PDA

View Full Version : Revamping the NBA Financial System



Jeffy25
06-07-2017, 11:08 PM
The NBA is a unique sport where top talented players can impact both sides of the ball at incredible levels compared to the rest of the league. The league is now facing extreme levels of top talented players joining each other in efforts to win rings.

With the one and done discussions, I have a different system that I would like to propose for other fans to read through.


Four tiers for discussion
No Salary Cap
Longer Team Control
Improved D-League
One and Done's



1. Removal of the Salary Cap and Salary Floor

I have long argued that salary caps are nothing short of an arbitrary reduction of player money and given to the owners. We see so many players take discounts to stay with a team or leave money on the table to win elsewhere (David West) or trades just to reach the salary floor. It's a joke, and it doesn't improve parity, in fact, it worsens it.

Baseball has a natural consequence based system by not having a salary cap and floor. When teams openly compete in the open market for players, it drives the players salaries. When a player is overpaid during their prime or after they eventually turn into albatross contracts that the teams are forced to deal with. Let every team in basketball spend whatever it wants. But, with this comes revenue sharing, a luxury tax, and a concession by the players to forfeit time of team control to offset the differences in salaries the players will begin to receive.

Revenue Sharing
There are a variety of ways to do this, but to share revenue basically means, take from the rich, and give to the poor.
https://www.forbes.com/nba-valuations/list/

Here is a list of NBA team revenues.

Every year, the NBA would market a revenue peak and minimum.

An example would be, every team with revenue over $300M, would have to share 50% of that revenue into the league (or a percentage any way) and every team under $200M would receive enough revenue from that pool to give them enough operational revenue to be competitive.

While the Knicks and Lakers would have more cash to buy whatever free agents they want, this will limit their ability to just excessively spend. Meanwhile, smaller market teams like the Bucks would receive enough money in revenue sharing to extend guys like GA and sign a free agent to join with him while they are competitive.

Luxury Tax
This is independent of revenue, and it's based entirely on teams spending too much on player payroll. For example, if player payroll is over $100M, then every dollar spent over that, the team would have to pay a matching dollar into the revenue sharing pot that gets dispersed to the rest of the league.


Longer Team Control
As part of the salary cap removal which will favor the players, but not interest the owners, you would need to make a concession. That concession here would be longer team control over players.

Right now, it's based on being a first round pick, or veteran free agent, or having Bird rights, etc. It's a complicated mess.

This is a new system, and it's based entirely on how long you have been in the league. My suggestion is 6 years of control after they are drafted or enter the league for free agency (some pay options while at this level could be arbitration or set salaries based on draft slot etc).

No matter what, every year that you play in the NBA, you receive a year of service time.

With the removal of the salary cap, top players can become free agents as young as 24-25, and they will be able to go anywhere they like. The signing team would sacrifice their first round pick for the upcoming year (no longer transferable for trades - call it the Nets rule) as a concession.

So if Al Horford goes to the Celtics, then the Celtics have to give up their next top draft pick to the Hawks.

For kids that are drafted after four years of college, the team can take their time and develop them into long term assets that they will have through their prime.


The reason for this is that when players finally jump into free agency, they are going to be older by design. Maybe you can have a super team, but it's not going to be during their primes, it'll be for a year or two at the end of their primes, and then that team is stuck with albatrosses for the next 6+ years for their chance to win in the short term.

Sure, Durant would be a free agent and able to join the Warriors, but it's going to take 10/$300M to get him because the union isn't going to let him take a 1/27 deal. They will be expressly interested in him getting the maximum dollars that he can.

Curry would have been eligible for max dollars entering the 15-16 season and he would be making $30M himself, and this would be Thompson's last year before free agency, and they have one year left of Draymond Green control. There may be a super team, but it would only be for a year, maybe two at the most at any one time. The salaries these players would collect wouldn't afford a team to carry a super team.

