If LeBron was auctioned, and each team had 100 million, and he had to go to the highest bidder, regardless of which team that was, now we are talking. Do that for every player, nobody gets to take less money, no funny contracts.
I think seating the teams by best record in the playoffs would help with parity. Does it really matter who wins the conference championship?
By Roto derived ratings system, you'd probably have it derived from the same assholes who voted in this year's mvp
How does a point system change that? A dollar system with a team cap, but no max, individual salary is a point system. It's no different than a point system with max-team points. For awhile, I've been proposing a blind auction (with minimum reserve bids) for lottery picks to replace the lottery draw. The goal is to find a mix of still helping bad teams without fully rewarding tanking by bringing salary cap management into play. Despite still having an advantage with a lower pick, you can be outbid by teams who managed their salaries well. Anyone can play using cap space, and those teams with actual picks are given "spending money" (in the form of an exception) in line with the value of their pick (similar value of the lotto balls/rookie scale) to spend on any draft slot, on top of any actual cap room they have. You can only make bids up to your total spending room, so you can't put two bids on different picks exceeding your max spending room hoping to win one of the slots. All bids are placed at the same time, and reconciled at once to replace the NBA Lottery Draw, not the draft itself, but the lottery drawing. Any slots that go unbid (usually due to someone winning a bid for someone else's slot, or someone crapping out on a higher bid, and no one bidding on theirs) are reconciled again by teams who lost their pick to a higher bid...or teams who still have cap room minus the bids they made. make sense? pls no "too complicated" ... it's actually very simple. Auction versus lottery balls. The spending rules are less complicated than free agency rules.
What do you think rotisserie is? It's hard cap. You are obviously not reading what I am saying. But even though I think an auction would be a good first step, there are problems with it. You can't have an auction ever year, you need some way to set the value of a player that responses to these challenges.
I think the difference is this: in rotisserie, the scale is unbiased and without emotional attachment: an owner going wild an elevating Kyrie to a Lebron. In this case, we'd be preserving the true worth of a player, by setting these ratings ahead of time. Get rid of the salary cap because you don't need it.
To be honest, I've never heard of a hard cap described as "rotisserie". Disagree. That would simply allow teams like the Lakers and Knicks to spend hundreds of millions to create perpetual super teams. A hard cap with no individual max would solve the problem. The only foreseeable issue would be if players took pay-cuts, but if they're willing to take $10mm+ yearly pay-cuts, there's really nothing anyone can do about it. However, I'm sure they all realize that their basketball career has a shelf life and that sacrificing that much money isn't in their best interest.
You failed to explain how this solves your Lebron problem? Answer that before addressing the spoiler. Spoiler And your spending points to get Lebron (where he has no choice, like a rotisserie lottery) has a fatal flaw if it also doesn't also come with a set salary that you must pay him, like rookies have a scale. Otherwise, if a player is mandated to go to a team, they are at an extreme disadvantage to negotiate salary after the fact. So, since you MUST have a salary attached to your point system in fairness to the players (like rookie scale), then we are back to it having no difference to a team salary or point cap with no max individule points/salaries system. So I suppose all you're really saying is the Players have no choice where they go. Do you shuffle them every year? imo, shuffle the deck every year would be throwing the baby out with the bath water ... we'd never see the highest quality basketball again that is only achievable with players growing together,,,,especially the superstars staying with the same role players. Not to mention you are tossing what it means to be a fan out the window....really screwing over fans if the stars are shuffled every year.
I really don't see the issue in that. Parity is so overrated, I don't see the big issue in needing it or wanting it. There is no Lebron problem. That's just how the league has always been, it's always been about the top 5 or so players and the teams they play for. Unfortunately What, the Grizzlies don't have one of those players, if they did then the Grizzlies would be a contender every year. It really has nothing to do with small market teams, just draft well, run your team well. All this talk about big markets when both New York teams suck, the Lakers suck, and the Clippers have never been past the 2nd round in their history. I think the idea that players need to go to big markets to succeed financially is way overblown nowadays. Before it mattered because if you played in the middle of nowhere it was less likely people knew who you were. Nowadays though every team is on TV. Westbrook is one of the biggest stars in the league and he plays in OKC...who would have been a contender if it weren't for some really horrible GM moves...
You could almost do it like this: tie his contract to his auction, each player can sign for up to a 5 year deal and after 5 years he has to go through an auction, and every player in the league is auctioned excluding draft picks. This allows for a team to create some stability. Maybe there could be something like this also: that your team must declare if they want to go the 1 superstar route, if they want to build through a draft, or if they want to build through free agency, and each route would come with advantages and disadvantages. Like if you build through the draft, you are guaranteed a top 10 pick for 5 years in a row, some development advantages, such as extra roster spots. If you want pure fee agency you get a little extra money than the rest of the league, but you have to pick from a certain pool of players, and if you want a superstar, you must spend 75% of your cap on him. Every 3 years you have the option to reset or stay the course. With the draft, if you build that way, you also have to, after 5 years decide on one player to take forward for 2 years. If that player becomes a superstar, then you would then have to be bound by the superstar model, etc.
I think they should rotate rosters based on counterclockwise movement across the map each year. This year's Wizards lineup becomes next year's Sixers lineup. The Sixers become the Knicks, the Knicks become the Celtics, the Celtics become the Raptors, and so on. Not sure how to handle the Lakers and Clippers though. Probably won't happen because of this.
Best way to have parity is to have all 30 teams go into the draft every year and have the entire pool of 450 or so players go into the draft for teams to chose from. So 15 rounds of picks. Keep a salary cap and set the salary based on which round you are picked. Problem solved.
So, players can't be free agents and decide where they want to go. Just because a team can throw alot of money at a superstar doesn't mean he should choose that team or want to go there.
Sorry, you're still not answering the question how your way is different than a team cap with no max individual salary. You said that way means anyone who gets Lebron wins ... no parity. Your way does same thing. Lebron is up for auction every five years.
It's not for the sake of it. The nba might be having their best ratings but other than a few games this playoffs sucks. Golden State hasn't trailed in a basketball game these entire playoffs, and you get blowout after blowout. The nba has a copetition problem that it doesn't care to address because kids are watching it in droves.
