PDA

View Full Version : You are the Commish and the Union Chief, CBA 2017 GO!



Scoots
07-13-2016, 12:36 AM
You have to get the owners and the players to agree, what do you want to change?

If you hate super-teams how do you discourage players from forming them? They are already pretty heavily encouraged to stay with their previous team.

Shorter season?

Hard cap?

Change Max percentages?

No max?

18 player rosters (to allow teams to protect more D-league players)?

Include coaches/staff in the cap?

Lottery changes?

Thoughts?

Saddletramp
07-13-2016, 02:57 AM
One thing I've thought of (although not too much so there's so doubt holes in it-but I'm a bit tipsy so **** it) is to have a hard cap but every team has one uncapped spot. (Have I mentioned this before? Again, **** it.). No idea the parameters without putting a whole lot of research for pros and cons but $100 million(?) plus an uncapped spot. Give teams 5 years to get ready (or the year after whatever the longest contract currently is).

One problem would be that the Knicks/Lakers/Warriors could offer way more than the Milwaukees and OKCs of the world. But there's only so many spots......

Also, should the NBA look at expanding or getting rid of some teams? Give teams five years to get their **** together but some teams are just dysfunctional. This Randive guy ain't cutting it with who he has running the show? He better ship up or shape out. Multi-year tanking? Cut it out.


Meh, I dunno.

Saddletramp
07-13-2016, 03:20 AM
Pfffffft.^. That uncapped idea is ****ing terrible. Never mind.

FOXHOUND
07-13-2016, 03:53 AM
I don't think they need to change all that much, to be honest. I think they did a great job of balancing the BRI and giving the home team an advantage in free agency with the extra year + improved annual increase. The last few years have had a lot of players salaries spike due to the massive climb in cap, especially this year. You don't want to overreact to extremely specific circumstances.

The NBA suggested smoothing the cap to keep inflated salaries down, with the leftover money up front being spread out evenly to all players. The players didn't want this, so they are in no position to complain if they don't like some of the contracts given out in an inflated market while they won't be getting those paydays going forward.

I would start with some simple things that, in hindsight, I can't believe were done so poorly.

1) Rookie Scale contracts should be set to a cap %, rather than flat numbers.

2) All exceptions, MLE, MMLE, room exception, etc., should also be set to a cap % instead of flat numbers. The full MLE this year was about $5.6M. That's an absolute joke that no team can benefit from in this market.

From there, we can go into some more tricky ones.

3) Raise the NBA age limit by one year.

The last raise has paid off tremendously, as NBA talent has completely flourished with more ready players and weeding out insane HS player busts like Kwame Brown, Eddy Curry, etc. While it's much better, there are still many players who come out in a year to cash in when they clearly are not ready to.

This would further help college players develop and separate themselves from their peers. They would be more NBA ready coming in and there would be much less reliance on big project players being drafted so high. This helps greatly limit the bust rate and some of these project players can be slotted down lower where they are a smarter gamble. There are some players who would be hurt by this, but like HS, that's a very small number and it's all about the greater good and overall health of the league.

4) This is a big one - completely change the structure of contracts.

I don't think the max tiers are a problem at all. In fact, I think they are great. While it may be limiting to the very top players, those guys also have the benefit of insane endorsement deals. Sure, Mike Conley may have the same NBA salary as Kevin Durant this season, but who has a $300M deal with Nike? Endorsement deals are just as much part of the NBA machine as their NBA salaries. It's about the overall health of the players association and there are over 400 players to pay. Spread the wealth, take care of everyone and don't worry about a couple of greedy players who make more annually in endorsements alone than all but the top 1% of NBA player salaries.

So where is the change? Here goes - just like the Rookie Scale and Exceptions, change salary structures to be set at cap % instead of flat numbers. You can still have those max tiers of 25%, 30% and 35% and could still have increases worked in, although of course they would have to be adjusted. Maybe it's just as simple as the home team resigning having an annual increase of 2% vs 1%? Or do you even keep the 7.5% and 4.5%? E.g. a 7.5% increase of a 25% salary is an increase of 1.76% vs the 4.5% increase of 1.01%, and so on. I don't know, but easy enough for their money people to sort out.

This would have every single players salaries adjust with the cap accordingly and prevent insane situations like a Stephen Curry making just $12M against a $94M cap. Team building would no longer have the advantage of insane circumstance, but would have to allot a specific cap % investment in their players. This would definitely take an adjustment period to properly iron out, but it's a logical change that would balance out a ton of irregularities.

That's all I got right now, but there is so much lawyer jargon in that CBA that I wouldn't even attempt to discuss. :laugh2:

warfelg
07-13-2016, 08:38 AM
In terms of cap, I've covered a hard cap+1 and how I would work it. I would put that in place. TV money gets a 50/10/40, players/+1 spot/owners split. The 10% in the +1 spot would be equally distributed to cover the number of players there, and if it doesn't cover all of them, the owner would be responsible for covering the rest. If all the players are covered the extra money gets kicked into the next years draft.

Draft reform:
Multiple changes here -
1) Smaller lottery. Reduce the lottery from 14 worst to 12 worst. This way a team that's in the 7-8-9 seed area has the incentive to make the playoffs. Another way to add to this is "playoff bonus" so that teams feel the push to make the playoffs.

2) "Tiered" lottery odds. In a 12 team lotto the 4 worse teams have 12.5% chance at pick one. The 5-8 teams would have a 8.5% chance at pick one. 9-12 would have a 4% chance at pick one. Once pick 1 is awarded, the extra odds get redistributed to the highest tier. Example - Pick one comes from Tier 2, the 8.5% from that team would get split in 4, and assigned to the 4 teams in Tier 1. The top 3 picks are lottoed then we go chalk.

3) And this one is possibly controversial: Take away the age limit and turn it into 2 years removed from high school graduation. But within this a player may go one of two ways: (1) He may go to school/Europe for 2 years and then enter the draft. OR (2) A high school senior may enter the draft but MUST be in the NBDL for the next 2 years. So in this example, Ben Simmons comes straight from high school last year, and the Cavs had pick one. They could pick a player that has been around for 2 years and will hit the court for them right away or can take the player that won't help them but could be the better talent.

4) Addendum to rule 3: A team in the lottery may not select a HS player for more than 2 consecutive years.

5) This kinda goes with rule 2: A team in Tier 1 or 2 for the 3rd consecutive year automatically jumps up a tier. EX - Team x just landed in Tier 1 for 2 consecutive years, and for a 3rd time lands in Tier 1. They would automatically (regardless of record) would bump into Tier 2, and the 5th worst team would automatically bump into Tier 1.

6) Lotto protected picks must fall on a tier. Top 4, top 8, top 12 are the protections that are allowed. Once it's a playoff pick you can use whatever number you want.

FREE AGENCY REFORM
1) Signing moratorium reduced from a week to 2 days.

2) Teams will have an exclusive 3 day window before the moratorium to sign their own FA's if they so choose.

3) Extensions will be done as percentage of the cap numbers until the start of the contract's cap number. EX - Harden signed a max extension a few days ago. Instead of being 30% of the current cap, his extension would kick in next year and be a 4-year extension at 30% of next years cap. This would give players incentive to sign extensions without losing out of money.

CAP REFORM
1) Teams may now cut a player. A team would have 2 choices of what to do with the money and either way a player does not lose out. Option 1 would be to pay him 100% of what's left on the contract up front. NBA would help with 25% of the money owed. The cap hit would be for 50% of what you paid in that year alone. EX - Team X wants to cut a player with 2 years and $36 mil left. They can pay him $36 mil, the NBA pays $9mil of it, and the cap hit is $18mil. Option 2 would be to pay him year by year with a 25% hit to the cap and no NBA help. EX - Team Y wants to cut a player with 4 years and $40mil left. They can pay him $10mil per year still, but the cap hit would only be $2.5 each season.

This would give teams the ability to cut players and create cap room without the players losing any of their money. The two options are to let teams with the cap room that year be able to shed themselves of a bad contract fast, or teams without the cap room be able to create the room over the length of the contract.

2) Retired players cap hits are automatically wiped out.