The Warriors couldn't carry a payroll much higher than 120M with this set up, which means they can't carry 3 superstars all chasing high dollar deals. Two would be the most any team could fit into the budgets to pair with a player or two they are developing (Thompson and Green). But now the Warriors are committed to Curry and Durant for the next decade, and can't afford to give Green or Thompson a deal to extend them, and would have to consider either going for as many chips as they can in a short amount of time, or trading or both before they reach free agency to recoup value while carrying Curry/Durant for a decade as they reach 37-38 years old.


Improved D-League and One and Done's
The D-League is supposed to be the developmental league, but rarely does the league actually take any players and develop them into useful NBA players there. It's basketball purgatory where nobody wants to visit. You'd rather be the 12th man than a superstar in the D-League the way the incentives in the league are set up.

Under this new system, a team would also have 4 additional years of team control over a player in the D-League before they would either need to call them up to the NBA for their next 6 years of control, or they would have to release them into free agency.


How does this affect one and done's?
I would get rid of the one and done rule, and let anyone at the age of 18 eligible to declare for the NBA draft.

But you aren't going to want to declare for the draft unless you are going to be a top 5-10 level pick. Otherwise, the team is going to stuff you down in the D-League to develop you and won't waste a year of your service time being the 8th man getting 18 minutes a night in the NBA. So you'll just go to college instead and stay until you are either a decent level prospect for the NBA to draft and pay and start your NBA service time, or you'll finish your 4 years of college and then go professional where you might get better development in the D-League or at the NBA level as a role player.

We want to see the special players like the Bron's, KD's etc come into the league at a young age and have a long career. But there is also a place for longer careers as specialized players.



That's a lot to read, but a lot to think about as well. I believe it would improve parity among all else, and keep the 18 year old superstars coming into the league while helping other teams really develop a system for role players. It also allows the top level players to get paid and prevents them from joining super teams.

LOb0
06-07-2017, 11:18 PM
Someone already explained it was an all stars aligned thing that happened with GS. Curry was vastly underpaid, new TV deal, guys off the books.

When the new salaries hit, this type of stuff will stop and the league will be more balanced. People are just overreacting right now.

Jeffy25
06-07-2017, 11:35 PM
Someone already explained it was an all stars aligned thing that happened with GS. Curry was vastly underpaid, new TV deal, guys off the books.

When the new salaries hit, this type of stuff will stop and the league will be more balanced. People are just overreacting right now.

It also addresses the one and down and keeping players with the franchises that draft them.

Gibby23
06-07-2017, 11:54 PM
They just addressed it. They have safe guards in the new cba. Golden State had a unique situation.

Gibby23
06-07-2017, 11:56 PM
Also, players will declare for the draft right out of high school even if they are not considered top 5 to 10. Do you remember before the 1 year rule? They had players go late 1st or even 2nd round.

KG2TB
06-08-2017, 12:06 AM
I like the suggestions overall. I hate the NBA CBA and salary cap. Every other major sport that I know, mainly baseball and football, are able to maneuver and build their rosters with greater ease than the NBA.

Jeffy25
06-08-2017, 12:24 AM
Also, players will declare for the draft right out of high school even if they are not considered top 5 to 10. Do you remember before the 1 year rule? They had players go late 1st or even 2nd round.

Read this part?

"But you aren't going to want to declare for the draft unless you are going to be a top 5-10 level pick. Otherwise, the team is going to stuff you down in the D-League to develop you and won't waste a year of your service time being the 8th man getting 18 minutes a night in the NBA. So you'll just go to college instead and stay until you are either a decent level prospect for the NBA to draft and pay and start your NBA service time, or you'll finish your 4 years of college and then go professional where you might get better development in the D-League or at the NBA level as a role player."

Teams won't stuff you as the 7th or 8th man on the bench making 7 figures. You'll sit in the D-League while the NBA team develops you. You are better off going to college.

Gibby23
06-08-2017, 12:29 AM
Read this part?

"But you aren't going to want to declare for the draft unless you are going to be a top 5-10 level pick. Otherwise, the team is going to stuff you down in the D-League to develop you and won't waste a year of your service time being the 8th man getting 18 minutes a night in the NBA. So you'll just go to college instead and stay until you are either a decent level prospect for the NBA to draft and pay and start your NBA service time, or you'll finish your 4 years of college and then go professional where you might get better development in the D-League or at the NBA level as a role player."

