Reply With Quote
LA would have zero championships since 88 in that world.
Nothing changed, and it shouldn't. The reward for successful draft picks is productive players on cheap contracts and great trade pieces, not the ability to work to pay max contracts to a bunch of stars at the same time. The league does not need more teams like GS
LA would have zero championships since 88 in that world.
Not true. When players are stolen from a team, it's usually to go form a super team somewhere. THAT just got a lot harder to do with the second apron. Draft pick freezing and possible subsequent forced move to the end of the round, and not being able to attach picks or cash to trades seems to be the line that simple financial penalties never established.
In an effort to help teams retain players, veteran contract extensions can start as high as 140% of the previous year's salary (up from 120% in the current CBA). Also, non-max rookie contract extensions can now be five years. (Previously, only max rookie extensions could be five years, the rest had to be four.)
This didn't happen?
In my system, OKC could have kept Durant away from the warriors.
Yeah, I wish there were some way to allow teams to benefit (cap-wise) by being good at drafting. Like a max player only counts 90% against the cap if you drafted them or something. I get the arguments against, and I don’t like the Superteam era, but I do have respect (as should we all as Spurs fans) for an Organic Big3, and I think it’s bull that players have to take “hometown discounts” to do it. Make the owners spend their money, the players earned that bag.
Doubt anything would have kept him in OKC. They tried to address the issue by giving teams the ability to pay more because at the time OKC's best offer was the same as GS's money-wise, but this has backfired massively and has only led to teams having terrible contracts on the books like Beal's for example. Nowadays stars take the most money they can and then demand a trade anyway, and to specific teams at that. Free agency is broken. The system is also kind of broken when 99% of the players want to be in only 4 cities out of 28.
I think anyone that takes a MAX bag should be with that team until it expires. A no trade clause, but for the team.
Can't see any way NBPA would ever agree to this. Teams want to get rid of contracts like Beal's, KAT's, etc. as well.
Yeah, seems hard to imagine. Not way NBPA accepts that and not good for the teams also actually. Being locked with a maxed guy for 4 or 5 years who may get depressed, lose motivation or whatever isn't what NBA teams would want to eventually constrain themselves into. Gotta always have a way out for both parts.
They may couch it as helping teams retain players, but all this does is allows team to give bigger contracts with more years when signing veteran extensions. Players can sign these contracts and then demand a trade after securing their bag. If a player wants out, there's not much a franchise can do besides move him.
That's one of the reasons that we are seeing fewer guys hit free agency. There is no downside to them signing as big of a contract as they can, even if they don't like the situation they're in. Don't like the coach? Trade me. Team isn't winning? Trade me. Team won't extend my contract? Trade me. Team is undergoing youth movement? Trade me. My uncle is a jackass? Trade me.
That happened, but that won't affect draftees besides the freedom to sign a non-max player for five years . First-rounders have their own extension system, and second-rounders make too little for the increase to matter. Like I mentioned way back when, the changes don't affect Collins at all. He was eligible for up to the MLE either way. Most second-rounders make way less on their initial deals.
I think every team has a de facto no trade clause just by the nature of trades and how they unfold.
But even that can't trump the reality of a player who (publicly) doesn't want to be there.
Human behavior beats any clause you can write every time.
It would be grandfathered in. Only new MAX deals, and yes, the NBAPA would balk, but I'd want to get them on the record doing so, because it's an admission that their guys sign MAX deal and then force their way out, and they want that to continue.
If they didn't address the cap hit, then no. Some of these mid teams are already overpaying mid superstars and then they drown in luxury tax. Let the teams pay what they want and give a cap discount based on the number of contracts signed with the drafting team. Encourage front offices to draft well, cultivate their players and give them some ability to negotiate without throwing the entire cap at a player and then getting a trade demand afterward because they have to fill the roster with cast-offs.
Why is drafting "the right way" to build a team though? If you try to make drafting the only viable way to get stars, you're just encouraging tanking. I agree with Ex and Body that the new CBA will help small-market teams and spread talent around. But it doesn't skew toward building cores through the draft, and that's a very good thing.
Think it’s somewhere in the middle. I think you want to “home grow” your two main guys via draft, and then go shopping for the finishing piece(s). Question for spurs is whether Vessel or Sochan are the “second” to Vics first. Not sure yet personally, as much as i love both players.
It should be middle. Spurs will probably be more biased with homegrown as spurs has always been homegrown. But NBA would like these trades and free agency stuff. Cause it keeps NBA relevant for another few weeks.
We still care about NBA. Talk about reeves until July. Weeks after finals. And this should generate some buzz and indirectly (or even directly) some revenue.
So while small markets can complain. It will be a meet in between
If the league really wanted to reward teams for drafting they could just vote to make the rookie scale contracts 5 or 6 years long instead. Maybe 3 guaranteed years followed by 3 team option years. The only ones this would hurt relative to the current system are players not yet in the league and they don't get to vote. Taking that money from the 5th and 6th years for rookies means more for older players, the ones who would vote on this (though the effect wouldn't be felt until 4 or 5 seasons after the change).
Yeah, that's terrible for a team and player to be locked in that long.
Does anyone know how NFL contracts work? I thought I read that they can have non-guaranteed ones, so you can cut a player if they're not performing, or for other reasons too I guess. Not sure how their contacts work
In business, I don't think you can be rigid and say, "I'm only going to do it this way". You may have your focus on a particular way (in this case the draft), but you have to not only be open to other ways, you have to actively be seeking them. If you are so rigid that you won't deviate from your preferred path you'll never be able to reach your peak.
A simpler way of saying it is, you trade the picks if the player you want is there....
The Spurs and GS, the two most successful teams of the 2000s, both drafted their core three or so players, and then used a variety of ways to fill out the roster. Obviously, you can't draft for every need and niche on your roster.
Almost all championship-level teams draft their best players, other than Los Angeles and Miami that one time. There are rare exceptions like with Toronto and the Garnett/Ray Allen Celtics. Those flash in the pan teams don't stay together very long.
Who do we think has to kick an asset to the other team in this hypothetical trade?
SAS: Fournier
NYK: Bullock + Payne
Supposedly NYK already had interest in Payne. Fournier is completely out of their rotation so I would suppose some compensation comes the Spurs' way but I don't know. Maybe a second or two.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions