Elden Campbell was not very good, and Van Exel and Jones were never more than high profile players on marquee teams who would be role players on good ones. It's hard to give them credit for "drafting" when they are spinning off FA players (Shaq) for traded players (Odom and Butler) for more traded players (Kwame) for more traded players (Gasol).

My model really would be the NFL.

The league thrives best when players have a realistic option of staying on the same team for more than one contract, and I think the NFL, with its restricted free agency and franchise tags, does the job rather well. It also reduces incentives to simply let guys walk when the best possible thing you could get in return is a very low 3rd rounder. But the NFL is not oppressive either, you can still make a shit ton of money and demand a payday on the open market.

I don't like max contracts. I think it accelerates teams paying that much, as big ego'd franchise players will demand they get The Best Of The Best. And once you've reached the threshold where that's the most you can pay, then a player will literally pick the city he wants to play in and be essentially guaranteed he'll be paid that much.

Meanwhile, no max contracts (paired with salary caps for teams) ensures that you can pay any player as much as you want -- but that you're sacrificing how much you can pay your other positions, which is a fantastic chess match that teams have to play in team sports.

I like salary caps for teams, however. I did just see Moneyball though. But the dynamic in baseball, where small market teams simply become developmental programs for bigger programs is a mess. The Royals can't even sign their draft picks in some cases.

I'm agnostic on minimums, however.

The NFL has the most competitive system but wouldn't work for other leagues because their money is guarenteed which the players won't give up. Best way to fix baseball is to not only just split the national TV revenue, but local revenue as well. This would make a more level playing field in the NFL and NBA as well. The Yankees can complain about paying a tax and having the other clubs not spend it on talent all they want. Let's say the Pirates put all the tax money into obtaining talent. They're still $30 million below the league average and that is only about a third of what the Yankees spend. What good would it do? You split the local revenues and the Yankees still have more than anyone else, but that levels the playing field. The players union probably won't like that either because they like the big markets pushing up a higher value for everyone.

The problem with the NFL is that the players have absolutely guarantee on their contracts.

I have a fundamental issue with monopoly's and constricting the individuals right to be employed anywhere that someone would be willing to hire them at a proce they are willing to accept. But that being said...................

The NFL model historically has allowed the employees to move around but also tie the employee to a team. A by-product of this system is to allow a team to build and even the playing field for all teams.

What about the NFL without the Franchise tag?

Kobe wasn't drafted by the Lakers.

Nope. Thats what keeps the NFL from becoming MLB. Not the actial tagging but the threat of the tag makes players more inclined to sign and stay with the team.

Come again?

Based on what part of your grammar you screwed up in that reply, you could be saying a couple different things.