and besides, if some people are at $65 mil with 5 players already, all it means is having a really shitty bench, or good players for cheap. and if people want the cap at 90 and 70 million, just meet halfway at 80. That way, those that are nearing the cap still have 15-20 million to spend on the bench?
I just assumed we'd try to be as close to the NBA luxury tax as possible and drafted accordingly. The only team currently over $90M is the entire NBA are the Lakers. The mean is in the $66M to $70M range. http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm If you take the high end Lakers and low end Grizzlies it averages out to $73M. I think $70M is very realistic.
ok, my main point is i didnt want to fuck people over because these rules were not defined before the start of the draft. i introduced this because until this point there were NO restrictions on total salary, so im with yall on this. can we agree on 80 max, 50 min?
Look at the payrolls of the Lakers, Celtics, Mavericks, Magic, Nuggets, Suns, Spurs, and Jazz. Those are roughly the top 1/3 of the teams in the league, wins-wise. The defending champs are 150% of the LT.
and truly, cap space is only as good as the player you can entice to sign with it. with all of the ballyhoo over this years upcoming star free agents, i wouldnt be surprised at all if not a single one of them changed teams. teams like the nets/knicks could end up holding their dicks.
I saw we use the NBA numbers. I suggested a set of rules for dealing with the tax earlier in the thread. I think they're fair and would also result in decent fun for us going forward. On the other hand, I think making up a number out of the air will decrease the fun for me quite a bit. Shape, myself, and others drafted with finances in mind. If we make up some absurdly high number going forward, that ultimately makes it sort of arbitrary. Why pick $x instead of $y? Let's just stick with what the league does. It'll eliminate a lot of arguments.
i am absolutely in favor of replicating the nba rules. this cap is applying only to the draft, once we start we will be using the nba's actual cap numbers. i just didnt want to get to a point where a team has a 150 million dollar payroll, with no consequences.
I think we said we were playing with the LT from the beginning. By the way, let me restate the rule I suggested here:
Oh, I got ya. I dunno, I guess I don't care too much. You can only play 5 guys at a time, so I tend to think a team with a $150M payroll is probably not going to be super great anyway. Unless they made the final four, they'd have to start letting people walk anyway. Even if they don't, they'll probably start trading guys away.
yeah i also thought that was logical, but imo there needs to be a small amount of wiggle room. if you are consistently in the playoffs/winning titles, you can afford to have a higher payroll, or at the very least gain the ability to go over by some predetermined amount for the following year.
haha i love how everybody jocks that trade. late 1st round picks = 3 million dollars kurt thomas salary that season = 9 million dollars, they traded him for an additional 1st round pick. 3 1st round picks for 9 million dollars. paul allen buys a pick every year, and didnt need cap space to do that, whats the difference?
in what lifetime? EXPIRINGS *helped* get pau gasol. and some would argue that marc gasol is a fine return in addition to that. whats with the succession of epic fails here?
