What are the top 3 things you want to see in the next CBA?

[Diesel]

Could the NBA do something similar? Hadn't really thought so much about it, but the fact that NBA players reach their prime before MLB players do, and that the NCAA is a much more appreciable farm system would have to be taken into account... there's just not the same player development mechanism in-place, so I'm uncertain.

If the NBA developed a minor league with 30 cities instead of what they have now... It will help everybody involved. Players of course. However, also coaches. Instead of being assistants and becoming part of the retread system one day only to be thrown out again, guys could learn how to coach in the minor leagues. Older coaches could go to the minors and do what they love to do without the stress. Refs would have a better training ground... and fans... would be built up from surrounding cities.

[APE]

Guys like Kevin Love in the NBA's minor league..no bueno

[dlpin]

I'll take a shot...

The Big-Three-ism Antidote Rule: Strengthen incentives for teams to comply to the salary cap, or if not, to remain under the luxury tax threshold.

- Draft either moved back or league establishment of salary cap and luxury tax moved up

- Teams that exceed the salary cap for a given season lose their highest 2nd round pick in that summer's draft, or alternatively, the next draft in which they have one available

- Teams that exceed the LT threshold for a given season, in addition to being taxed as they currently are, lose both their 1st and 2nd round picks in that draft, or alternatively, the next draft in which they have one or both available

- All teams that remain under the salary cap participate in a new lottery that re-distributes the picks of those teams above it

While your intentions may be good, this would be terrible. You would have even more salary dump trades than you have now. If there is a soft salary cap, there should be no non-financial incentive to stay below those limits. Either teams cannot spend more than the cap or if they do the consequences should be purely financial. Rewarding cheap owners with more picks would be terrible for the league. Like all we need is more young players being shipped to play for the clippers and kings of the world...

What we need is a system that better rewards attempts at success while increasing the penalties for long term ineptitude. Here's what I would like to see in the new CBA:

- Reduce the odds in the draft lottery for every year a team participates in it, or at least put restrictions that if a team has had a top 3 pick in the past 4 years it can't have one again.. The clippers have had a top 4 pick 11 times in the last 26 years. There should be no reward for losing like they do.

- Do away with max salaries and guaranteed contracts. The only way to keep superstars with the teams that drafted them is to allow that team to offer however much it takes. If the cavs could offer 30 million for lebron and the heat just 15, do you think he would have left? The only reason MJ didn't leave chicago is that they paid him 30 mill a year while NY could only offer 20. Franchise tags don't work and never will. A team already has at least 5 years guaranteed with a player, forcing one more year will do nothing.

- Reduce the amount of luxury tax a team gets for every year they fail to make the playoffs. People are overreacting to Lebron's decision with all this talk of superstars. The real problem this league has is a bunch of owners with ZERO interest in winning games who only own the teams for the guaranteed profits from tv and the luxury tax. Owners should be penalized for always wanting to put out the cheapest possible team so that they can live off NBA and city money. There are teams that are incompetent but at least try, like the pacers, raptors and so on. But the clippers, kings, hornets, grizzlies, wizards, bobcats, timberwolves, warriors and, until very recently, the nets, have all been more than happy doing nothing, having no plan to getting better, and just collecting nba checks.

[NineOhTheRino]

do away with guaranteed contacts.

hard cap.

profit sharing

Olympic style drug testing

Edited March 6, 2011 by NineOhTheRino

[sturt]

While your intentions may be good, this would be terrible. You would have even more salary dump trades than you have now. If there is a soft salary cap, there should be no non-financial incentive to stay below those limits. Either teams cannot spend more than the cap or if they do the consequences should be purely financial. Rewarding cheap owners with more picks would be terrible for the league. Like all we need is more young players being shipped to play for the clippers and kings of the world...

I think you're failing to see that, instead, you would have, not just more teams, but pretty much all teams having to be more fiscally responsible in making the choices that they do. The luxury tax threshold would be exceeded on rare occasions when a given team felt like they could justify giving up a 1st in a given year... so this notion that you'd have all these under-cap teams gaining several multiple picks just wouldn't happen.

On the other hand, what you are more likely to see, though, is some of those under-cap teams gaining additional 2nd round picks with some regularity... which, I would contend, is just fine.

What we need is a system that better rewards attempts at success while increasing the penalties for long term ineptitude.

I agree with the philosophy. I don't think you have to divorce yourself from the other part of this to accomplish that.