3) Rookie wages are outside the cap.

RULES:
1) Go to FIBA goaltending rules.

2) Hack-a-blank techniques can now result in a "minor" technical for the coach. 4 minors and you get an ejection. 1 regular + 2 minor = ejection. Does this bring in a little judgement of in a foul is part of a "hack-a-"....sure. But I think rather than penalize the player, hit the coach up and allow someone else to take the shot. Example: Magic are playing the Hawks, and Dwight inbounds the ball and an end of bench guy runs up and taps Dwight until a foul is called. Well not the coach would get a Minor T, and the Hawks can send Korver to the line for 2+ball.

3) No more possession arrow! Every contested possession is now a jump ball. No subbing on the jump ball.

4) 10 second substitution. When the horn blows you on;y have 10 seconds for the new players to get on the court and the old ones to get off. Pick up the pace a little.

5) All calls are review-able on the spot for flagrant/regular, and final ruling must be made then. A review office set up and NBA headquarters will assist. EX - a regular foul is called, but there's some question that it should be a flagrant 1. The league office reviews it right away, and the officials learn in the next stoppage of play (quarter, tv timeout) what the ruling should be. Only exception is the last 5 of the 4th quarter were play is stopped for the review to happen.

FOR FANS
1) Ticket capping. Prices are only allowed to be raised by a certain % each year. Box, Club, courtside, best lower bowl, further lower bowl, sideline upper bowl, baseline upper bowl, "nose bleeds" upper bowl all would have a league wide cap for price from the team. EX - a team may not charge more than $4500 a courtside seat. Now a team can be under that if they so chose, but no team may charge more.

2) Family ticketing. Every team must have a family ticket package where 4 or more related people going to a game (related by blood or marriage), with at least 2 children (18 and under) would get a discount on each ticket.

3) Family friendly sub-sections. So lower bowl section G rows 15-25 would be one area deemed "family friendly" (of many areas) where there is a 0 tolerance for rude behavior. These sections are the same throughout the season at each arena.

Scoots
07-13-2016, 11:58 AM
I don't think ... <big snip> :laugh2:

1. I agree.

2. I agree.

3. I agree, but I think you would have a heck of a time selling the union on it, and it might be challenged in court.

4. I would LOVE the idea of all contracts literally being a % of the cap. If the cap goes up the money goes up, if it goes down it goes down.

Scoots
07-13-2016, 12:18 PM
... <sniiiip> ...

Draft reform:
3. I love the idea of limiting players to playing in the NBA for 2 years from their senior year, but not stopping them from being drafted. That can go along with my idea of increasing the number of contracts NBA teams can hold to 18 without changing the active number of players.

Cap reform:
1. I like the idea. I'd also like to allow trades without salary matching being required.

3. I don't see a reason for rookie contracts to be outside the cap.

Rules:
2. How do you prove that the off-the-ball foul was called by the coach? You can't. The best thing I could come up with for hack-a is to make it 2 to make 1 after the 5th off-the-ball foul of a game for every player. Coaches will stop as soon as the percentage tips over the line.

5. I agree on the call should be on the court, but I don't like the idea of the game being stopped a lot more often to make a decision. Probably need some replay flags for coaches to keep it down, but that has a lot of issues too ... your coach uses the 2nd flag and then the opponent starts hammering you more.

For fans:
It's capitalism. If you want them to charge less convince your fellow man to stop paying what's being asked. Have you been to a Disney park? They are incredibly expensive ... if they were only allowed to charge $15 the parks would close. They have figured out that if they charge more the number of people who show up goes down more than is made up for by the increased income per patron, if they charge less more people show up and they have to have more employees to handle them and customer service still goes down. If the Warriors hadn't sold out every seat for years their prices would go down.

FOXHOUND
07-13-2016, 12:38 PM
1. I agree.

2. I agree.

3. I agree, but I think you would have a heck of a time selling the union on it, and it might be challenged in court.

4. I would LOVE the idea of all contracts literally being a % of the cap. If the cap goes up the money goes up, if it goes down it goes down.

