Dewey Howard Soap Opera

[e0y2e3]

But then the owners wouldn't make as much money!!

[Kingpin74]

That said, you'll still have instances where a guy runs away from a shit organization just to make sure he doesn't KG himself.

I agree, but at least in that scenario, it would be for that reason alone and not a combination of that reason plus the money being in the same ballpark. Hell, I think Florida's lack of state tax alone would have made up for the Bird right salary difference with LeBron (if the sign and trade didn't happen).

[motherscratcher]

I always thought the Bird rights argument was kind of dumb. Morons shouting that LeBron took $30mil less to go to Miami. As if that last season wouldn't just be the first season of his next contract for even more money.

I like the idea of a "real" Bird rights advantage.

I wonder if it would also make sense to outlaw the sign and trade in that instance.

[jb]

I always thought the Bird rights argument was kind of dumb. Morons shouting that LeBron took $30mil less to go to Miami.

Well, Larry wanted to stay in Boston. So there's that.

[Madre Hill, Superstar]

I'm half-wondering if it wouldn't be a bad idea for the NBA to go full MLB: Detonate the salary cap and max salaries, and hand out free luxury tax money to the Generals.

[e0y2e3]

No arguments, my only point is that as rare as it is, the fat dude sometimes lands that really hot chick.

I still don't understand what would be wrong with making the Bird rights money actually mean something, i.e. each team getting to designate one franchise player (not binding like the NFL, just for financial purposes) and pay him $10MM per year more than the regular max and the difference doesn't count against the cap or something like that. An eight figure difference might actually make these guys think twice before leaving.

It's drastic but I think it's the only way to give small markets a fighting chance and it doesn't hurt the players at all because it's a chance to get a lot more money and they still don't have to accept it if they don't want to. Sure, homegrown stars from big market teams would then have 0% chance to ever leave but in this day and age, that probably wasn't happening anyway. And an extra $10 mill would be a big financial strain on teams, but ask the Cavs what they'd choose between their current state or getting LeBron back minus an extra $10 mill a year.

Also, I want you to PLEASE read this post and think about what Dan Gilbert fought for during the lockout. He wants to make bling, not to have a fair league.

[e0y2e3]

^ and ^^. It was what was said by many at the beginning of the whole lockout. Course, I was rational/irrational during the thing and prolly took both sides at different points. However, a meaningful Bird Rights always made the most sense. Not 80% of the difference being in the "extra" year. Perhaps only an already declining star would look at that and stay put.

No, the guys that stay put for that extra year are the second fiddle guys that are treated as ones because getting a legit pair is damn hard to do so x team overpays y player and y player takes the deal because he knows he will never make more money.

[Kingpin74]

No arguments, my only point is that as rare as it is, the fat dude sometimes lands that really hot chick.

I still don't understand what would be wrong with making the Bird rights money actually mean something, i.e. each team getting to designate one franchise player (not binding like the NFL, just for financial purposes) and pay him $10MM per year more than the regular max and the difference doesn't count against the cap or something like that. An eight figure difference might actually make these guys think twice before leaving.

It's drastic but I think it's the only way to give small markets a fighting chance and it doesn't hurt the players at all because it's a chance to get a lot more money and they still don't have to accept it if they don't want to. Sure, homegrown stars from big market teams would then have 0% chance to ever leave but in this day and age, that probably wasn't happening anyway. And an extra $10 mill would be a big financial strain on teams, but ask the Cavs what they'd choose between their current state or getting LeBron back minus an extra $10 mill a year.

Also, I want you to PLEASE read this post and think about what Dan Gilbert fought for during the lockout. He wants to make bling, not to have a fair league.

I still don't get it though, wouldn't small market franchises be more valuable if they had a realistic chance to retain a superstar and contend? That has to trump whatever quick buck they negotiated in this CBA. Plus the team wouldn't even have to pay the extra Bird rights money, it would just be their option (although it would make their cheapness a lot more transparent if they declined to do so).