cap

[Bob Miller <bob@pointofchoice.com>]

>you will end up with 2 people making all the money
> and the other 10-13 players making the minimum.

Why don't they follow football's example and institute two "franchise"
players designations not subject to a hard cap. This way, 10 players get
hard-capped at, say, $33 million, while the other two can get whatever the
team wants to pay them. That way, Michael still gets his due but the others
don't work for the minumum. They could also include set bonuses that don't
count against the cap based on years of service.

I also like the idea of having financial rewards tied to team performance.
In the old days, players made quite a bit for winning the whole thing
relative to their yearly salary. Now, they make relatively little. How
about dramatically increasing the winner's share (division winner,
conference winner, champion) as an added incentive as part of an overall
deal?