Scully, I don't see how it advantages teams with a lot of players with bird rights as much as you think. First, we still need to stay under the hard cap regardless. Having the bird rights to a player doesn't mean I can just go out and blow my cap space, then walk back into the office and sign half a dozen of my own guys simply using bird rights. I have $15m I can add to the cap holds, so if I have a few guys in line for significant raises and there is even just one team out there with cap space and making offers then I will have to choose between bidding on anyone else's free agents, or letting my own guys walk. Secondly, beating whatever offer is placed on my own guys is likely going to mean I overpay for them, which in turn bites me in the ass the moment I want to trade one of them, as noone wants the guys with the hefty contracts given buyouts are at 75%.
I'm not saying the advantage is insignificant, in fact I think the advantage should be significant since the whole concept of bird rights is to allow teams to keep their rosters relatively intact, so they aren't punished for drafting/trading for quality players. It is a balance thing, and given none of us have been through offseason free agency here we are all speculating on what the end result will be. My concern, like silentjim, is that the current scenario will reward teams in a very arbitrary manner, it will reward teams whose auctions end later, whereas with the scenario I suggested we are rewarding teams with the ability to keep their rosters intact, up to the point the hard cap allows.
You've argued the advantage in holding bird rights then becomes pervasive, but I think given teams will still only have $15m between the two caps, and that GM's would be shooting themselves in the foot signing all but one, perhaps two of their guys to that kind of coin, it isn't necessarily so
Eradicating Marijuana one blunt at a time