. Most teams that languish in the lottery, especially small market teams that aren't attractive for FAs, have such a small chance of actually organically building a championship roster, and it doesn't help that they have to start committing over 30% of their available cap to players that they aren't really sure of what they have.

But how much more developed is he that he would be now? There are posters here who think he hasn't improved at all.

And the best players from that draft were Giannis and Gobert, both huge question marks.

The difference is it would defer the teams timeline of having to payout that big 2nd contract, which is the real basis of my argument. Not necessarily that the NCAA is better at developing him than it would be to spend 3 years learning on the fly in the pros, but that the bad teams wouldn't have to wait 3-4 years for them to become a productive player only to immediately have to be saddled with a $100 million decision without fully knowing what they'll be in their prime.

IF he was in college for 3 years, his rookie contract wouldn't start until 21 and he'd be a better all around player ready to help turn his team around quicker when he enters the league. That also means the team wouldn't have to have that $100 million decision until they're 25, by which point the player would be in their prime and the team would have a much better idea of what type of player he'll really be.

And to ensure that the players still receive the same amount of the pie, that means more money can go to true stars, but also decent backups that may have to have been settling for the exceptions or lesser deals. Now you won't have guys like Pachulia or David West having to settle for veteran's minimum deals when they're clearly worth far more than that.

[Mattya]

I think Wigs would be more refined in multiple years at Kansas than he would have been coming into the league after 1 year. I get that it's never going to be a perfect system, but it would increase the level of competition in college (and I say this as someone who also hates the NCAA so by no means do I want to do them any favors) so Wigs would have to raise his all around game, which would make him better equipped to help his new NBA team year 1. That's one less year that the team wastes on his development before they have to commit to $100 million + contract.

And you're right on Bennett in a vacuum, but go down the list of guys that he was up against that year... Porter (soph), Zeller (soph), Len (soph), Noel (fr), McLemore (fr), Caldwell-Pope (soph), Burke (soph). The only upperclassman in the Top 9 was Oladipo, and many say Orl picked him because he was at least safe and less risky. So Bennett ended up being the wrong guess obviously, but all the other players were just as big guesses.

I know there's not a way to eliminate the guessing entirely, and I'm not expecting that there should be as this is business and they're big boys, but I just don't think the system is working in the owner's favor anymore, and it's a big problem for parody.
It's very hard to nail a Durant/Westbrook/Harden, or luck into #1 picks back to back years like we did, while still guessing right on a Fr in Lavine at 13. Most teams that languish in the lottery, especially small market teams that aren't attractive for FAs, have such a small chance of actually organically building a championship roster, and it doesn't help that they have to start committing over 30% of their available cap to players that they aren't really sure of what they have.

But how much more developed is he that he would be now? There are posters here who think he hasn't improved at all.

And the best players from that draft were Giannis and Gobert, both huge question marks.

The difference is it would defer the teams timeline of having to payout that big 2nd contract, which is the real basis of my argument. Not necessarily that the NCAA is better at developing him than it would be to spend 3 years learning on the fly in the pros, but that the bad teams wouldn't have to wait 3-4 years for them to become a productive player only to immediately have to be saddled with a $100 million decision without fully knowing what they'll be in their prime.

IF he was in college for 3 years, his rookie contract wouldn't start until 21 and he'd be a better all around player ready to help turn his team around quicker when he enters the league. That also means the team wouldn't have to have that $100 million decision until they're 25, by which point the player would be in their prime and the team would have a much better idea of what type of player he'll really be.

And to ensure that the players still receive the same amount of the pie, that means more money can go to true stars, but also decent backups that may have to have been settling for the exceptions or lesser deals. Now you won't have guys like Pachulia or David West having to settle for veteran's minimum deals when they're clearly worth far more than that.

David West and Zaza aren't settling for minimum contracts, they are sacrificing to ring chase.

So, you would prefer having spend less time developing players and potentially having them be worse players versus needing to develop players to potentially make them the best player they can be while sacrificing cap space. I'm the opposite.

[Oriole8159]

What is the alternative? I don't see any system change that would result in Wiggins getting paid less.

you could go completely uncapped, which would at least allow you more flexibility to add better role players around your perceived stars if they don't hit their max potential.
you could increase the super max even more so true true star players got an even higher amount of the pie, which would help disburse the talent across the league. If the Butler trade never happened, we'd probably extend Lavine and the combined annual salaries of Lavine and Wiggins would be higher than the salary for just Steph Curry, which is crazy. It would be much harder for "super teams" to be put together, and teams could actually make the decision about whether to invest in multiple "lesser stars" like Wiggins and Lavine or go with a few big big stars with lesser talent around them.

