When the NFL went to it's salary cap system, complete randomness took over the league. Strange upstart teams like the first Brady-led Patriots or the Panthers would all of sudden be making Super Bowl appearances, to the point it seemed like it was all a game chance. Part of that was due to the nature of that game (small, extremely unbalanced schedules + the sheer randomness of turnovers= parity!). But part of it was due to the cap: teams were still figuring it all out. Eventually some of the smarter teams--Patriots, Colts, etc.--discovered that in a salary cap era, it's foolish to try to build a perfect team. Can't be done. You have to instead identify key components of a roster to invest heavily in, and be willing to shuffle the pieces in other areas, and hope your key components can carry the day.
Is this applicable to the NBA? It's apples and oranges in a lot of ways, obviously. But it got me to thinking about Rambis's offense. (I know, I know, before someone points out they're not exactly your father's triangle system--or they don't intend to be--please note that the players call it the triangle, and Rambis hints at it. For the sake of discussion, we'll just call it a variant of any number of movement-style offenses). It would appear that running this style of offense demands versatility out of all its players: your bigs need to be creative passers, your wings need to be versatile, do-it-all types. Is this sustainable for a smaller-market team wishing to avoid the luxury tax? Wouldn't it seem, assuming you found enough players that could make this thing sing, this is a less-cost-efficient strategy given these players are skilled to the point that they're going to be awfully expensive? The Lakers have Lamar Odom coming off the bench and he's paid 3X the Wolves' highest-paid player, after all. Is a Utah- or Phoenix-style offense--built almost entirely around a 2-man pick-and-roll game, supplemented with role players that are more specific (as opposed to diverse) in their skillsets a more viable alternative?
That being said, we have seen smaller market team employ passing offenses to great success. The Webber/Adelman Kings and KG/Saunders Wolves come to mind. Both those teams, IIRC, were in or close to luxury tax territory (in a more vibrant economy), and it didn't hurt they were led by uniquely skilled, HoF power forwards. Today we could probably count teams like the Blazers, too.
Also, while it would seem it's easier to find role players for a Jazz-style team, maybe that's just a bias in the league right now. Before he went crazy, Tennessee's Tyler Smith would have seemed like a nice piece to a ball-movement team. Or previously, maybe guys like the Calathes brothers? Is there actually a so-called market inefficiency when it comes to players like this? Or is it they don't get drafted high because they tend to turn into Luke Walton?
I guess I'm saying I don't know. What do people think? Should the limitations of the salary cap influence team-building and system strategies? Or am I overthinking this?