Re: Another cap suggestion

[j.hironaka@unesco.org]

Adam Suchocki wrote:

> Giving teams the right of first refusal on Bird Exemption players is a
> good idea, but it is something the union bargained to get rid of two
> collective bargaining agreements ago.  The players are against this
> for several reasons Besides stopping a team from bidding against
> itself (ala Kevin Garnett and the TWolves), it restricts player
> movement.  This really is seen as a problem by players and agents.
> David Robinson has publicly stated that being able to leave a bad team
> is more important to him than unlimited money (of course, his idea of
> limited money may be 20 million a year).  Several other players have
> said the same thing.  They would rather take a pay cut to leave the
> team they are currently on  (............)

Hi:

Just for the record, I  thought the crucial distinction in Jim's idea
was to propose the exact opposite of the "right of first refusal" on LBE
players. In other words, player's can choose whichever offer to accept.
In principle, I suppose the player could even accept a third offer at a
lower salary.

In any case, such a system probably would not restrict player movement
IMO any more than the present CBA. It's main effect (I think) would be
to make high-end salaries better reflect actual supply and demand within
this imperfect (capped) market.

If there are flaws in the argument, one may be that teams can't even
really begin the process of negotiating with their own top free agents
until the moment a second team intercedes with a competing offer.  This
could lead to a lot of free agents sitting out long periods waiting for
the "right" rival offer sheet to finally appear in their mailbox. It's
not as if a Karl Malone-type guy would happily accept the only other
alternative of signing for whatever little room may be left under his
present team's cap.

****