Isaac
Years ago
Marquee players: imports vs locals
The new NBL marquee player rule is that only locals can serve as a marquee player. With this, is the league depriving itself of one of their best opportunities to boost its profile?
How exactly the salaries will be judged by a panel and contribute to the replacement of the points cap is unknown to fans, from what I can tell.
If you want James Ennis for $500k, you've only got $600k to spend on 9 players before either the judged contracts hit the cap or the luxury tax makes things very expensive. Is he on the books for say $300k or the full $500k? The panel assesses him at market rate, so presumably it's the $500k? What's the market rate for Josh Childress? $500k+?
Would you want three big name locals as marquee players maxing out at $600k under the cap ($150k, $200k, $250k - there's a sliding scale)? It deprives you of import spots and the sliding scale makes each successful marquee less attractive.
So, unless I'm missing something, this will likely optimise for 1-2 marquee locals and 2-3 imports depending on retained players. Yet the imports are more likely to be role players than not. The Australians in Europe or edge of the NBA who might come home are not what I would put in the drawcard category - Newley, Maric, Bairstow, etc.
Drawcard imports are likely to help the league. Josh Childress and Al Harrington got a lot of attention. Jerome Randle too. Quality locals would win games and draw fans that way, but will that attract new fans to the broadcasts?
Should one marquee spot be available to use on a restricted player?