Too loonies who are the smartest guys at ESPN, and yet I still haven’t heard a reason as to why it wouldn’t work. So I’m an idiot cause you can’t come up with a reason why it wouldn’t?
See the problem is you’re evaluating this only in today’s NBA and not considering how the landscape of the league would change and how it traditionally would look.
A rookie would sign sign in Sacramento over Dallas because Sacramento offers more money, it’s actually quite simple. (Or maybe...
It’s not if you actually take a bit of time to actually think about it, cause I still haven’t seen anyone mention a smart reason why it’s not a good idea, feel free to give me one when you come up with it rather than just say it’s dumb
Sure in this current scenario the Lakers have a ton of cap space, but that’s not always going to be the case, it rewards teams for good planning. No there’s not going to be more super teams created because you still have to project how good the players actually will be and it gives the players...
To answer your question Bosox, rookies would go to Orlando over the Lakers because of money or playing time. You’d have to adjust the rookie max salary so a team can offer an AD alike prospect $12M a year or so when the big markets won’t have the space to bring them in.
So what exactly would be wrong with it? Teams would have to be better at their jobs when scouting rookies? Is that really a bad thing? All I’ve seen is that it’s a bad idea and no one provides a good reason why it’s a bad idea. It would completely eliminate tanking
So it’s a foregone conclusion LeBron is going to the Lakers and that’s the only place Kawhi wants to go even though it’s reported he would be fine with the Knicks and just wants to go to LA (home) ok then