Minnesota Sports Forum

crazy-canuck wrote:Make dunks worth 3

thedoper wrote:

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.

Deserve may have just been a bad choice of words, maybe it is the leg up they need for their own survival and success. In the interest of the time and investment in player development, it would be nice to teams receive compensation for their time and commitment to a player they drafted. An extreme amount of money seems like the ideal way to address it, but there could be other mechanisms. The NHL addresses this idea in restricted free agency by assigning automatic compensation (draft picks, etc) for signing an RFA.

sjm34 wrote:Maybe if they did away with the superstar calls, they might manage to put a few of these guys in their place. Until they actually started giving a shit about fair competition, I don't see much of anything making a difference. They also need to eliminate the late season buyouts, or come up with a way for teams to bid on those FA's rather than letting them flock to the top teams. Basically make a title worth something again.

kekgeek1 wrote:

sjm34 wrote:Maybe if they did away with the superstar calls, they might manage to put a few of these guys in their place. Until they actually started giving a shit about fair competition, I don't see much of anything making a difference. They also need to eliminate the late season buyouts, or come up with a way for teams to bid on those FA's rather than letting them flock to the top teams. Basically make a title worth something again.

The players hit waivers. Teams can add them if they want