Re: A proposal to end the NBA strike

["Jim Meninno" <jim_meninno@hotmail.com>]

Let me see if I understand.  Team A offers their free agent all of their 
cap money, say it's 10 million per year.  Team B beats that by offering 
12 million.  Does that mean that team B also has to put 2 million into 
an account that Team A can then use on other free agents?  It does sound 
like a creative version of the luxury tax, but it seems like the one 
team that can't sign the FA is his current team, or am I 
misunderstanding.  Is that why you call it the Anti-Bird rule?

If my understanding is correct, I'd consider that a serious flaw.  

Jim

>From: STRAUSS@WCUVAX1.WCU.EDU
>Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 11:00:38 -0500 (EST)
>Subject: A proposal to end the NBA strike
>To: brskeeter@ssu.edu, ck75348@navix.net, JStephens@unca.edu,
>        RBernstein@MVCC.EDU, celtics@igtc.com
>
>NBA Solution:
>
>3. Any player money >56.8% goes to an owner's fund to be used to help 
in "Anti-Bird"
>rule.
>
>4. Anti-Bird rule states that any team that loses a star player to a 
higher bidder, 
>can use these monies either to (1) sign another free agent or (2) sign 
own free 
>agent later, when/if he becomes free again. In other words, this money 
will allow 
>poorer teams to exceed their normal cap limits. They could offer former 
stars a 
>lower amount, and "players excess" used to generate a higher result for 
player. 
>Result? Both team and player win.
>
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com