Are you saying that I don't think? :crying:

On the age limit, that may be a tough sell but I wonder. Those college kids aren't union members until they are drafted, so would the union care that much? Wouldn't the union like more legitimate players entering their ranks? I think the unfortunate side effect of that would be the slimy NCAA profiting from it, but that's another discussion.

Yes, doesn't #4 just make perfect sense? :cheers:

They corrected the issue of fairly balancing the BRI, but through circumstance we've had some insane contracts lately and some teams with the opportunity to load up their rosters that hurts competitive balance. It doesn't benefit the NBPA as a whole for guys like Allen Crabbe or Timofey Mozgov to be paid like that.

Scoots
07-13-2016, 01:00 PM
Are you saying that I don't think? :crying:

On the age limit, that may be a tough sell but I wonder. Those college kids aren't union members until they are drafted, so would the union care that much? Wouldn't the union like more legitimate players entering their ranks? I think the unfortunate side effect of that would be the slimy NCAA profiting from it, but that's another discussion.

Yes, doesn't #4 just make perfect sense? :cheers:

They corrected the issue of fairly balancing the BRI, but through circumstance we've had some insane contracts lately and some teams with the opportunity to load up their rosters that hurts competitive balance. It doesn't benefit the NBPA as a whole for guys like Allen Crabbe or Timofey Mozgov to be paid like that.

I just left the start and end of your post ... I didn't add anything that wasn't there :)

I think you solve the issue of the union having a problem with the age limit by increasing the maximum size of the roster (more people in the union) and letting them start getting those checks, and you help the teams develop the players by sending them to the D-league. I think there would have to be some language about non-eligible players having different contract rules to protect teams. But the d-league rule will keep teams from taking guesses at some players, and the talented raw players will get a chance to hone their game before being exposed to the rigors of the NBA schedule. Pretty much a win-win and the best solution I've seen.

As for the union thinking about others ... the NFL union had on it's ballot essentially yearly for 30 years measures to increase retired players health care and research into health issues for retired players and it was voted down every single time (typically health care is a union issue). It turns out unions made up of invincible 20-somethings don't make great decisions about their or anyone elses futures.

FOXHOUND
07-13-2016, 01:21 PM
I just left the start and end of your post ... I didn't add anything that wasn't there :)

I think you solve the issue of the union having a problem with the age limit by increasing the maximum size of the roster (more people in the union) and letting them start getting those checks, and you help the teams develop the players by sending them to the D-league. I think there would have to be some language about non-eligible players having different contract rules to protect teams. But the d-league rule will keep teams from taking guesses at some players, and the talented raw players will get a chance to hone their game before being exposed to the rigors of the NBA schedule. Pretty much a win-win and the best solution I've seen.

As for the union thinking about others ... the NFL union had on it's ballot essentially yearly for 30 years measures to increase retired players health care and research into health issues for retired players and it was voted down every single time (typically health care is a union issue). It turns out unions made up of invincible 20-somethings don't make great decisions about their or anyone elses futures.

:D

Yeah, I saw that idea in warfelg's post and I liked it too. I have split thoughts on that. On one hand, I worry that the D-League isn't enough of a established minor league system to be used that way for all 30-teams. On the other, something like that could be the type of move that helps establish it to make it a much stronger minor league system. Hmm... I like it! :nod:

Ugh, well the NFL union is particularly dumb with a lot of things. Must be all of those blows to the head. ;)

Scoots
07-13-2016, 02:13 PM
:D

Yeah, I saw that idea in warfelg's post and I liked it too. I have split thoughts on that. On one hand, I worry that the D-League isn't enough of a established minor league system to be used that way for all 30-teams. On the other, something like that could be the type of move that helps establish it to make it a much stronger minor league system. Hmm... I like it! :nod:

Ugh, well the NFL union is particularly dumb with a lot of things. Must be all of those blows to the head. ;)

The NBA stated they wanted every team to have a DL affiliate. There is the possibility of 2 teams sharing an affiliate too.