Teams won't stuff you as the 7th or 8th man on the bench making 7 figures. You'll sit in the D-League while the NBA team develops you. You are better off going to college.

Ok, but look back at what happened before. It would happen again. They see money, any amount vs school and a lot of them declare. It wouldn't work and the players association has a lot of power so a lot of this wouldn't be agreed to.

Jeffy25
06-08-2017, 12:31 AM
Ok, but look back at what happened before. It would happen again. They see money, any amount vs school and a lot of them declare. It wouldn't work and the players association has a lot of power so a lot of this wouldn't be agreed to.

Go ahead and jump to the NBA, teams will draft them and then stash them in the D-League and develop them. And they'll wait until they are either a starting 5 player, or at least someone with a good amount of minutes per game to play. The only exceptions would be teams like GS/CLE/SAS who are trying to win right now and may want him off the bench getting 20ish minutes developing at the highest level. But I think that would be fairly rare.

Teams would stagger the service time.

Also, in the D-League, just like in the minor leagues in baseball, you make jack. Like 18K a year. They would be living off their signing bonuses, and if they are a late first round pick, you are talking about barely being a 7 figure deal. Better off winning in college, developing your game, and raising your stock unless you know you are going to get to the NBA quickly. Heck, you could do a year at a time in college too. You could declare whichever year you want.


The players association would want most of this because it removes the salary cap. That's literally their biggest issue, and now it's gone. Players will get a greater portion of the revenue than they do now.

Gibby23
06-08-2017, 12:37 AM
Go ahead and jump to the NBA, teams will draft them and then stash them in the D-League and develop them. And they'll wait until they are either a starting 5 player, or at least someone with a good amount of minutes per game to play. The only exceptions would be teams like GS/CLE/SAS who are trying to win right now and may want him off the bench getting 20ish minutes developing at the highest level. But I think that would be fairly rare.

Teams would stagger the service time.

Also, in the D-League, just like in the minor leagues in baseball, you make jack. Like 18K a year. They would be living off their signing bonuses, and if they are a late first round pick, you are talking about barely being a 7 figure deal. Better off winning in college, developing your game, and raising your stock unless you know you are going to get to the NBA quickly. Heck, you could do a year at a time in college too. You could declare whichever year you want.


The players association would want most of this because it removes the salary cap. That's literally their biggest issue, and now it's gone. Players will get a greater portion of the revenue than they do now.

No they wouldn't. They never even tried to negotiate most of this stuff the last 2 rounds of CBA negotiations. They would never go for an NBA team owning a players rights for 4 years in different league and then 6 more when they get called up. Lol. This isn't baseball, a player isn't waiting 10 years to hit the market. Slot of NBA players are washed up by 10 years or on a decline.

Jeffy25
06-08-2017, 12:40 AM
No they wouldn't. They never even tried to negotiate most of this stuff the last 2 rounds of CBA negotiations. They would never go for an NBA team owning a players rights for 4 years in different league and then 6 more when they get called up. Lol. This isn't baseball, a player isn't waiting 10 years to hit the market. Slot of NBA players are washed up by 10 years or on a decline.

Well that would be the max, but that would be a 28 year old. If you did 4 years of college, then 4 years of D-League, you are 26 even before you see the NBA. You likely aren't a good player, but if you could scratch out a 6 year career in the NBA, you'd see free agency at 32. Meanwhile, teams can take their time developing a player they like.

If a high school kid goes straight to the NBA, he'd only be 24-25 when hitting free agency.
Kobe would have been a free agent entering 02-03 season. Bron entering 09-10. That's young, and these guys would get 10+ year deals.


The average MLB career is just over 5 years, the average NBA career is just under 5 years.

And the salary cap is the biggest revenue deterrent for the players in the game. They literally have max salaries that they can negotiate. Now they wouldn't, and the association is going to expect players to get their max dollars, especially the top level guys.