I now neither of those are perfect either but to be honest, it's not necessarily my job to come up with the solution. I'm just a rube like all the rest of us, so I don't necessarily have to have the solution before I can identify that there's a problem.

I don't see either of those changing anything. There are still teams like Brooklyn or Sacto who will create as much space as possible just to take your players away.

If other teams want to make dumb decisions, then I'm okay with that. There's never going to be a system that is 100% perfect or that protects teams from their own dumb decisions, but I think at least shifts the power back more evenly between the players and the owners.

But if you go uncapped and a team invests alot in some average players, then they'll have to spend even more to make that up and remain competitive. There's a natural check in that the market will adjust for over time (teams will eventually self regulate their own specific team max), so I'm okay with it.
If you go the other route and a team wants to offer even bigger contracts to try and lure in 2 super super max players, then they'll invariably have less money to fill in for role players. Again, a built in check that the market will adjust for.

[Mattya]

you could go completely uncapped, which would at least allow you more flexibility to add better role players around your perceived stars if they don't hit their max potential.
you could increase the super max even more so true true star players got an even higher amount of the pie, which would help disburse the talent across the league. If the Butler trade never happened, we'd probably extend Lavine and the combined annual salaries of Lavine and Wiggins would be higher than the salary for just Steph Curry, which is crazy. It would be much harder for "super teams" to be put together, and teams could actually make the decision about whether to invest in multiple "lesser stars" like Wiggins and Lavine or go with a few big big stars with lesser talent around them.

I now neither of those are perfect either but to be honest, it's not necessarily my job to come up with the solution. I'm just a rube like all the rest of us, so I don't necessarily have to have the solution before I can identify that there's a problem.

I don't see either of those changing anything. There are still teams like Brooklyn or Sacto who will create as much space as possible just to take your players away.

If other teams want to make dumb decisions, then I'm okay with that. There's never going to be a system that is 100% perfect or that protects teams from their own dumb decisions, but I think at least shifts the power back more evenly between the players and the owners.

But if you go uncapped and a team invests alot in some average players, then they'll have to spend even more to make that up and remain competitive. There's a natural check in that the market will adjust for over time (teams will eventually self regulate their own specific team max), so I'm okay with it.
If you go the other route and a team wants to offer even bigger contracts to try and lure in 2 super super max players, then they'll invariably have less money to fill in for role players. Again, a built in check that the market will adjust for.

Then teams will lose quality players for nothing. Big market teams will take over and mid market teams will struggle.

You don't think NY and LA would just throw tons of money at these players trying to team up?

[Oriole8159]

But how much more developed is he that he would be now? There are posters here who think he hasn't improved at all.

And the best players from that draft were Giannis and Gobert, both huge question marks.

The difference is it would defer the teams timeline of having to payout that big 2nd contract, which is the real basis of my argument. Not necessarily that the NCAA is better at developing him than it would be to spend 3 years learning on the fly in the pros, but that the bad teams wouldn't have to wait 3-4 years for them to become a productive player only to immediately have to be saddled with a $100 million decision without fully knowing what they'll be in their prime.

IF he was in college for 3 years, his rookie contract wouldn't start until 21 and he'd be a better all around player ready to help turn his team around quicker when he enters the league. That also means the team wouldn't have to have that $100 million decision until they're 25, by which point the player would be in their prime and the team would have a much better idea of what type of player he'll really be.

And to ensure that the players still receive the same amount of the pie, that means more money can go to true stars, but also decent backups that may have to have been settling for the exceptions or lesser deals. Now you won't have guys like Pachulia or David West having to settle for veteran's minimum deals when they're clearly worth far more than that.

David West and Zaza aren't settling for minimum contracts, they are sacrificing to ring chase.

So, you would prefer having spend less time developing players and potentially having them be worse players versus needing to develop players to potentially make them the best player they can be while sacrificing cap space. I'm the opposite.

they're "sacrificing to ring chase" because there's not anymore money to go around because so much is invested in young players developing on teams that won't be relevant for 3-5 years.
take those guys out of the equation, and it's more money to go to the veterans like West or Zaza.
It's the exact same thing as the NFL model; 3 years in school, capped rookie contracts means players don't hit their big 2nd contract until 24/25, more of the payroll goes to veterans.

why are they worse players though would be my question, and why do owners stand for having to spend the entire rookie contract developing? The whole premise of these young kids coming into the league was that they were capable of making an impact at 18 or 19 and contributing quickly to the turning around of a franchise, and that's no longer the case. If you need 3 years to develop before you're even a plus player and you're not hitting your prime anyway until 25/26, then I think its very fair to say that they're not ready to be in the league.

