2016-17 NBA PLAYOFFS THREAD
- Thread starter Elizah Huge
- Start date
Not necessarily at an equal disadvantage.
Miggs
Well-Known Member
They're not in the NFL. At all.
Miggs
Well-Known Member
What do you think would happen without a draft?
There's a reason it's always the same 5-6 clubs bidding on the Cuban/Asian players in MLB.
Douchebag K
Well-Known Member
i think he might have to provoke some criticism to get himself motivated .. stir up some controversy
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
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
He is a communist. As is the nfl.
Again, different sports. Huge roster sizes and individual players mean less (though QB's like Brady can make the Patriots dominant).
He doesnt want a hard cap, he wants a "harder" cap. That might mean stiffer LT penalities. It doesnt not mean he wants a hard cap. It's smart to never take anything OL says as fact.
I made a huge paragraph about it, go read it. NBA is not MLB.
I just dont think a hard-cap is possible at all, so it's stupid to even discuss. It wouldnt solve many problems. The only thing it does is hamstring teams and makes it harder for clubs to keep teams together. If a hard-cap existed then non-guaranteed contracts for everyone would have to exist, or it would be brutally punishing to sign the slightest bad contract. The player's union would never agree to it. Teams who don't spend into the LT wouldn't like it, they wouldn't get the extra $$$ from teams who overspend and owners like Mark Cuban would hate it because they want to overspend.
Getting rid of a max contract is something that could easily happen. The stars of the NBA would be all on board, and they are the ones who have the most power in the union (as seen by the recent DPE).
The draft is probably a harder sell, but I think it's possible. The player's union would be less likely to push for that as it would probably give a larger overall pool of the money to incoming rookies and they are not represented in the player's union. I think most owners should want it. It would make the league 100% more watchable and it would reward good organizations.
I'd like it if anyone actually gave a thoughtful response, not just "No that's stupid".
Cy has gone to new heights defending not having a draft. That is honestly the dumbest idea I've ever heard.
Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
You conveniently skipped the post where I clearly showed he said he wanted a hard cap.
Dishonest much?
Pros and Cons of no draft:
Pros:
- Rookies get to choose where they play so they will be happier/more motivated in their situations
- Teams will always have a chance to add talent no matter how good/bad they are. This expands the ability to team build while competing
- No draft means there is no reason to tank, making the NBA undeniably a better product over the course of an entire season
- Better run organizations will get a competitive advantage as they can show rookies their skill in player development and winning as attractive reason to join team
- NBA fans wouldn't make up lame draft lottery conspiracies
Cons:
- Poorly run teams will be at a disadvantage. If your organization is dysfunctional, can't win, and continually fails at player development, most rookies will shy away from your organization. (This could be listed as a pro, but maybe some of y'all are ****** who enjoy watching the Kings continually get top picks and fail)
- NBA major markets would get a competitive advantage over top hyped rookies as they will be pushed their by shoe companies and endorsement deals (NBA will probably look at this a pro. It's good for the NBA to have Lakers/Knicks be good)
- The fun of making mock drafts would be lost, but they would be replaced by guessing who gets who and for how much. That admittedly is probably less fun than doing mock drafts though.
As a Utah fan I have no idea how anyone would dislike this. The Jazz would benefit an incredible deal by having no draft. Yes, so would the Lakers/Knicks, but that doesnt mean Utah wouldn't thrive with it either. The fact of the matter is that the Jazz would have a higher ability to land a top 10 draft prospect every year than they would by winning 50 games a season and competing but never truly challenging the top teams.
Pros:
- Rookies get to choose where they play so they will be happier/more motivated in their situations
- Teams will always have a chance to add talent no matter how good/bad they are. This expands the ability to team build while competing
- No draft means there is no reason to tank, making the NBA undeniably a better product over the course of an entire season
- Better run organizations will get a competitive advantage as they can show rookies their skill in player development and winning as attractive reason to join team
- NBA fans wouldn't make up lame draft lottery conspiracies
Cons:
- Poorly run teams will be at a disadvantage. If your organization is dysfunctional, can't win, and continually fails at player development, most rookies will shy away from your organization. (This could be listed as a pro, but maybe some of y'all are ****** who enjoy watching the Kings continually get top picks and fail)
- NBA major markets would get a competitive advantage over top hyped rookies as they will be pushed their by shoe companies and endorsement deals (NBA will probably look at this a pro. It's good for the NBA to have Lakers/Knicks be good)
- The fun of making mock drafts would be lost, but they would be replaced by guessing who gets who and for how much. That admittedly is probably less fun than doing mock drafts though.
As a Utah fan I have no idea how anyone would dislike this. The Jazz would benefit an incredible deal by having no draft. Yes, so would the Lakers/Knicks, but that doesnt mean Utah wouldn't thrive with it either. The fact of the matter is that the Jazz would have a higher ability to land a top 10 draft prospect every year than they would by winning 50 games a season and competing but never truly challenging the top teams.
I googled the article you are referencing and he never said he wanted a hard cap, he said he wanted a harder cap.
You didn't need to google I posted a link to the exact quote.
Major markets get a distinct advantage and you said it would be good for Utah?
Bro, you've lost it.
All the best.
So I should read one quote from a huge article and take your word for it? https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/adam-silver-my-preference-would-be-to-have-a-harder-cap/
Of course he went into negotiations and asked for a hard cap. You negotiate and you take a hard stance like "We want a hard cap" then the players say no, and you work from there and meet in the middle. Silver has to work for all 30 owners, so he has to represent all their interest. He knows he has owners on both sides of the fence, so he negotiates from a position of a hard cap full well knowing he is going to meet in the middle and just get a "harder" cap that has stiffer penalties for LT offenders, which is what happened.
So because big markets win that means Utah has to lose? Do you even think about it or just read that part and lose your ****?
How has the current draft system helped Utah at all? The Jazz draft some good players, get good enough to win 50+ games, then get stuck and have to rinse/wash/repeat in hopes they land a transcendent super-star in the 3 year window they suck ***. Tell me how that is good for the NBA or the Jazz?
Please, just use your ****ing brain.