The Warriors bought their DL team (pretty cheap) and moved them into an inflated stadium (also cheap) and in 1 year they became a regular minor league draw and the big team used them just like a minor league team should be used, to get spot action for players otherwise not playing and for rehab. The Warriors minor league team actually won their title before the big team did.

warfelg
07-14-2016, 09:28 AM
Draft reform:
3. I love the idea of limiting players to playing in the NBA for 2 years from their senior year, but not stopping them from being drafted. That can go along with my idea of increasing the number of contracts NBA teams can hold to 18 without changing the active number of players.

It's an idea I've been behind for a while. Up the age, but let the guys pick: go to college and come out more developed and possibly get drafted higher OR go make money, but you might be drafted lower. Could you imagine the choice for a guy like Wiggins 2 years ago?


Cap reform:
1. I like the idea. I'd also like to allow trades without salary matching being required.

That's the idea. NBA is the only sport where salary matching has to happen in trades.


3. I don't see a reason for rookie contracts to be outside the cap.

I used it as an incentive for teams to keep their picks. If you don't have to worry about your rookie contracts, or at least current years picks, on the cap you wouldn't be worried about being able to afford the pick.


Rules:
2. How do you prove that the off-the-ball foul was called by the coach? You can't. The best thing I could come up with for hack-a is to make it 2 to make 1 after the 5th off-the-ball foul of a game for every player. Coaches will stop as soon as the percentage tips over the line.

I'm sorry but in every hack-a-senario you've shot down everyone else's idea and pushed this. Yes, I admitted to it being a bit judgement. And I would say train the refs to not call it unless it's obvious. But the idea would be to really make a coach pay for it. Imagine if you are playing the Pistons, and you are struggling to stop Drummond. You can foul him away from the ball to stop him in and obvious way, and Tobias Harris, who shot 91% FT, gets to take the shot. Now I'm talking about using it for "hack-a" like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crXq8RBCs3U That should be a 'T' up on the coach, not a foul out on a player. You want to do that 5 times as a coach? You've earned some "T's" and to have the team possibly get 10 points on your ***.


5. I agree on the call should be on the court, but I don't like the idea of the game being stopped a lot more often to make a decision. Probably need some replay flags for coaches to keep it down, but that has a lot of issues too ... your coach uses the 2nd flag and then the opponent starts hammering you more.

Only in the last 5 minutes if a reviewer instantly thinks they got it wrong would it stop. And they would get like 2 minutes to settle. They other 40-something minutes would have it reviewed during a break to keep play moving. And frankly how often does a flagrant foul happen?


For fans:
It's capitalism. If you want them to charge less convince your fellow man to stop paying what's being asked. Have you been to a Disney park? They are incredibly expensive ... if they were only allowed to charge $15 the parks would close. They have figured out that if they charge more the number of people who show up goes down more than is made up for by the increased income per patron, if they charge less more people show up and they have to have more employees to handle them and customer service still goes down. If the Warriors hadn't sold out every seat for years their prices would go down.

Actually....this is an idea that has gone around already. Silver would like to see a price freeze on tickets to increase league wide attendance. It's true that families don't go because they can't afford it. MLB and NHL are getting it right for families. Reasonable tickets, varying concession prices, family activities.

Last NBA game I was at was in Cleveland. Face value tickets where I sat was north of $300 (and weren't great TBH). That means to walk through the gate it would be $1200 for a family of 4. I could drive my family down to Florida, and stay at Universal for 4 days, 3 nights, plus tickets for that. Add in $10 beers, $7 hot dog, $5 soft pretzel, $7.50 soda. I was on my own at that game and spent $400 between walking in and first quarter.

warfelg
07-14-2016, 09:36 AM
:D

Yeah, I saw that idea in warfelg's post and I liked it too. I have split thoughts on that. On one hand, I worry that the D-League isn't enough of a established minor league system to be used that way for all 30-teams. On the other, something like that could be the type of move that helps establish it to make it a much stronger minor league system. Hmm... I like it! :nod:

Ugh, well the NFL union is particularly dumb with a lot of things. Must be all of those blows to the head. ;)

I think it strengthens the DL, and as Scoots said, Silver is aiming for a 30 team NBDL.

