I am not sure why you would assume that a team is bringing in a less talented player. However, teams always try and upgrade and sometimes that means less minutes for players you already have on your team. Sometimes guys are brought in that are extra big bodies. Not necessarily better but useful for a team. Some teams simply play their benches more. Some teams have more rookies. So, depending on talent levels, there are going to be some teams more attractive then others from a playing standpoint.
Your entry was:
"
I see those 2nd & 3rd tier players not sticking around and going to teams that will probably unofficially guarantee them more playing time to give them a higher salary slot."
My response was:
"If teams were offering more minutes to players to get them to come to their team, they would have to sacrifice those minutes from more talented players already on their team, making those pre-existing players unhappy. If they were lacking more talented players, then these guys would naturally migrate to those teams anyway, making your point no different than today's present day signings; ie, a team needs a PF so goes out and signs a PF."
You seemed to be saying a team would promise a player more minutes if they would come and play on their team. I was saying that if a team does this and already has a talented player in place, as in the case of acquiring a back-up, they would have to sacrifice some of that talented player's minutes, making him unhappy. If a team doesn't have a talented player already in place, then this signing would be no different than what you see happen today. Players go to where they play more minutes.
Barbosa is an immensely talented player who deserved the salary he was getting IMO. Because of guys that have joined the team etc... his minutes were greatly reduced. Sometimes it is a coaching change, system change or simply teams trying to get other guys more playing time. There are a ton of different reasons a players minutes could fluctuate from year to year during the life of a contract. Try telling a guy that is just as good as most bench players in the NBA...you don't deserve the same money they are getting because you play less on this team (which could simply be more talented). Especially when he knows he can get that higher salary slot with a different team.
Let's not cry too much for Barbosa under the proposed plan. Not a good example for your point imo. Last year, Barbosa made about 6.6 million. Since he was injured more than 35 games, under the new plan, he was eligible for 90% of his previous season's salary or the average of the last 3 season's, whichever was greater. Let's take the average of the previous 3 seasons. His mpg over these last 3 seasons were around 33 in 06-07, 30 in 07-08, and 25 in 08-09. His salaries during this time would've been around 10 million (probably a low estimate for the 06-07 season), 7 million (likewise a low estimate most likely), and 6 million, respectively. A 90% average of this would be about 7 million. He would've received more this year under the proposed plan than he actually did, to say nothing of the extra salary he would've received the previous seasons. Under the new system, Barbosa would have been better off financially. To shine even more light on the advantages this offers players, Dragic would've made about 5 million this past season under the proposed plan. In contrast, he actually made about 1.8 million. Quite unfair, considering his contributions.
How you would like to be a player in tomorrow's NBA where you never know what your income is going to be mostly based on how much you play? I am a salaried worker myself and I know if I work 20 hours or 60 I still have a certain level of income to rely on which helps dictate my life style. Do you think NBA players are not going to want the same? Depending on which slot you fall in from year to year can make a huge difference in your income if too much emphasis is placed on # of minutes played.
Your making it sound as if these guys would be constantly sweating out their next paycheck. That wouldn't be the case. Fluctuations would not be that drastic. In most cases, players would end up making more than they are currently. All the plan is trying to do is excise "deadweight", i.e., undeserved contract salary. Let me ask you, as a salaried worker, how would you like it if you produced much more working full-time than the guy sitting next to you working part-time but only received half his salary? How is it fair for a guy like Jermaine O'neal to make over 23 mil this past year, while another guy makes a fraction of this producing more, and subjects himself to the possibility of a career ending injury every night? How is it for that guy? In any company, salary should be quantified by how important you are to the organization, otherwise the company becomes inefficient and can't sustain itself. Similar to the economic model of the Invisible Hand, the plan seems to have the inherent tendency to sort itself out if left to its own devices. It's actually quite American. The less impact you make, the less you're on the floor, the less money you make. The more impact you make, the more you're on the floor, the more money you make. The inefficient approach of pay regardless of production is gone. However, there are socialistic safety nets built in as witnessed with the injury plan, just like in our modern American society.
If I am a free agent that isn't a slot 1 player (they will get there minutes), you better believe I am going to pick a team that promises me the most minutes. In a perfect world we all want to believe that players care more about winning and getting titles then money. The reality is different. The only guys that are going to be loyal to organization are the stars in this system.
Players will naturally migrate where they will receive the most minutes. This is one of the most attractive points of the idea. It encourages talent to spread out, rather than accumulate on one team. However, there are added rewards for winning built in. You failed to mention that.
There is zero chance the players ratify this type of system. If they did, gone are the days in which a pretty good player signs with your team to get you over the top knowing that he might have to sacrifice some minutes for playing on a winning team. Especially, when that player knows the money won't be there from a slot perspective if he does.
I wouldn't say zero. Especially since most players would be receiving
more under this plan than they currently do. The only players who would see a significant cut in salary are those that don't deserve it, like JO last season. You could be right, up to a point, about players not joining a team because they would have to sacrifice minutes, but is this necessarily a bad thing? This is what would keep certain markets from dominating the talent pool. And let's not completely forget about the incentives placed on winning. You seem to keep leaving that part out. Besides, I'm not sure your assumption is an absolute. We see player's taking pay cuts all the time to play on winning teams. Bottom line, the plan streamlines the salary pool. It cuts salaries of players who contribute less and gives it to players that contribute more.
