Mattya wrote: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.
Um, im confused as to why you would judge the successfulness of a capped max contract system team now, versus your hypothetical? That team has to follow all the rules under the current cap system, but in your mind that tells you that it wouldn't work in your system? That makes no sense. It tells you if you give those teams the flexibility they will out pay you whenever they can. Take away the rules and restrictions, which you are trying to ignore when you say those teams failed, and those teams look completely different.
The Knicks didn't have money they need to spend. They just spend because they can. If you don't think they wouldn't give 300 million or more to build a mega team, I think you would be very mistaken. Not only would they still make money, they would make even more. Teams like the Lakers and Knicks have no conceivable spending limit when it comes to a super team. Their market is just that big.
How do you assume that teams are just going to give more money to these veteran players? The union already turns a blind eye to vets not making enough money! They literally just agreed to the system you are saying doesn't work. We have seen for how long that if teams don't have a chance at winning, like in your system, then they will tank for draft picks and keep payroll low. Can you give me any reason why teams are going to pay these vets anymore than they have to?[/quote]
You yourself listed examples of teams as Knicks, Nets, Blazers. Not of those teams won championships during the aforementioned sprees, so those absolutely can be judged. Now I suppose you can say that Portland is still a work in progress, but does anyone really think they have what it takes to make the next step into a championship team? I sure don't.
I still really don't think owners are going to push $300-$400 million in payrolls just because they can, but you do and clearly that isn't going to change, so why not just move on to the team capped situation with the uncapped player contracts.
Being as how a Lebron or a Curry is well past twice the player that a Wiggins/Porter is (or CJ McCollum for the aforementioned Port comp above), a team could make the decision to sign Wiggins for $25 million or so + Porter for $25 million or so, or Curry for $80 million. That's what I want to accomplish. I think it's these middle of the road contracts for incomplete players that are the ones killing competitive balance, be cause they're too close to the amounts that the super super stars are getting, which hamstrings teams that are trying to do the right thing and build organically.
And how do you keep missing the point on the veterans making more money? 19-21 years old out of the league, 21-24 year olds still on fixed rookie contracts, 2nd contracts with restrictions before a player can become uncapped, but yet teams still have the minimums they'll have to get to so that automatically means more money available in the pool to veterans.
If you put a flat team cap but uncapped on the star star players, it makes it harder to squeeze 3 in. If it's harder to squeeze 3 in, then its harder for the players to manufacture super teams. That coupled with more seasoned players already coming into the league and being difference makers but on cheap rookie deals, plus still some restrictions on 2nd contracts for good but not yet great players, means there will be very, very competitive teams with younger cost controlled players that are already immediately competitive.
Those teams can become just as attractive to these middle veterans that we're talking about, and because they have more money to spend, they can invest those in these veteran difference makers.
I probably should have asked you this a long time ago though, but do you not think there's a problem right now? Do you still watch regular season games (non T-Wolves/your home team) and the first few rounds of the playoffs?
I can let you know that I do think there's a problem, and I have stopped watching non-Wolves regular season games as the regular season/first few rounds of the playoffs, are pointless. I watch college basketball now all the time though as it is a much better product in my opinion. That's what owners need to start asking people...is this sustainable?
If you don't think there's a problem and enjoy these super teams and don't mind knowing that there's only 5 teams with a real chance of winning, and don't mind that it's a 5 year process now minimum to rebuild a team, then it's probably not worth our time debating this anymore.