I think the other part is it makes the draft much more interesting from a player and team perspective. Maybe a good team sells their future to jump up, get a HS player, and possibly keep the window open longer. Maybe a team near the top that wants to compete faster decides to skip over a higher rated prospect that's a HS player for the College player that can start now. In that way it also makes picks a little more valuable to teams because you now have a reason to keep them.

That's what part of my draft reform would be about. Put the value back into the picks. Suddenly we would see second round players that are good. Non-lotto players that could make a difference. Teams would no longer attach picks to dump salary.

warfelg
07-14-2016, 09:50 AM
Scoots - I didn't realize that I failed to address your addition of expanding rosters to 18 because of NBDL rules I added.

I would alter it to this:
NBA team gets 16 roster spots. Still only allowed to dress 12 for a game. But you can name up to 3 players as "flex" players who you can send down and call up as many times as you like. I only know my team well enough to comment on this, so the Sixers would be able to tag Christian Wood, Timothe Luwawu-Cabborret, Nik Stauzkis as their "flex players" and can send them back and forth as many times as they liked.

Then the drafted HS players would be "rights held" like European players. Basically they stay in the NBDL, on their teams DL team (For the Sixers that would be the Delaware Sevens). No one else can sign them. If they are traded they for to that NBA teams DL affiliate.

And then you could get 2 "exclusive rights" players in the DL. These are guys that cannot sign with any other team, but also cannot come up to the NBA in that season. They are not a right's owned player that can be traded. They are just a player you have the "rights of first refusal" from when they are a FA. All these guys are 1 year contracts. Example - Warriors sign Joe Everyone to that deal for 2016-17. He cannot play in the NBA in that season. But come 2017 offseason, he's a FA, and if the Knicks offer Joe Everyone a 2 year $12 mil deal, it's like RFA. Either the Warriors can keep him (he can be a flex player), or let him for to the Knicks. But a guy signed has to be on the NBA roster.

This would allow teams to get end of bench players some playing time in the DL, but be able to use them as injury replacements. You can chose not to send anyone and have 4 non-dressed guys if you chose. Doesn't count a HS player in the NBDL against you and make it hard to draft more than 1 or 2. And the last bit lets you take a UDFA and attempt to develop him.

FOXHOUND
07-14-2016, 12:48 PM
The NBA stated they wanted every team to have a DL affiliate. There is the possibility of 2 teams sharing an affiliate too.

The Warriors bought their DL team (pretty cheap) and moved them into an inflated stadium (also cheap) and in 1 year they became a regular minor league draw and the big team used them just like a minor league team should be used, to get spot action for players otherwise not playing and for rehab. The Warriors minor league team actually won their title before the big team did.

Oh yes, I know all about it. The Knicks did the same thing, buying a team and moving them to Westchester to be all their own. Right now there are 22-teams affiliated. Not that far but not that close when talking about having to field 8 more rosters. The influx of draft talent would help, but then you have to wonder how many players would choose the D-League over staying in college? Or going to Europe to get paid? Would those 8 other owners really want to buy and fund a minor league team?

I think it has some tricky bumps to work out. May be something for the next CBA run, after the D-League has grown some more and is closer to being a full minor league system.

FOXHOUND
07-14-2016, 12:51 PM
I think it strengthens the DL, and as Scoots said, Silver is aiming for a 30 team NBDL.

I think the other part is it makes the draft much more interesting from a player and team perspective. Maybe a good team sells their future to jump up, get a HS player, and possibly keep the window open longer. Maybe a team near the top that wants to compete faster decides to skip over a higher rated prospect that's a HS player for the College player that can start now. In that way it also makes picks a little more valuable to teams because you now have a reason to keep them.

That's what part of my draft reform would be about. Put the value back into the picks. Suddenly we would see second round players that are good. Non-lotto players that could make a difference. Teams would no longer attach picks to dump salary.

