Tuesday, November 29, 2011
CBA cap pool rules
I like the idea of having a pool of money for each team, based on where they draft. But apparently, that pool of money is only for players you actually sign.
So, if you had 10MM$ allocated to you, and you only sign your #1 pick, but don’t sign your picks 2 through 10, then what you are actually allocated is only say 3MM$. (Your allocation is based on where the player was selected, and if he signed.)
What’s the unintended consequence here? Well, if you really really want a guy, and you are afraid he will go to college instead, you will intentionally tank the draft of picks 2 through 10, signing guys to 100,000$ deals, and taking the extra money allocated to those picks and putting them into your #1 pick. So, you underslot picks 2 through 10 so you can overslot pick #1.
Now, the idea of underslotting and overslotting was always the idea here, so there was some wiggle room, but it wasn’t the idea that you would underslot to such an extent.
In the end, a team that makes a good-faith effort to draft a quality player that they can’t sign ends up losing the allocation money, but a team that makes a bad-faith effort to draft a subpar player that they do sign ends up gaining the remaining allocation money.
When you put in these kinds of artificial controls that goes against a free market, unintended consequences will rear its ugly head.
It’s sort of what Billy Beane was doing as detailed in Moneyball: drafting guys he knew he could sign. So, if he knows he can’t sign the best player available at 3MM$, then he’ll go find a guy who will sign at 1MM$. Every other team would have loved to get that guy at say 1.1MM$, but they’re still in the part of the draft where there are plenty of better players. So, Beane gets assurances that the guy will sign for 1MM$ and drafts him in the first round.
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 391 pages 1 2 3 > Last ›Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date