Joking aside, obviously we wouldn’t give up Gobert or Mitchell, and I don’t think they’d want Ingles, but our best offer would be Allen, Bradley, Exum, 3 first round picks, a couple seconds, and the draft rights to Tomic, plus taking back some of their garbage.
You mean like how green Bay is unable to compete in the NFL?
So rather than getting a huge contract and hella endorsement money in a small market you think they would go to new York or LA for the league minimum and hella endorsement money.
So they start trotting the globe, so to speak.
I like the idea of a hard percentage of the cap that weights it much more heavily for the franchise player. Say 50% of the cap can be used on 1 player with a contact of at least 3 years. The 2nd highest paid player can command 15% of the cap. The remainder gets divvied up among the rest. Something like that. So you couldn't have a situation where Curry, Durrant, and Thompson all make close to Max, since by definition only one player could have a true "max" contract per team, and the rest step pretty significant down from there.
This is why they need to take tampering far more seriously. Making statements like this effectively neuters the franchise in future negotiations. If I had an employee, contractor or not, giving away our negotiation terms in a public setting there would be real repercussions. They need stronger ways to address this, like suing for breach of contract in some way, or even just suing for loss of future revenue.
True but it's more about the perception than the actual money imo. They want notoriety. How much notoriety does Vivint provide anyway? And the money is overstated but it's not nothing.
Yeah you're right about the money for the top guys, that's why imo any solution to this needs to drive a bigger divide between Max and non-max contacts.