[Oriole8159]

I don't see either of those changing anything. There are still teams like Brooklyn or Sacto who will create as much space as possible just to take your players away.

If other teams want to make dumb decisions, then I'm okay with that. There's never going to be a system that is 100% perfect or that protects teams from their own dumb decisions, but I think at least shifts the power back more evenly between the players and the owners.

But if you go uncapped and a team invests alot in some average players, then they'll have to spend even more to make that up and remain competitive. There's a natural check in that the market will adjust for over time (teams will eventually self regulate their own specific team max), so I'm okay with it.
If you go the other route and a team wants to offer even bigger contracts to try and lure in 2 super super max players, then they'll invariably have less money to fill in for role players. Again, a built in check that the market will adjust for.

Then teams will lose quality players for nothing. Big market teams will take over and mid market teams will struggle.

You don't think NY and LA would just throw tons of money at these players trying to team up?

there's more parody in baseball than in basketball

[Mattya]

If other teams want to make dumb decisions, then I'm okay with that. There's never going to be a system that is 100% perfect or that protects teams from their own dumb decisions, but I think at least shifts the power back more evenly between the players and the owners.

But if you go uncapped and a team invests alot in some average players, then they'll have to spend even more to make that up and remain competitive. There's a natural check in that the market will adjust for over time (teams will eventually self regulate their own specific team max), so I'm okay with it.
If you go the other route and a team wants to offer even bigger contracts to try and lure in 2 super super max players, then they'll invariably have less money to fill in for role players. Again, a built in check that the market will adjust for.

Then teams will lose quality players for nothing. Big market teams will take over and mid market teams will struggle.

You don't think NY and LA would just throw tons of money at these players trying to team up?

there's more parody in baseball than in basketball

Baseball and basketball arent the same in any way though. Basketball is dominated by the superstars. You can be successful in baseball with a more cost driven efficiency driven game than basketball. We have seen for how many decades in the NBA that superstars have gone to big market desireable city teams if the money is right. Until recently we have never seen stars choose mid to small market teams.

[Mattya]

The difference is it would defer the teams timeline of having to payout that big 2nd contract, which is the real basis of my argument. Not necessarily that the NCAA is better at developing him than it would be to spend 3 years learning on the fly in the pros, but that the bad teams wouldn't have to wait 3-4 years for them to become a productive player only to immediately have to be saddled with a $100 million decision without fully knowing what they'll be in their prime.

IF he was in college for 3 years, his rookie contract wouldn't start until 21 and he'd be a better all around player ready to help turn his team around quicker when he enters the league. That also means the team wouldn't have to have that $100 million decision until they're 25, by which point the player would be in their prime and the team would have a much better idea of what type of player he'll really be.

And to ensure that the players still receive the same amount of the pie, that means more money can go to true stars, but also decent backups that may have to have been settling for the exceptions or lesser deals. Now you won't have guys like Pachulia or David West having to settle for veteran's minimum deals when they're clearly worth far more than that.

David West and Zaza aren't settling for minimum contracts, they are sacrificing to ring chase.

So, you would prefer having spend less time developing players and potentially having them be worse players versus needing to develop players to potentially make them the best player they can be while sacrificing cap space. I'm the opposite.

they're "sacrificing to ring chase" because there's not anymore money to go around because so much is invested in young players developing on teams that won't be relevant for 3-5 years.
take those guys out of the equation, and it's more money to go to the veterans like West or Zaza.
It's the exact same thing as the NFL model; 3 years in school, capped rookie contracts means players don't hit their big 2nd contract until 24/25, more of the payroll goes to veterans.

why are they worse players though would be my question, and why do owners stand for having to spend the entire rookie contract developing? The whole premise of these young kids coming into the league was that they were capable of making an impact at 18 or 19 and contributing quickly to the turning around of a franchise, and that's no longer the case. If you need 3 years to develop before you're even a plus player and you're not hitting your prime anyway until 25/26, then I think its very fair to say that they're not ready to be in the league.

The bolded is factually false. Both of those players turned down more money to go to contenders.

Owners stand for it because they are making millions in profit.

[Slim Tubby]

If other teams want to make dumb decisions, then I'm okay with that. There's never going to be a system that is 100% perfect or that protects teams from their own dumb decisions, but I think at least shifts the power back more evenly between the players and the owners.

