That was a historically bad draft. Bennett would have been like 10th in the draft after that and 8th in the draft before it (I have no idea if this is correct, but you get the point)
Except there's no such thing as a first overall pick in this scenario. I think you would agree that not all drafts are created equal, right? Teams aren't going to value Bennett as a max rookie and therefore won't be giving him that type of contract. And even if they do the teams need be able to...
No one is going to sign Bennett to a max contract, you don't HAVE to give out a max to the rookies, you give them what you think they deserve to the point that the contract will add value to your franchise.
And just because KAT will be paid what he's deserves in the future doesn't mean he...
If you actually want to get more parity in the league you would have to establish a hard cap, eliminate max contracts and eliminate the draft. But there's a number of reasons none of these will ever happen
You rebuild by signing rookies rather than hoping you are able to draft the rights of one of them. The middle teams get the middle of the pack young talent like it is now
The Rookies will go where they and their agent thinks fits best for their career, if a smaller market team wants to sign a rookie they will be able to by offering more money. A good coaching staff could be as attractive to a rookie as the market they play in
There's no projected first round and second round, you just sign them to a contract that has a max value similar to how the league works now, just don't allow them to sign multiple rookies to the rookie max
1. It's a bit easier to pay those kinds of contracts to established stars (image wise)
2. Pretty sure there was some shady stuff going on in regards to those 3, and Wade probably passed the info along to Pat that something like this could happen.
3. Heat still had to use a sign and trade for...
Knicks have hardly any cap room next year. And you really think teams would lock up 70% of their cap in a few rookies? I doubt it.
And that's a situation that will rarely occur
I'm not sure teams will be giving Bagley nearly $25M a year, maybe you set the rookie cap at 20%, max it out at 3 years. I'm not sure how it would all work, but it rewards smarter teams rather than forcing the best prospects to go to the most incompetent teams
I don't think it worsens parity at all (though I don't think we should even care about that), the worse teams will have more cap space to sign the rookies than the competing teams will. And yea giving out that money to 18 year olds is a risk that not all teams will be willing to or should take...
I've been pretty spot on this past month. I have a lot more faith that those who share these opinions know a lot more about these subjects than the people on this board. Besides you still haven't provided any solid arguments against my takes