Minnesota Sports Forum

monsterpile wrote:

thedoper wrote:I think the solution is fairly simple. Work on the premise that you can sign your draft guys for as much as you want tax free, and hard cap all other acquisitions via free agency or trade. There could be different mathematical formulas for achieving this, but this would ultimately be the way to give the original team the leg up that they deserve. That being said, I don't think you could get the players or the bigger market owners on board with this. Parity isn't nearly as important as franchise value and revenue to all of the parties involved.

I'm not knocking your plan this quote stuck out to me. "but this would ultimately be the way to give the original team the leg up that they deserve." Do some of the teams looking to keep their players "deserve" to keep them? If your team drafted a guy then sucks at building a team do the deserve to keep them? OKC traded away a future MVP because they in their opinion weren't going to be able to afford him. They did still deserve to keep Durant tho. Still how many other teams that had good players leave deserve to keep their guys? Money didn't seem to be what made Leonard leave...or want to stay.

There are a bunch of interesting ideas in this thread and yours I actually like the basic premise of. The thing is I think it's quite complicated and quite frankly I am not sure where the league is headed and what exactly needs to be fixed in terms of player movement. It goes both ways the Clippers and Raptors traded away guys that wanted to be there for life and signed lucrative deals.

The thing that gets old although somewhat entertaining on and of itself is basically being forced to consider a player's salary nearly every minute of their NBA existence. Gorgui Dieng is a good human being and actually a decent basketball player. If he was making even 7 million a year he would not be disliked as much...and likely would have been dealt in some deal at some point. Instead he is making way too much money and even though he actually does something very worthwhile with it he is not a guy people like having on the team. It's a shame and it's been that way for 10-15 years. It takes away from the enjoyment of the game as a fan IMO. I don't think that aspect or the player movement is gonna change soon.

TheSP wrote:Want to add some excitement, make hip checks and clotheslines legal!

Camden0916 wrote:Psst... If you got rid of the salary cap and removed max contract restrictions, hypothetically, small market teams could lock up their stars for longer than five years and before they even approached free agency. This happens in baseball routinely. As a byproduct, it essentially gives the franchise the security of knowing they don't have to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks in order to have a competitive team for the short-term to keep a star happy -- teams could show more focus to developing talent and being more selective in free agency. And obviously, it gives the player complete financial security for the majority of their prime years and a bigger guaranteed payday.

There's a reason why the MLB is arguably the most well-run league in professional sports and it's because of the widespread allocation of talent. There are stars spread out all over the league and it's very rare to see them team up in one spot despite there being no cap. The last time the MLB even came close to that kind of an issue was when the Yankees bought Sabathia, Burnett, and Texiara in one off-season. Guess what, it benefited them in the short-term, but they paid the price over the long-term. In no way did it destroy the league, though.

Camden wrote:Psst... If you got rid of the salary cap and removed max contract restrictions, hypothetically, small market teams could lock up their stars for longer than five years and before they even approached free agency. This happens in baseball routinely. As a byproduct, it essentially gives the franchise the security of knowing they don't have to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks in order to have a competitive team for the short-term to keep a star happy -- teams could show more focus to developing talent and being more selective in free agency. And obviously, it gives the player complete financial security for the majority of their prime years and a bigger guaranteed payday.

There's a reason why the MLB is arguably the most well-run league in professional sports and it's because of the widespread allocation of talent. There are stars spread out all over the league and it's very rare to see them team up in one spot despite there being no cap. The last time the MLB even came close to that kind of an issue was when the Yankees bought Sabathia, Burnett, and Texiara in one off-season. Guess what, it benefited them in the short-term, but they paid the price over the long-term. In no way did it destroy the league, though.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:Red Sox had a $229M payroll.
Tampa had a $69M payroll.

And I'm sure the Marlins fans dig the bi-decade fire sales.

Camden wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:Red Sox had a $229M payroll.
Tampa had a $69M payroll.

And I'm sure the Marlins fans dig the bi-decade fire sales.

The following are the 10 teams that made it to the postseason in 2018 with their rank in payroll in parentheses.

NL:
Dodgers (3rd)
Cubs (4th)
Rockies (13th)
Braves (18th)
Brewers (22nd)

AL:
Red Sox (1st)
Yankees (6th)
Astros (9th)
Indians (15th)
Athletics (28th)

Payroll does not equate to wins in the MLB. Managing and developing talent has and will always be a higher priority over free agent spending in that league despite not having a salary cap. So, yes, the bigger markets will likely continue to spend big, but that has always been the case and yet there is more uncertainty concerning who will win the World Series annually than there is any other major professional sport.