But if you go uncapped and a team invests alot in some average players, then they'll have to spend even more to make that up and remain competitive. There's a natural check in that the market will adjust for over time (teams will eventually self regulate their own specific team max), so I'm okay with it.
If you go the other route and a team wants to offer even bigger contracts to try and lure in 2 super super max players, then they'll invariably have less money to fill in for role players. Again, a built in check that the market will adjust for.

Then teams will lose quality players for nothing. Big market teams will take over and mid market teams will struggle.

You don't think NY and LA would just throw tons of money at these players trying to team up?

there's more parody in baseball than in basketball

I didn't know there was more laughter and happiness in baseball compared to hoops.

[Oriole8159]

David West and Zaza aren't settling for minimum contracts, they are sacrificing to ring chase.

So, you would prefer having spend less time developing players and potentially having them be worse players versus needing to develop players to potentially make them the best player they can be while sacrificing cap space. I'm the opposite.

they're "sacrificing to ring chase" because there's not anymore money to go around because so much is invested in young players developing on teams that won't be relevant for 3-5 years.
take those guys out of the equation, and it's more money to go to the veterans like West or Zaza.
It's the exact same thing as the NFL model; 3 years in school, capped rookie contracts means players don't hit their big 2nd contract until 24/25, more of the payroll goes to veterans.

why are they worse players though would be my question, and why do owners stand for having to spend the entire rookie contract developing? The whole premise of these young kids coming into the league was that they were capable of making an impact at 18 or 19 and contributing quickly to the turning around of a franchise, and that's no longer the case. If you need 3 years to develop before you're even a plus player and you're not hitting your prime anyway until 25/26, then I think its very fair to say that they're not ready to be in the league.

The bolded is factually false. Both of those players turned down more money to go to contenders.

Owners stand for it because they are making millions in profit.

there would be more contenders in this scenario though.
as of right now, you can count on one hand the number of teams that really have a shot to win a title, and that's the problem. vets that want to win are backed into a corner essentially due to lack of options.

changing things up like this would mitigate how egregious those veteran minimum deals have become, as there would be more teams that can legitimately call themselves a contender, more jobs available, and more teams with money to spend.

and if they still really want to take super less to cherry pick a title, then there's really nothing that can be done about that. But there's nothing be done about it now either.

[Oriole8159]

Then teams will lose quality players for nothing. Big market teams will take over and mid market teams will struggle.

You don't think NY and LA would just throw tons of money at these players trying to team up?

there's more parody in baseball than in basketball

I didn't know there was more laughter and happiness in baseball compared to hoops.

alright, alright...ya got me there.
good one.

[Slim Tubby]

there's more parody in baseball than in basketball

I didn't know there was more laughter and happiness in baseball compared to hoops.

alright, alright...ya got me there.
good one.

The only thing I accomplished with that cheap little zinger was to open the door to get ridiculed for the next typo I have. Advantage Oriole.

[Mattya]

they're "sacrificing to ring chase" because there's not anymore money to go around because so much is invested in young players developing on teams that won't be relevant for 3-5 years.
take those guys out of the equation, and it's more money to go to the veterans like West or Zaza.
It's the exact same thing as the NFL model; 3 years in school, capped rookie contracts means players don't hit their big 2nd contract until 24/25, more of the payroll goes to veterans.

why are they worse players though would be my question, and why do owners stand for having to spend the entire rookie contract developing? The whole premise of these young kids coming into the league was that they were capable of making an impact at 18 or 19 and contributing quickly to the turning around of a franchise, and that's no longer the case. If you need 3 years to develop before you're even a plus player and you're not hitting your prime anyway until 25/26, then I think its very fair to say that they're not ready to be in the league.

The bolded is factually false. Both of those players turned down more money to go to contenders.

Owners stand for it because they are making millions in profit.

there would be more contenders in this scenario though.
as of right now, you can count on one hand the number of teams that really have a shot to win a title, and that's the problem. vets that want to win are backed into a corner essentially due to lack of options.

changing things up like this would mitigate how egregious those veteran minimum deals have become, as there would be more teams that can legitimately call themselves a contender, more jobs available, and more teams with money to spend.

and if they still really want to take super less to cherry pick a title, then there's really nothing that can be done about that. But there's nothing be done about it now either.