I said it in my response to Scoots, but I think the hurdles become those 8-teams having to buy and fund new D-League teams and the position those college kids are in. Would it truly benefit them to come out in the draft earlier and be sent to the D-League over staying in college, further developing and earning an education? Some definitely would, but would enough of them to really inject that much more talent into the D-League?

warfelg
07-14-2016, 01:52 PM
I said it in my response to Scoots, but I think the hurdles become those 8-teams having to buy and fund new D-League teams and the position those college kids are in. Would it truly benefit them to come out in the draft earlier and be sent to the D-League over staying in college, further developing and earning an education? Some definitely would, but would enough of them to really inject that much more talent into the D-League?

Well -- that's what makes it interesting. If you were a kid that came from nothing wouldn't earning $1mil a year+no limits to practicing do more for your family and career than going to 2 years of college and making no money? And the risk of the team is that the kid doesn't mature right and just starts partying because he has the money.

I think the DL would definitely grow. This would put some better players in it, teams would be more into it. And owners would like it because it only makes the value of the teams jump.

I rather see some kid trying to make a name for himself in the DL than Baron Davis get a contract.

WestCoastSportz
07-14-2016, 05:26 PM
I would give much more power to the team that holds a player rights. I think thats the only way to avoid a situation like Durant signing with a team like the Warriors.

1. The team that holds a player's rights will have the option to offer a much larger max offer than any other team. For an example. A player with Durant's experience is eligible for a contract that is 30% of the salary cap, which this year works out to be around $28M. Every other team's max offer would only 20% of the salary cap, which for this year, would be $18M. Thats a big difference. So they'll be leaving a minimum of $30M on the table if they chose to leave their original team (see #2).

2. Set a minimum amount of years that a free agent has to sign for. No one is signing 5 year deals anymore. Remember when Garnett signed for 6 years and $126M back in 98? Those days are over. Everyone seems to be signing 2 or 3 year deals with options. Make it a minimum of 3 years. Anything that happens after that, such as options, is up to the current team and player. This will make a player think twice about leaving his original team especially combined with #1.

3. A team that drafts a players has to be rewarded for great picks and punished for bad picks. A team should hold the rights to a player longer. Lengthen the rookie contract from 3 to 5 years. Currently, the 4th is an option year. Make it 5 then an option. Most young players on bad teams can't wait to go to a competitive team. Keeping them on a the team that drafted them longer, lets a team build around him. Say Ben Simmons really becomes a star player, but then he leaves in his 4th year to another team. Where would that leave Philly. It also gives more power to the draftees on bad picks that a team would be stuck with. The draft becomes even more important. Combine that with points 1 and 2, a team will have a great chance of retaining their drafted stars.

4. Create a hard cap. Forget this escalating cap every year as tv deals roll around. This was the reason why a team like Golden State was even able to afford Durant. If the cap stayed at $84M, there wouldn't have been a way for them to get Durant without trading Iguodala, Thompson or Green along with Bogut to clear up cap space. This gave them an instant $10M to play with and trading away Bogut's $11M contract was enough. Even with the new TV deal set to kick in, I would set the cap at $100M even and call it a day. A player that makes $30M sure as hell doesn't need to make $32M. Whatever extra money will go into the owner's pockets. This would allow smaller market teams to have some extra money to spend.

warfelg
07-14-2016, 05:41 PM
#3 doesn't make sense.

You can offer a QO offer on year 5, making a player a RFA. So he signs for a max of 4 years and it's matched, meaning the drafting team can hold a player for 8 years if they choose.

astrosmaniac
07-14-2016, 05:54 PM
Well -- that's what makes it interesting. If you were a kid that came from nothing wouldn't earning $1mil a year+no limits to practicing do more for your family and career than going to 2 years of college and making no money? And the risk of the team is that the kid doesn't mature right and just starts partying because he has the money.

I think the DL would definitely grow. This would put some better players in it, teams would be more into it. And owners would like it because it only makes the value of the teams jump.

I rather see some kid trying to make a name for himself in the DL than Baron Davis get a contract.

I agree that this would help grow the DL and I think it could become more like MiLB where you actually have consistent fan bases of the DL teams in addition to the fans of the NBA affiliate.

TheMightyHumph
07-15-2016, 12:48 AM
I, the Commish, am pushing the interests of the majority of the owners.

I, as the Union Chief, will be pushing the agenda of the majority of the players, accepting the fact that some players are more important than others.