Gibby23
06-08-2017, 12:50 AM
Well that would be the max, but that would be a 28 year old. If you did 4 years of college, then 4 years of D-League, you are 26 even before you see the NBA. You likely aren't a good player, but if you could scratch out a 6 year career in the NBA, you'd see free agency at 32. Meanwhile, teams can take their time developing a player they like.

If a high school kid goes straight to the NBA, he'd only be 24-25 when hitting free agency.
Kobe would have been a free agent entering 02-03 season. Bron entering 09-10. That's young, and these guys would get 10+ year deals.


The average MLB career is just over 5 years, the average NBA career is just under 5 years.

And the salary cap is the biggest revenue deterrent for the players in the game. They literally have max salaries that they can negotiate. Now they wouldn't, and the association is going to expect players to get their max dollars, especially the top level guys.

Ok. Not going to happen. Keep discussing though.

BKLYNpigeon
06-08-2017, 02:34 AM
Next CBA is in 7 years.

No rule changes till then.

Saddletramp
06-08-2017, 03:10 AM
I still don't understand the one year cap jump when not everyone was a free agent. The guys that benefited the most were the guys that were UFA last year. I bet if they knew that KD had no balls, they mighta thought twice.

As far as the NBA goes, they prefer dynasties. They're probably cool with this after two decades with multiple champions. I'll be watching "my team" and some other good match up games but in the long run, what's the point? KD's pussyness killed the NBA for the next few years. How they ever let that happen is beyond me.



If you can't beat 'em, be a pussyass***** and join 'em.

FOXHOUND
06-08-2017, 03:42 AM
The NBA has always been like this, there's nothing you can do to prevent it. In the 80's, before free agency, the NBA was full of super teams like we have seen in the 2010's. Free agency spread out the talent, but really that just left the Bulls with a gross abundance of talent compared to everyone else with Jordan and Pippen, not to mention everyone else.

Really, you're going to have stacked teams or more spread out talent. At the end of the day, the best players will still have the advantage and will be winning most of the championships like they have been since the NBA started. It has survived through every rule change the NBA has made. The only time the NBA had true parity was in the 1970's.

FlashBolt
06-08-2017, 03:47 AM
The NBA has always been like this, there's nothing you can do to prevent it. In the 80's, before free agency, the NBA was full of super teams like we have seen in the 2010's. Free agency spread out the talent, but really that just left the Bulls with a gross abundance of talent compared to everyone else with Jordan and Pippen, not to mention everyone else.

Really, you're going to have stacked teams or more spread out talent. At the end of the day, the best players will still have the advantage and will be winning most of the championships like they have been since the NBA started. It has survived through every rule change the NBA has made. The only time the NBA had true parity was in the 1970's.

and that was also the worst decade of basketball tbh. 80's was soft. 90's was pretty good overall but I felt there was no team capable of contesting the Bulls. 2000's were my favorite. Lakers, Spurs, Detroit, Heat, Boston,. More than a few teams winning it. 2010's will be Warriors winning the majority of it. it is what it is. If I'm cleveland, i gotta pick up the phone and call Pelicans for a trade with Cousins (or AD lol), head to the Pacers after and call for PG. They're not winning anything with this current roster. Might as well call phil jackson and give him double T and Shump to get Melo.. I mean, Melo doesn't have much trade value at this point anyways.

FOXHOUND
06-08-2017, 03:55 AM
As is, the NBA rules in place are good. It's the management of teams that is poor. The salary cap also works as a tool to save teams from themselves - imagine if the Knicks could do more than just sign Joakim Noah and Courtney Lee to $30M last year? :laugh2: :(

In baseball, take it as a Yankees fan, no amount of tax or revenue sharing system can overcome the big markets. Teams like my Yankees always have an enormous advantage of basically being able to print money.

Parity in baseball is good because the size of the rosters and the lack of ability for one player to truly dominate the games. A pitcher can completely dominate the game he pitches in but cannot win without his hitters scoring runs. Even then, the most a pitcher is going to play in a 7 game series is 3 games tops and 30 or so over the 162 game season. A great hitter will only get 4-5 plate appearances a game and he has no control on when those come in terms of game situation. Runners on? How many outs? What inning? What's the score?

