• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NBA 2016-2017 Season |OT| What do the Liberty Bell and Ben Simmons have in Common?

mjp2417

Banned
Can you have a free market and a salary cap?

It just means that Markelle Fultz and co. would enter that league as free agents in the same way that current NBA players become free agents when they are no longer under contract. That doesn't preclude a salary cap.
 
NBA has a salary cap, unlike Euro football

It's a soft salary cap though, the difference between the top and bottom payrolls is over 48 million dollars. That buys a lot of talent. And that's not even the main issue here. Why would anyone ever sign with the Milwaukee Bucks if they can sign with the Lakers?
 

mjp2417

Banned
It's a soft salary cap though, the difference between the top and bottom payrolls is over 48 million dollars. That buys a lot of talent. And that's not even the main issue here. Why would anyone ever sign with the Milwaukee Bucks if they can sign with the Lakers?

For the same reason desirable free agents no longer sign with the Lakers. You don't need to be in LA to be a marketable superstar any longer. The most marketable superstars in the NBA currently reside in places like Cleveland, Oakland, Oklahoma City, and Houston, not in LA or New York.
 
Wouldn't that promote intentional tanking?

No, for example the Lakers and Sixers this year would get less ping pong balls, or less of a chance at the first pick, by virtue of the fact that they have picked in the top 3 two years in a row.

It's a soft salary cap though, the difference between the top and bottom payrolls is over 48 million dollars. That buys a lot of talent. And that's not even the main issue here. Why would anyone ever sign with the Milwaukee Bucks if they can sign with the Lakers?

It's not a soft cap for free agents. They'd sign with Milwaukee over the Lakers because the Lakers only have a finite amount of money to spend and can't sign everybody, and some players might feel they'd have a better chance of success on the Bucks. You could always institute some rule where a rookie counts like 15% against the cap or something, so it's not like the top guys out of college can just go sign with a capped out team like Cleveland. It would put the onus on the teams to create successful and appealing organizations that these guys will want to go to, and manage their cap flexibility accordingly.
 
For the same reason desirable free agents no longer sign with the Lakers. You don't need to be in LA to be a marketable superstar any longer. The most marketable superstars in the NBA currently reside in places like Cleveland, Oakland, Oklahoma City, and Houston, not in LA or New York.

And why do you think that is? Because those places draft well or luck into the lottery. Cleveland drafted Lebron and then drafted Kyrie and had the first overall pick, which led him to comeback. Oakland drafted Steph, Green and Klay. OKC had Westbrook, Durant and even Harden. Houston got Harden thanks to a package centered around a player they drafted, picks and pretty much filler.

Players don't want to go to LA or New York because those franchises are helmed by idiots and in turn suck. If you remove the finesse of drafting good amateur talent and replace it by sheer spending strength you reward less the optimization of assets. There's absolutely no scenario whatsoever where getting rid of the draft doesn't hit the sport's competitive balance.

It's not a soft cap for free agents. They'd sign with Milwaukee over the Lakers because the Lakers only have a finite amount of money to spend and can't sign everybody, and some players might feel they'd have a better chance of success on the Bucks. You could always institute some rule where a rookie counts like 15% against the cap or something, so it's not like the top guys out of college can just go sign with a capped out team like Cleveland. It would put the onus on the teams to create successful and appealing organizations that these guys will want to go to, and manage their cap flexibility accordingly.

That's not an idea that's completely without merit because it must suck for young players to have 0 control over their destiny. But I think that would further imbalance the teams. Bad teams would need to have exceptional front office people and looking around the NBA shows those are not as common as desirable.

Besides, there's no relegation system. What could keep an owner from being the NBA version of the Marlins and not spending money while his team suck for years? With the draft at least bad teams are rewarded with good players basically inevitably.
 
For the same reason desirable free agents no longer sign with the Lakers. You don't need to be in LA to be a marketable superstar any longer. The most marketable superstars in the NBA currently reside in places like Cleveland, Oakland, Oklahoma City, and Houston, not in LA or New York.

That's true for superstars but I don't think the same is true about rookies.
 