Why would there be more contenders? What's to stop Lebron, CP, Cousins, and Wade to team up next summer if a big market team wants them? We get GS Vs Lebron again. Then another group creates another super team in a big market like Brooklyn who doesn't care about paying 200 million for a roster. Then you'll see some desperate mid market teams overpay the same players you don't think are worth the max to create an illusion they are competing. Then the small market teams are stuck with nothing. They aren't going to pay those vets good money to not even be good.

[Mattya]

I didn't know there was more laughter and happiness in baseball compared to hoops.

alright, alright...ya got me there.
good one.

The only thing I accomplished with that cheap little zinger was to open the door to get ridiculed for the next typo I have. Advantage Oriole.

Checking for missing commas...

[Oriole8159]

Then teams will lose quality players for nothing. Big market teams will take over and mid market teams will struggle.

You don't think NY and LA would just throw tons of money at these players trying to team up?

there's more parody in baseball than in basketball

Baseball and basketball arent the same in any way though. Basketball is dominated by the superstars. You can be successful in baseball with a more cost driven efficiency driven game than basketball. We have seen for how many decades in the NBA that superstars have gone to big market desireable city teams if the money is right. Until recently we have never seen stars choose mid to small market teams.

you're not going to see 3 guys all going to big market teams though and making $60 million a year if you raised the super max, which should be a check against that. that would help spread out the stars so that more teams have them, which means more teams are competitive.
if the age limit is raised to 3 years, those struggling mid market teams that pick early will get a much more developed player in year one, and will have them cost controlled until 24/25. that helps jumpstart their rebuild, and creates a check against small market teams not being competitive.

[KGdaBom]

If other teams want to make dumb decisions, then I'm okay with that. There's never going to be a system that is 100% perfect or that protects teams from their own dumb decisions, but I think at least shifts the power back more evenly between the players and the owners.

But if you go uncapped and a team invests alot in some average players, then they'll have to spend even more to make that up and remain competitive. There's a natural check in that the market will adjust for over time (teams will eventually self regulate their own specific team max), so I'm okay with it.
If you go the other route and a team wants to offer even bigger contracts to try and lure in 2 super super max players, then they'll invariably have less money to fill in for role players. Again, a built in check that the market will adjust for.

Then teams will lose quality players for nothing. Big market teams will take over and mid market teams will struggle.

You don't think NY and LA would just throw tons of money at these players trying to team up?

there's more parody in baseball than in basketball

These professional sports contracts are a parody, but I think you meant parity.

[Oriole8159]

The bolded is factually false. Both of those players turned down more money to go to contenders.

Owners stand for it because they are making millions in profit.

there would be more contenders in this scenario though.
as of right now, you can count on one hand the number of teams that really have a shot to win a title, and that's the problem. vets that want to win are backed into a corner essentially due to lack of options.

changing things up like this would mitigate how egregious those veteran minimum deals have become, as there would be more teams that can legitimately call themselves a contender, more jobs available, and more teams with money to spend.

and if they still really want to take super less to cherry pick a title, then there's really nothing that can be done about that. But there's nothing be done about it now either.

Why would there be more contenders? What's to stop Lebron, CP, Cousins, and Wade to team up next summer if a big market team wants them? We get GS Vs Lebron again. Then another group creates another super team in a big market like Brooklyn who doesn't care about paying 200 million for a roster. Then you'll see some desperate mid market teams overpay the same players you don't think are worth the max to create an illusion they are competing. Then the small market teams are stuck with nothing. They aren't going to pay those vets good money to not even be good.

The thing is, if the players are going to collude like they're doing now, then there's nothing that the league can do anyways. But the system is not working now anyways is the point, so at least I'm trying to come up with an idea.
I also think you're really overstating the number of teams that would really be comfortable taking on over $200 million in payroll, considering the cap right now isn't even $100 million.

But what you're not taking into account is that all the players on their rookie deals should be better because they're older and more seasoned, so that's where my point about there being more contenders. If you draft well, you can get a really good young player(s) cost controlled until they're 25. You don't have to wait 3-4 years to start getting a return on them.

And you can always throw in other small things to help combat the potential issues you brought up. Things like keeping the rookies restricted after their rookie contract like they are now, or something similar to a franchise player designation like in football. Those are minor details though.

I don't have all the answers, but I'm only doing this because I think the system is already broken. It's easy to say why my idea shouldn't work, but the fact that you seem to consistently glossing over is that the system already doesn't work.

[Slim Tubby]

alright, alright...ya got me there.
good one.

The only thing I accomplished with that cheap little zinger was to open the door to get ridiculed for the next typo I have. Advantage Oriole.

Checking for missing commas...

You're now on my list, Mattya!!!!