Basketball just doesn't have problems like this. The best players can play for all 48 minutes of a game, or realistically average 40-43 MPG in a series. They can impact almost every single play of every single game. That is what creates the lack of parity in the NBA.

Here's an idea - what if front office contracts became guaranteed like players contracts were? What if Presidents and GM's didn't have to constantly worry about being fired? Would that help them be more reserved and intelligent with their moves and not hastily do stupid **** like the Knicks and Lakers did last year? Maybe what we need is an NBEA for execs, I don't know.

FOXHOUND
06-08-2017, 04:07 AM
and that was also the worst decade of basketball tbh. 80's was soft. 90's was pretty good overall but I felt there was no team capable of contesting the Bulls. 2000's were my favorite. Lakers, Spurs, Detroit, Heat, Boston,. More than a few teams winning it. 2010's will be Warriors winning the majority of it. it is what it is. If I'm cleveland, i gotta pick up the phone and call Pelicans for a trade with Cousins (or AD lol), head to the Pacers after and call for PG. They're not winning anything with this current roster. Might as well call phil jackson and give him double T and Shump to get Melo.. I mean, Melo doesn't have much trade value at this point anyways.

The Knicks disagree with your first statement.

2000's was also my favorite and I'm hoping the 2020's can get back to that. Words cannot describe how much I hate that Melo offer. :laugh2: I don't know what Cleveland is going to do, or if there's anything they can do. My hopes lie in Kawhi, Pop and the Spurs machine.

NYKalltheway
06-08-2017, 04:46 AM
I agree with Jeff. I've been advocating this for years but got the alien treatment for wanting to get rid of the salary cap.

The only problem is that big markets will obviously gain, but one should not underestimate mismanagement and the fact that every team will be able to pretty much hold on to or have the team they need.

I'll also add that the trading system needs full revamp and players should renegotiate deals when sent to other teams. And money transfers should be the focus, not trading existing contracts.

That would mean Durant would be asking for $50m a year to go to a good team but maybe if he's a money whore, a crappy team willing to spend/invest might give him $120m and he'll go there. It has a trickling effect despite its rarity.

WestCoastSportz
06-08-2017, 01:55 PM
The whole idea of a cap is the create a more level playing playing across the league. The luxury tax is useless because you have this cap but can exceed it and the penalty is a luxury tax. In an era with a few billionaire owners, the small market teams suffer because Dan Gilbert won't flinch when his team has to pay $20M in luxury tax. The guy is worth $5.9 Billion.

Like the NFL, they should install a hard cap. A number that a team can't go over no matter what. A guy can still get a max, but instead of 30% of the cap number, it should be 25%. Set the hard cap at $110M which would mean a max player would be making $27.5M. Not that far off from what it is now. The only two teams that would exceed that amount going into next season are the Cavs and the Trailblazers.

Scoots
06-09-2017, 12:15 AM
Next CBA is in 7 years.

No rule changes till then.

You keep saying this and it's not true.

Gibby23
06-09-2017, 12:18 AM
You keep saying this and it's not true.
Well they can male rule changes, but it is for 7 years and they can't make changes in the percentage of money going to players based on the revenue. Or change anything that was bargained and agreed upon

Scoots
06-09-2017, 12:58 AM
Well they can male rule changes, but it is for 7 years and they can't make changes in the percentage of money going to players based on the revenue. Or change anything that was bargained and agreed upon

Unless both parties agree to the change.

Gibby23
06-09-2017, 01:00 AM
Unless both parties agree to the change.

And me and you know that isn't happening. So the other guy is right. 7 years. Get back to me when both sides agree to a change.

HandsOnTheWheel
06-09-2017, 02:58 AM
Solid suggestions. Basketball is such a different dynamic when it comes down to giving players big contracts with longer duration when compared to baseball. Baseball players are able to maintain their primes for so much longer into their late 30s whereas NBA players are more unpredictable in a sense that their decline begins much sooner based on their game. There's a variety of different ways you can go with it and it is pretty intriguing, though I get the feeling there would be a good majority of small market teams getting affected by albatross contracts more so than large markets based on differing revenues of MLB teams/NBA teams small/big markets and a variety of other factors involved.

Two-way contracts in the new CBA explains how players on those contracts earn more money than other D-League guys so I wouldn't call it a purgatory though tweaks can certainly be used.

http://www.nba.com/article/2016/12/14/nba-and-nbpa-reach-tentative-labor-deal

HandsOnTheWheel
06-09-2017, 03:11 AM
Super maxes won't mean much if the cap floor keeps rising. Yeah you can pay guys 35+ M but if the cap floor exceeds 100-110 million like some predicted, what will it matter in referencing these super teams being currently assembled, especially with the rumblings that some of these guys are willing to take less than the new super max. Speaking of which, hypothetically let's say Warriors are on a clean slate as far as salaries go. Curry and Durant take like 30 M per. That's still an estimated 35-55 M (depending on the cap increases) in cap space available, thus making it easy to re-sign (sign/retain) veteran minimum guys (besides players already signed under contract) like they are currently doing. So, yeah there exists the new CBA and it hasn't necessarily hit many teams yet like some of you referenced, but the loopholes seem to outweigh the positives in anticipation to the balancing that is supposed to occur once it sets in which is why I think that OP's idea on removing the salary cap could work.

Scoots
06-09-2017, 10:02 AM
And me and you know that isn't happening. So the other guy is right. 7 years. Get back to me when both sides agree to a change.

It has happened before ... but it's usually player safety changes that they can agree on.

hugepatsfan
06-09-2017, 10:09 AM
There's nothing broken about the NBA. The league was awesome competitively at the top. OKC and SA were real trheats to GS in the West. Light in the East but BOS/WAS are poised to fix that soon and compete w/ CLE. We had 4 legit real threats to win the title last year. It sucked that 3 were in the West but 4 legit title contenders is amazing parity by NBA standards. Sure GS was clearly top dawg but as we saw they weren't so far ahead they could be upset. They were your typical all time great caliber roster and we had 3 not as good but can challenge teams. More development from WAS/BOS from what they did this year would have made things even better.

KD's decision is the only thing that's stopping us from having one of the best NBAs ever competitively. And it was the product of a one time cap spike. It is what it is. The whole system doesn't need tearing down. You wish he was more competitive but he's not so you deal with it for these next 4, 5 whatever years and then get back to the awesome NBA we had. Nothing else you can do.

warfelg
06-09-2017, 10:23 AM
I think as soon as the owners can opt out and lockout they will. If you thought the last lockout was ugly, this one is going to be bad.

This kinda feels like the 3-4 years before the NHL lost a season.

Gibby23
06-09-2017, 11:03 AM
It has happened before ... but it's usually player safety changes that they can agree on.

This isn't about player safety changes. Let me know if they change the financial structure before the CBS is up

Scoots
06-09-2017, 12:21 PM
This isn't about player safety changes. Let me know if they change the financial structure before the CBS is up

Meh.

Gibby23
06-09-2017, 01:22 PM
Meh.

Exactly

BKLYNpigeon
06-09-2017, 01:46 PM
Joe Lacob purchased the Warriors at 450million. He's own the team for 5 years and now the team is valued at 2.6 Billion.

makes you think he might be crazy enough to pay everyone in 3 years.

Scoots
06-09-2017, 01:55 PM
Exactly

You are arguing a point I wasn't arguing.

Gibby23
06-09-2017, 05:25 PM
You are arguing a point I wasn't arguing.

This is about the financial part of the CBA not player safety. A change won't be made to the financial part before the CBA is up. Let me know if it happens, but it won't. Enjoy being wrong.

Scoots
06-09-2017, 07:58 PM
This is about the financial part of the CBA not player safety. A change won't be made to the financial part before the CBA is up. Let me know if it happens, but it won't. Enjoy being wrong.

Not wrong.

