elan_prodigy
Well-Known Member
Agree. I think if you remove max contracts and have a hard cap a lot of the other stuff will sort itself out.
NBA Postseason Change Ideas
- Thread starter LoPo
- Start date
Agree. I think if you remove max contracts and have a hard cap a lot of the other stuff will sort itself out.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
What would happen if you had a hard cap AND max contracts?
MDAV28
Well-Known Member
Reduced money for players across the board and probably a lot more player movement.
elan_prodigy
Well-Known Member
Im not sure tbh. The worst thing about MAX contracts is guys in the league all want to be 'MAX' guys. I guess it would look something like 2xMAX guys per team surrounded by guys on $10Mil/yr or less. Just writing it I can see how it could lead to a 2 tier economy or the 'haves' and 'have nots'.
Imo with a hard cap and NO MAX contracts players will be paid closer to what theyre worth.
A hard cap means teams won't be able to overpay to keep players local. If you could make $20 million in SLC and get endorsement on a market with 1 million people, vs. the same pay in New York but endorsements that reach 10 million people (and pay considerably better), New York wins every time.
Et tu Brute
Well-Known Member
Bunch of mentions of the top team(s) being able to choose their first round opponents (in the media recently)... I think this would be an interesting dynamic.
Coach Ellis
Well-Known Member
I’ve read a couple of anti-tanking ideas that have been floated over the years.
The best ideas would actually incentivize teams to contanstantly pursue improvement - even in the face of having to reload or rebuild.
My favorite concept makes it so no team is playing for their own draft position. Every team gets to bet on the future record of another team and then has their draft position tied directly to the win-loss record of that team. Two weeks before the start of the season (so after the draft, free agency, summer league and preseason) from worst record to best record, each team would pick the draft position of a team that they believe will be worse than them in the upcoming season.
Add some smoothing mechanisms to prevent major jumps or drops in the draft order, as well as limiting teams to one top 3 pick every three years; and a system like that should improve parity because your draft position is no longer based on your performance - it’s based on the performance of an opposing team.
You have no incentive to do poorly because it helps a competitor if that happens and they have no incentive to do poorly because it might help your team instead. Look at the Lakers and Nets this year. Neither of them is inclined to intentionally suck because it only helps the Cavs and 76ers if that happens. Neither team is particularly good, but they have no reason to do badly on purpose since they don’t keep the pick.
Plus, I think the drama of following the team whose draft position you do hold and actively rooting against them would add an intriguing wrinkle to the game.
Last edited:
elan_prodigy
Well-Known Member
I like that idea. I wouldnt cap top 3 picks though otherwise you way as well use a rotating system (although that would require a 32yr investment)
Tanking is overblown anyway. Who cares? If we had gone that route this year Id be watching college prospects instead of following the NBA, no biggie.
Tanking is overblown anyway. Who cares? If we had gone that route this year Id be watching college prospects instead of following the NBA, no biggie.
Coach Ellis
Well-Known Member
Capping top three picks to one every three years just means that you can’t expect to get a top three pick if you and the team whose draft position you own decide to bottom out multiple years in a row. You’d still be eligible for a top 4, 5 or 6 pick based on a combination of the record of the team whose draft position you bet on as well as whether your own win-loss record puts you in the bottom, middle or top tier of picks.
But that’s still the difference in getting Kris Dunn instead of Ben Simmons two years after drafting Joel Embiid. Or the Celtics missing out on Jason Tatum because Brooklyn was bad enough to net them Jaylon Brown the year before. Lakers wouldn’t have been eligible for either Brandon Ingram or Lonzo Ball.
Last edited:
Wouldn't 29 teams just pinpoint the team with the worst roster and predict a terrible record for them?
Coach Ellis
Well-Known Member
Also, I disagree that tanking is overblown. We’ve seen over the last two months how tanking is having a direct impact in the Western Confence playoff race as well.
Another thought to help curb tanking would be to financially punish teams that go with a cheap roster to get a better draft pick and maximize profits. Any team who fails to reach 30 wins should lose a percentage of their revenue sharing (the more games below 30 wins, the more you lose) with that money being pooled together and split evenly between the teams that have 30 wins or more, but still miss the playoffs. Paying your opponents might influence more owners to try harder to win games - even when rebuilding.
That means that the Hawks, Knicks, Nets, Magic, Bulls, Suns, Kings, Grizzlies and Mavericks would lose millions of dollars that they’d then have to pay to the Lakers, Nuggets, Clippers, Pistons and Hornets.
Last edited:
Coach Ellis
Well-Known Member
Nope. It’s a draft style selection process from the team with the worst record to the team with the best. Once a team is picked, nobody else can bet on their draft position. The next team would have to bet on the draft position from the remaining teams - and so on until every team has the draft position of a different team for the next season.
Last edited: