|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Mar 11, 2014 23:06:30 GMT
I think that we should set a luxury tax type penalty for teams that are constantly around 90-100 million dollars.
|
|
Bob McAdoo
Former Pistons GM
Rookie
Posts: 168
Jan 1, 2015 19:27:55 GMT
|
Post by Bob McAdoo on May 5, 2014 2:21:19 GMT
After seeing the Rockets-Hornets-Pelicans deal, I started thinking about why we haven't implemented protected lottery picks? It would make sense implementing them to try and stay as realistic as possible and they would make trading for draft picks more interesting... Hey Billy I agree, I was kind of surprised at not seeing this. It requires a bit more attention to detail and record-keeping but I'd support this.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on May 13, 2014 12:30:14 GMT
The main problem with this is that protected lottery picks can get insanely complex at times. Such as the case where a pick is traded over multiple years and it is at first lottery protected, then top 10, top 5, top 3; those types of cases will need to be tracked in detail.
I am not sure of the NBA rules, but in the case where picks are protected, how does that work with not being able to trade 1st rounders in consecutive years? And with protected picks, this also ties downs GM's picks for multiple years, but I imagine it is worth it if a team can protect their pick.
I am in favor of it. It would require more book keeping on Ian's part. But I'd imagine an excel sheet keeping track and then uploading it wouldn't be a lot of work, but it would just add to his already large work load for the league.
In the short term, I don't think protecting picks will be a big deal as so many of the picks have been traded already. But, long term, it will benefit a lot of teams but require some work.
|
|
|
Post by Jay Z on May 13, 2014 13:35:24 GMT
as i was super curious in what Charles was talking about with how to trade picks after you have a protected one floating out there, through Larry Coon's salary faq
"If a team trades two future first round picks and the first pick is protected, then the first pick would be conveyed in the first draft in which it is not a protected pick (as described above), and the second pick would be conveyed in the first allowable draft (per the Stepien rule) in which that pick is not protected (i.e., two years after the first pick). But since both picks must be conveyed within seven years, the protection on the first pick cannot last longer than four years (i.e., the first pick must be conveyed by the fifth year). A team can have no more than one trade with such a waiting period in effect at any time."
The NBA doesn't allow a pick to be traded outside of 7 years, unlike our own league that doesn't allow a team to trade its own pick more then 4 years out. So, if we adopted protected picks (which i would be for), a team in our league would not be able to protect a pick longer then four years.
|
|
|
Post by Jay Z on May 13, 2014 13:52:38 GMT
I think that we should set a luxury tax type penalty for teams that are constantly around 90-100 million dollars. Since the new CBA even the big time cities/franchises have to work around the luxury tax penalties in the NBA and i would like to see something introduced that adds that extra attention to detail for teams that are floating around that type of team salary. Personally, I'd like to introduce a hard cap on top of our soft cap, with a time frame for teams to plan for it and not just penalize the teams that are already there.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on May 13, 2014 14:44:11 GMT
Perhaps making only one type of protected pick available would be OK like only have top 5 protected picks or top 10 protected picks and that's it. So we don't have all the dumb top5 this season, top10 next season etc.
|
|