Saddletramp
06-09-2017, 08:35 PM
There's nothing broken about the NBA. The league was awesome competitively at the top. OKC and SA were real trheats to GS in the West. Light in the East but BOS/WAS are poised to fix that soon and compete w/ CLE. We had 4 legit real threats to win the title last year. It sucked that 3 were in the West but 4 legit title contenders is amazing parity by NBA standards. Sure GS was clearly top dawg but as we saw they weren't so far ahead they could be upset. They were your typical all time great caliber roster and we had 3 not as good but can challenge teams. More development from WAS/BOS from what they did this year would have made things even better.

KD's decision is the only thing that's stopping us from having one of the best NBAs ever competitively. And it was the product of a one time cap spike. It is what it is. The whole system doesn't need tearing down. You wish he was more competitive but he's not so you deal with it for these next 4, 5 whatever years and then get back to the awesome NBA we had. Nothing else you can do.


Yeah, this. The NBA was great and there was one way of screwing it up with that cap spike money. And that one thing happened. One of the top 3 or 4 teams got a top 2 player.

Next few years will suck but there's nothing to change.

tp13baby
06-12-2017, 09:36 PM
This would ruin teams like Denver. We have relatively cheap *** owners in the Kreonkes. Our attendance is a league worst in both hockey and basketball, not having the money to spend on free agents and our own players to get into playoff contention. The luxury tax for big market teams would be off setting in my opinion, and put more stars on 1 team reduces parity.

GS had a unique situation and they took advantage. I'm fine with it now except improving the d league.

Jeffy25
06-13-2017, 12:14 AM
Here's an idea - what if front office contracts became guaranteed like players contracts were? What if Presidents and GM's didn't have to constantly worry about being fired? Would that help them be more reserved and intelligent with their moves and not hastily do stupid **** like the Knicks and Lakers did last year? Maybe what we need is an NBEA for execs, I don't know.

Would be cool, but no union to protect them and the owners would never accept it.

Scoots
06-13-2017, 09:42 AM
Here's an idea - what if front office contracts became guaranteed like players contracts were? What if Presidents and GM's didn't have to constantly worry about being fired? Would that help them be more reserved and intelligent with their moves and not hastily do stupid **** like the Knicks and Lakers did last year? Maybe what we need is an NBEA for execs, I don't know.

I don't know if it's all about job security. I watched the Warriors make bad move after bad move after bad move over the years without firing a GM. They want to please the fans and are quick to make moves just to change something.

Jeffy25
06-13-2017, 01:57 PM
The whole idea of a cap is the create a more level playing playing across the league. The luxury tax is useless because you have this cap but can exceed it and the penalty is a luxury tax. In an era with a few billionaire owners, the small market teams suffer because Dan Gilbert won't flinch when his team has to pay $20M in luxury tax. The guy is worth $5.9 Billion.

Like the NFL, they should install a hard cap. A number that a team can't go over no matter what. A guy can still get a max, but instead of 30% of the cap number, it should be 25%. Set the hard cap at $110M which would mean a max player would be making $27.5M. Not that far off from what it is now. The only two teams that would exceed that amount going into next season are the Cavs and the Trailblazers.

All a cap does is take money from the players and give it to the owners.

You want a free market for the top athletes to be allowed to make the most money they can. It creates competitive balance, has a natural consequence order to it, and makes teams over pay for the long haul. Which actually hurts the larger market teams more than people realize because they overspend trying to buy a chip. With longer control, you are just going to be buying the declines of these players. Meanwhile, the union collects way more and the teams that survive and do well are the ones that are properly managed.

Jeffy25
06-13-2017, 02:25 PM
This would ruin teams like Denver. We have relatively cheap *** owners in the Kreonkes. Our attendance is a league worst in both hockey and basketball, not having the money to spend on free agents and our own players to get into playoff contention. The luxury tax for big market teams would be off setting in my opinion, and put more stars on 1 team reduces parity.

GS had a unique situation and they took advantage. I'm fine with it now except improving the d league.

Not much you can do about cheap owners, but any CBA like this would be similar to that of the MLB, where the league makes you spend the revenue sharing profits that you receive on player payroll.

The Nuggets will still have to carry a decent payroll.