Re: Slots....

[Alex Wang <awang@mit.edu>]

Tom,

This proposal isn't going to end any conversations because the current 
CBA is the one we're living with for the next six years. So we have to
talk about cap maneuvering and Larry Bird exceptions because that is
the reality.

I think that we'll see these situations, where teams are trading players
rather than paying them, become less frequent after next year. We have
the Class of '97 rookies who have proven very little in the league but
demand a lot of money. After they have all been resolved, the Class of
'98 rookies are going to be a lot less troublesome for the owners because
of the new rookie contracts. 

I have to say I'm not a fan of the salary slot idea either, and it's not
because I don't understand it. I think it'll tend to homogenize teams - 
they'll end up being built in the same way, as dictated by slots. Right
now there are teams built around two superstars and role players and
teams with no superstars that go ten deep. I think that's a nice aspect
of the league that will be lost.

Alex

> The conversation about salary caps, un/willingness to spend to get a
> winner, overpriced athletes and cheap owners is a recurring boring loop.
> About a year ago I suggested a way to end the conversation and I'd like
> to revisit this proposal. Basically, each team has 12 payroll slots with
> the highest pay going to the number one slot, next highest to number
> two, etc. Players would be signed to a slot and would receive the
> corresponding pay. (The union and the league would bargain over how much
> each slot would be worth.) The team-player negotiations would revolve
> around which slot the player gets for how many years rather than money.
> Trades wouldn't have to fit around/under salary caps but would have to
> take slots into consideration. No Larry Bird exceptions or other salary
> cap foolishness. The idea is simple so I don't expect it to be
> understood or accepted. Thanks for listening.
> 
> - tom
>