2016-17 NBA PLAYOFFS THREAD
- Thread starter Elizah Huge
- Start date
So you think somehow the other 29 teams are getting 79 prospects before Utah touches one? And that's going to happen every year?
In this FA rookie world is there salary restrictions for Rookies like there are now? If not I think that could/would ruin the league since teams would overpay for the top picks every year. Things like that could help the Jazz if big market teams drop the bank on some rookie they think will be the next big thing and they are a bust. Although every team is at a huge risk for that but would be required to pay them a lot for a chance to sign any decent rookie prospect.
IDK, not sure on all the rules and how to best do it.
I liked the rookie voucher rule, each team gets two and they can trade them. That would prevent one team from just outright signing a ton of players. I think it would be better for their not to be a cap to how much you can pay rookies, just treat them like regular free agents.
You could take the voucher concept a step forward and designate two separate vouchers, one that allows you to spend an unlimited amount on a single rookie's contract and another that has a cap to it. That would effectively act as something that would prevent one team from getting two star players (or two players that are deemed to be high value on the market, they could still get lucky and find a player no one else was high on that ends up being a star) in 1 draft (unless they traded for two uncapped vouchers).
So incoming rookies would have 3 choices: take a bigger uncapped contract offer from a team (only 30 available), take a smaller capped contract offer from a team (only 30 available), or wait until the designated rookie free agent period is over and sign for the rookie minimum with any team.
You could even turn it into a TV even ala National Signing Day where prospects go up to a podium and announce what team they have signed with.
Last edited:
Golden State looks ready for the next round.
I'm not even watching...
Hmm, I think I would be okay with the Voucher idea if each team got 3. 1 voucher that is on a high rookie salary scale something along the lines of 3-4 years at 5 million per year. Then you get 2 at lower rookie scale but they can be lower years as well. Like maybe 2-4 years at 1-2 million per year. I definitely want rookie scale contracts though, no limits on the amount you can spend on rookies would ruin the league very fast. Rookies would be the highest paid players outside of a couple elite players, based on potential and teams needing to get an elite player to win it all.
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
This.
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
Im sure you're wrong
Why 3? Teams only have 2 picks in the current system. The likelihood of a team regularly using all 3 vouchers would be rare and it would just create too much of a surplus and make them less valuable trade chips.
If teams want to ruin themselves by overpaying for rookies that is their prerogative. I dont think it would be that big of an issue.
If teams just over-payed for rookies constantly that would eventually show up and the rookies would start getting paid less because no one would have cap room to sign rookies past the MLE (or w/e the rookie equivalent of the MLE would be for rookies). I just hate the idea of max contracts and protecting teams from their own stupidity. Max contracts dont properly value the difference between top players as everyone in the top 60 or so of players gets paid equally, and the same concept would apply to rookies. Top rookies shouldn't get paid same, their pay should reflect what the market is willing to pay them and that would be better for competition.
Then why does anyone come to workouts for the Jazz? Why dont they just tell the Jazz to not draft them and let them either A.)hit free agency or B.) fall to the knicks or lakers in the 2nd round?
elan_prodigy
Well-Known Member
2 is fine. Most teams to after at least one undrafted kid anyways that is why I did three. Especially with the new rules of having 2 more flexible roster spots.
Overpaying for rookies would be worth it. Every team would overpay to get the next LeBron. Even is that hinders the rest of their roster and they kind of suck. You have to keep trying for those players. Even the NFL rookie contacts stuff sucks and is bad for the league. When your highest paid players are rookies it's lame and that would be the case in the NBA if they went that route. I don't mind player caps though, I think they are good for the league.
If you don't want max salaries for players so you want minimums? Seems like you can't have a minimum salary for the same reasons you are arguing against max caps.
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
Getting drafted pays better than not getting drafted.
Jazz would still get players. They would fill out a roster. But the Dwayne wades, kobe bryants, lebrons etc would never have the jazz at the top of their list for where they choose to go if it's up to them.
Well yeah, the "undrafted FA" thing comes in. It would be the equivalent of all the players who are left over after the 60 contracts are signed (if teams choose to use them all) in a given time period. Then all the rookies who didnt get signed then could be signed to minimum contracts only.
And if franchises wanted to bet the farm on a rookie, that is their option. This benefits the smart teams who can attract the right rookies and scout well and arent going to dump their entire books on something that doesnt exist "the next Lebron".
And no, I dont see the reason for max salaries not existing being the same as minimum salaries existing. Unions set minimum salaries so labor can't be exploited and to protect the incoming rookies who dont have a voice in CBA negotiations.
Are the Jazz getting that player while they win 50 games anyway? Do the Jazz have a better chance at landing those types of player under the system I'm proposing or during the draft while they are wining 50+ games?
The system I'm proposing there are still 60 selections and each team only has two. Not everyone can sign with the Lakers/Knicks. The same reason players workout for the Jazz now, they would workout for the Jazz under the new system and be happy to receive a contract offer from them.
Does anyone here think the Jazz wouldn't have a legitimate shot at one of the top 5 PG's in this draft? You dont think the Jazz could get the French PG (Frank)?
Somehow the Jazz have the best player in Europe listing the Jazz as one of his top choices but people think it's impossible for the Jazz to get a lottery prospect under this rule proposal? Might it be unlikely? Sure, but the key thing to remember: Its more likely under this system than the current one that punishes teams for being as good as the Jazz but not as great as super-teams.
Somehow the Jazz have the best player in Europe listing the Jazz as one of his top choices but people think it's impossible for the Jazz to get a lottery prospect under this rule proposal? Might it be unlikely? Sure, but the key thing to remember: Its more likely under this system than the current one that punishes teams for being as good as the Jazz but not as great as super-teams.
RJF
Well-Known Member
Simple fix there, not perfect, reward the by best non playoff qualifying record and go in order from best record on down. Forces teams not to tank, at least until the last few weeks. Likely prevents what the Spurs did to get TD from happening.
RJF
Well-Known Member
There's no way to fix it all. It's obvious by the discussion here. Pick the battles that can be one. Wanna prevent tanking? Don't give lotto picks to perpetually ****ty teams.