And why do you think that is? Because those places draft well or luck into the lottery. Cleveland drafted Lebron and then drafted Kyrie and had the first overall pick, which led him to comeback. Oakland drafted Steph, Green and Klay. OKC had Westbrook, Durant and even Harden. Houston got Harden thanks to a package centered around a player they drafted, picks and pretty much filler.

Players don't want to go to LA or New York because those franchises are helmed by idiots and in turn suck. If you remove the finesse of drafting good amateur talent and replace it by sheer spending strength you reward less the optimization of assets. There's absolutely no scenario whatsoever where getting rid of the draft doesn't hit the sport's competitive balance.



That's not an idea that's completely without merit because it must suck for young players to have 0 control over their destiny. But I think that would further imbalance the teams. Bad teams would need to have exceptional front office people and looking around the NBA shows those are not as common as desirable.

Besides, there's no relegation system. What could keep an owner from being the NBA version of the Marlins and not spending money while his team suck for years? With the draft at least bad teams are rewarded with good players basically inevitably.

That's kind of my issue and always has been, is that sure the transitional talents like LeBron or Shaq are going to be great no matter where they go, but for the guys a step or two below that, the team they go to can effect their future and their long term earnings potential if they aren't developed correctly. Like, if want to be a cheap team, or an incompetent team, that's your prerogative, but young players shouldn't be forced to go play for you.
 

mjp2417

Banned
Players don't want to go to LA or New York because those franchises are helmed by idiots and in turn suck. If you remove the finesse of drafting good amateur talent and replace it by sheer spending strength you reward less the optimization of assets. There's absolutely no scenario whatsoever where getting rid of the draft doesn't hit the sport's competitive balance.

Incentivizing teams to build competent, desirable organizations top-to-bottom rather than trying to literally luck into superstars in the draft seems like a more sustainable model for league wide competitive balance than the current model. Also, there is no more sheer spending strength in a free agent model for rookies than there is in the current draft model. The salary cap still exists. It just means that you now have to weigh the value of a Markelle Fultz vs. the value of a Paul George in free agency.
 
Oh man if the Spurs manage to capture 1st seed.

Fuck it, I want it to happen. Even if the Warriors win it all, and Durant comes back and beasts in the playoffs, having that much tougher of a route to the finals would be so much more exciting
 
Aukee8c.jpg
.

Warriors now on a streak a full 3 games worse than the what the Nets' streak currently is
 
rondo murdered the warriors in 3rd......RONDO OF ALL PEOPLE

It was a national TV game.

National TV Rondo is NOT to be fucked around with

And don't forget, the Bulls have won 18 straight TNT games now. If only they could get into the WCF...

He's played well this year.
Not sure who the "fans" are watching that say he's awful.
He really should be starting but Zoidberg now likes him with the second unit.

He really shouldn't be starting, having Rondo, Wade, and Butler all out at once is horrible.

However, he has ran the bench unit pretty well, especially since a little while after the Bulls drama hit its peak
 
Are you a member of the sports media???
Your best pointguard should be starting and it's Rondo.
Jerian Grant ain't no facilitator.

No. But all 3 of Wade, Rondo, and Butler drive/slash to the basket, can't shoot 3s for shit, tend to shoot mid-rangers, etc.

If one of their wings was a good 3 pt shooter, if at least one of them, sure. That's not even close to the case here. All of these players need space to operate, and Rondo can actually facilitate properly if he has shooters with him.
 
Oh man if the Spurs manage to capture 1st seed.

Fuck it, I want it to happen. Even if the Warriors win it all, and Durant comes back and beasts in the playoffs, having that much tougher of a route to the finals would be so much more exciting

It'd make for a great story. Hypothetically, if the Rockets and Thunder stay 3rd and 7th respectively, Durant have to beat both his old teammate's teams to make it to the WCF.
 
It'd make for a great story. Hypothetically, if the Rockets and Thunder stay 3rd and 7th respectively, Durant have to beat both his old teammate's teams to make it to the WCF.

Naaaahh, that likely means Grizzlies are 6th seed.

Let's not. I like Grizzlies at 7th seed, and I want the Thunder's easy schedule for the rest of the year to help that happen
 
Top Bottom