I have it (after many trials and errors): the solution to parity is here!

roslolian · Jun 4, 2017

what said: ↑

The money advantage is already there. Not a reason to dismiss my system. If all you are worried about in this system is: "wow look at the disparity of salary between teams." You aren't looking at this the right way.

To me, the best way to game this system is to build a core of players on reasonable contracts and then when a Lebron comes into the league, go all out.

Not to spend, 180 million a year on the top 3 players every year (you know how expensive that would get?). Is that what you are saying? If not, then what?

In this system you need to spend correctly and make sure your scouting game is on point to succeed.
Click to expand...

What I am saying is the objective of your system is to improve parity in the league. Parity means each team has more or less the same power level. Your system would result in even more more DISPARITY between teams who are well managed vs teams who are poorly managed, so your idea does not accomplish your objective at all. It will also cause smaller teams who mess up to fold, because nobody wants to watch a team headlined by the next Olawakandi for the next 10 years. OTH big name teams like the Knicks who mess up can just cover everything with money, Knicks can spend 180M on a roster every year, can Sacramento, Grizzlies or Philly do that? There's a reason why the salary cap is in place.

what · Jun 4, 2017

roslolian said: ↑

What I am saying is the objective of your system is to improve parity in the league. Parity means each team has more or less the same power level. Your system would result in even more more DISPARITY between teams who are well managed vs teams who are poorly managed, so your idea does not accomplish your objective at all. It will also cause smaller teams who mess up to fold, because nobody wants to watch a team headlined by the next Olawakandi for the next 10 years. OTH big name teams like the Knicks who mess up can just cover everything with money, Knicks can spend 180M on a roster every year, can Sacramento, Grizzlies or Philly do that? There's a reason why the salary cap is in place.
Click to expand...

My system's goal is not to make badly run teams less badly run. And the current system doesn't do that either. Also, parity means that teams are more or less competitive with one another, not have the same power.

Also, if the knicks spend 180 million a year on 10 year deals, that equals 1.8 billion. If they "cover" their mistake and repeat that process, the year after, now they would have 3.6 billion.
In 2014 the knicks were worth 3 billion all total. So what you are saying is that in 3 years they would double how much they are worth?

Also, I don't mind if smaller teams fold, contraction would make the league better: more parity, better distribution of talent. So I welcome that. There is no reason why teams like Brooklyn, the magic or the twolves should exist.

Most years, in my system, you might not even get a 30 million a year player. I'd say 10 million a year would be the limit, and maybe a 6 year deal. Those huge contracts would be quite rare. Because nobody will invest 300 million on a player like Lavar Ball.

I'd say if my system was in place this year, the most any player might get would be 15 million a year for 7 years.

PhiSlammaJamma · Jun 6, 2017

If you add a "t" then it becomes Pear Titty. And if you think about it, while droopy, pears do look like t*tties.

Forums

I have it (after many trials and errors): the solution to parity is here!

roslolian Member

what Member

PhiSlammaJamma Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!