And of course, the players are hoping their Union Chief can't be bought.

Scoots
07-17-2016, 12:08 AM
I would give much more power to the team that holds a player rights. I think thats the only way to avoid a situation like Durant signing with a team like the Warriors.

1. The team that holds a player's rights will have the option to offer a much larger max offer than any other team. For an example. A player with Durant's experience is eligible for a contract that is 30% of the salary cap, which this year works out to be around $28M. Every other team's max offer would only 20% of the salary cap, which for this year, would be $18M. Thats a big difference. So they'll be leaving a minimum of $30M on the table if they chose to leave their original team (see #2).

2. Set a minimum amount of years that a free agent has to sign for. No one is signing 5 year deals anymore. Remember when Garnett signed for 6 years and $126M back in 98? Those days are over. Everyone seems to be signing 2 or 3 year deals with options. Make it a minimum of 3 years. Anything that happens after that, such as options, is up to the current team and player. This will make a player think twice about leaving his original team especially combined with #1.

3. A team that drafts a players has to be rewarded for great picks and punished for bad picks. A team should hold the rights to a player longer. Lengthen the rookie contract from 3 to 5 years. Currently, the 4th is an option year. Make it 5 then an option. Most young players on bad teams can't wait to go to a competitive team. Keeping them on a the team that drafted them longer, lets a team build around him. Say Ben Simmons really becomes a star player, but then he leaves in his 4th year to another team. Where would that leave Philly. It also gives more power to the draftees on bad picks that a team would be stuck with. The draft becomes even more important. Combine that with points 1 and 2, a team will have a great chance of retaining their drafted stars.

4. Create a hard cap. Forget this escalating cap every year as tv deals roll around. This was the reason why a team like Golden State was even able to afford Durant. If the cap stayed at $84M, there wouldn't have been a way for them to get Durant without trading Iguodala, Thompson or Green along with Bogut to clear up cap space. This gave them an instant $10M to play with and trading away Bogut's $11M contract was enough. Even with the new TV deal set to kick in, I would set the cap at $100M even and call it a day. A player that makes $30M sure as hell doesn't need to make $32M. Whatever extra money will go into the owner's pockets. This would allow smaller market teams to have some extra money to spend.

1. Players don't always stay with the most money. I don't the owners of the players would agree to that.

2. A minimum contact length is a non starter. You think David West would get a chance to play if teams were forced to sign him for a minimum of 3 years?

3. No way the nbapa goes for taking players freedom away after fighting so hard to get here.

4. You want a hard cap that doesn't adjust with revenue? Owners would jump on that but no way would the players. The players get a fixed percentage of the revenue. If revenue goes up the cap goes up. As for a hard cap, nobody involved really wants that. The players want to get paid beyond the cap. The owners of the poorer teams want the tax penalties for the richer teams. And the richer teams want to be able to pay above the cap.





Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

LaLa_Land
07-17-2016, 01:16 AM
The D-League should take on a more relevant role. Money talks, and top brass should want to make it more interesting to watch.

This has long been wildly simple and glaringly obvious... Schedule all D-League games directly before NBA games, on the same court and include it as part of the ticket. (Why not have a little headliner? More accessible, placated media coverage.)

Also, provide teams with tiered salary cap breaks for assigning draft picks to the d-league until they reach a certain number of games played.

LaLa_Land
07-17-2016, 01:34 AM
Love Scoots' idea for extending the length of rookie contracts. It speaks for itself, awesome concept.

But rather than allowing the hometown team to offer a higher max contract, perhaps institute a more rigorous contract extension system. A tiered system, both with regard to length and value, based on # of years played. Make it more valuable for a player to extend instead of waiting out a deal to jump ship, while softening the related cap hit for the hometown team.

I hate the star jumping. Grow your own talent, get rewarded for keeping it, and lessen the quantity of free agency splashes. In doing this, teams will have to trade much more effectively to acquire talent. Maybe push the trade deadline to 10 games from the onset of the playoffs.

KnickNyKnick
07-17-2016, 08:28 AM
one fan gets $100,000 everygame. NBA/LOTTO