Another fun (maybe not great) idea: the Continuity Subsidy could account for play at local colleges. If a player comes straight from ASU/UoA/NAU/GCU to the Suns, there’s a CS in play. Heck, even include high school if it was all in the same market.
This would give a bit of an advantage to teams in markets with strong college programs and might seem a little unfair to players who don’t have an opportunity to take advantage of it, but I don’t think either of these effects would be large enough to be problematic.
Could lead to some interesting bidding competition between the two LA teams trying to get prospects from UCLA/USC, especially if they’ve been there multiple years. Also could help players stay in school if they think there’s a good chance of moving on to their local NBA team.
What I would very strongly prefer would be a system of rules that accomplishes…
- incentivize players to stay in college longer.
Stay in School Subsidy
This is paid by the PCT to each rookie during his rookie season. 33% of his rookie salary for every year in college after the first.
Grows quickly. Not only do you get a considerably better percentage for each year you stay in school, you also hope to get a better rookie salary.
Not sure how you’d deal with international players in this scheme. Do you penalize them for not playing in college? Credit them for professional experience after age 18?
I’m not sure this is a great idea. The NCAA should be bribing players to stay in school. If the NBA does it for them, they never will. Well, they probably never will anyway. What the heck, go for it.
Each team quietly submits its best bid. Top bid wins the auction, second highest bid sets the price. (You never pay more than you have to to win the auction, so go ahead and submit your best bid.) Winning team decides which prospect comes to their team and gets that salary.
Repeat until there are no more bids.
(As with any bidding system with a small number of potential bidders, the biggest threat is collusion. The team that can afford the second most bids less than they otherwise might, getting the top team a better price and getting themselves a favor in return. You’d have to watch out for this.)
It’s true that it’s hard to know what these prospects are going to be worth. Teams that are fairly good at projecting this will do better than teams that are just guessing. That’s as it should be.
The auction system allows prospects to get their fair market value. Does it make sense that a “Throw a dart, no good prospects in this draft” #1 pick like Anthony Bennett should cost the same as a heralded #1 pick like Wemby?
Got my terminology wrong. The auction system I’m describing is not a Dutch auction. I’ll see if I can find out the correct term.
Your choice of course but your thread got over 3000 views. Just because people don't comment doesn't mean they don't read and appreciate them.
OK, thanks. I’ll pay more attention to the Views column.
Re: CBA Proposal
Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2025 3:57 pm
by Mori Chu
I think more folks should utilize the "Like" button if they enjoy a post but don't intend to reply right away. I always try to "Like" the news threads each week and the Game Day threads because I really appreciate folks taking the time to make those for everyone else's benefit (THANK YOU!). And any longer posts that clearly took more time and effort and get me thinking, like Cap's, deserve the same in my book.
Re: CBA Proposal
Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2025 7:59 pm
by Cap
My original post may have intimidated with its length, so here’s a bite size version:
The cap was originally implemented to mitigate the advantage held by teams that can afford to pay more. In the proposed system, players are paid with “scrip” and all teams get the same basic allowance of scrip. The ability to pay players is entirely divorced from the finances of individual teams, eliminating that advantage, and thus the need for a cap.
No cap means no need for myriad exceptions, individual limits, allowable raises, aprons, and rules on who can be traded for whom. Just let the market work. Use subsidies to nudge it in desired directions.
Not that anyone who was intimidated is still reading this thread.
My original post may have intimidated with its length, so here’s a bite size version:
The cap was originally implemented to mitigate the advantage held by teams that can afford to pay more. In the proposed system, players are paid with “scrip” and all teams get the same basic allowance of scrip. The ability to pay players is entirely divorced from the finances of individual teams, eliminating that advantage, and thus the need for a cap.
No cap means no need for myriad exceptions, individual limits, allowable raises, aprons, and rules on who can be traded for whom. Just let the market work. Use subsidies to nudge it in desired directions.
Not that anyone who was intimidated is still reading this thread.
Oh, OK. That makes a lot of sense!
Re: CBA Proposal
Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2025 8:45 pm
by Cap
That should have been my intro to my original post. I just dove straight into the implementation without giving readers a broad framework to understand the motivations of it all.
That should have been my intro to my original post. I just dove straight into the implementation without giving readers a broad framework to understand the motivations of it all.
That's a good point. There is an art to making a great, digestible post.
That should have been my intro to my original post. I just dove straight into the implementation without giving readers a broad framework to understand the motivations of it all.
That's a good point. There is an art to making a great, digestible post.
That should have been my intro to my original post. I just dove straight into the implementation without giving readers a broad framework to understand the motivations of it all.
That's a good point. There is an art to making a great, digestible post.