At one end of the polarity, you're dealing with owners who want to win badly and will spend so much that it puts a burden on the middle teams to keep up, so you need to restrain that enthusiasm for the benefit of the overall league... at the other end, you're dealing with owners who want to win only insofar as it allows them to make more money... so, indeed, you need some ways to cut into their net profit margin if you're going to make a difference with them.

So, among the spenders who are motivated by winning, you have to restrain them by reducing their roster's competitiveness... among the misers who are not motivated by winning, you have to restrain them by reducing their ability to turn a profit.

Here's what I would like to see in the new CBA:

- Reduce the odds in the draft lottery for every year a team participates in it, or at least put restrictions that if a team has had a top 3 pick in the past 4 years it can't have one again.. The clippers have had a top 4 pick 11 times in the last 26 years. There should be no reward for losing like they do.

If the motivation is to make money, reducing their competitive ability (an indirect effect on net profit) doesn't do as much as something that directly has effect on their ability to generate income or limit expenses.

- Do away with max salaries and guaranteed contracts. The only way to keep superstars with the teams that drafted them is to allow that team to offer however much it takes. If the cavs could offer 30 million for lebron and the heat just 15, do you think he would have left? The only reason MJ didn't leave chicago is that they paid him 30 mill a year while NY could only offer 20. Franchise tags don't work and never will. A team already has at least 5 years guaranteed with a player, forcing one more year will do nothing.

Have to think more about this one, but initially I think I'm in favor of it... that is, in combination with the "Big Three-ism Antidote" above.

I think this keeps the best players in the game and forces the Eddy Currys of the game (or in our relatively recent history, Big Dog, or farther back, Ken Norman) to either get it together or say hello to retirement.

- Reduce the amount of luxury tax a team gets for every year they fail to make the playoffs. People are overreacting to Lebron's decision with all this talk of superstars.

Yep... this is consistent with what I stated above... you have to give financial incentive if the motivating factor is, indeed, financial.

The real problem this league has is a bunch of owners with ZERO interest in winning games who only own the teams for the guaranteed profits from tv and the luxury tax. Owners should be penalized for always wanting to put out the cheapest possible team so that they can live off NBA and city money. There are teams that are incompetent but at least try, like the pacers, raptors and so on. But the clippers, kings, hornets, grizzlies, wizards, bobcats, timberwolves, warriors and, until very recently, the nets, have all been more than happy doing nothing, having no plan to getting better, and just collecting nba checks.

Of the teams in that list, there is an argument that several of those have been limited by their financial capacity to do more... the Hornets, in particular, have obviously been limited by their market size, and yet have done remarkably well in putting some pieces beside CP3 to make them, at times, extremely competitive. To gloss over that point that some teams just naturally are not going to have the same resources as others is absurd.

In fact, the only franchises that have been completely inept over the last 10 years in that list are the Clippers, the Bobcats and the Warriors. (Bobcats are an expansion team and a smaller-market team that already lost one franchise, so I don't think they belong.) Regardless, we're talking about 10% or less of the teams having been pathetically incompetent over 10 years or more. Statistically, that's about what ought to be expected, so I don't resort to thinking we need to overhaul things... but am supportive of initiatives that make it less and less financially-rewarding to those teams to remain mediocre-at-best.

Edited March 6, 2011 by sturt

[Dejay]

Well, I guess I'll play along...

First, an abolishment of guaranteed salaries. IMHO, I think the salary structure of pro sports is backwards. The NFL players should be getting guaranteed $$$ and the other three sports signing bonuses only. Teams should be able to divorce itself from a guy if he isn't putting out as he did before (see Arenas, Gilbert) or spending more time in Armani suits than on the court (see Claxton, Craig). I guess from watching Alan Henderson make up injuries 0.0000302 seconds after signing a $50 million extension can make a person sour on guaranteed deals.

An expansion of the NBDL to include a squad from every NBA team. If the minors worked in baseball for over a century, why would it not in this sport? All you really need is around $2M for each roster ($100k per player, $250k for the head coach, $150k for two assistants) and you're set. That way, you can get cities near NBA towns (for example, Macon or Columbus for the Hawks) to stay more involved with the local product instead of casually watching the NBA when Kobe or Lebron is on ABC. You think the locals in Macon will forget the time when young Josh Smith was learning his craft in their hometown seven years ago? And you can also send younger players who aren't quite ready for prime time some real grooming on and off the court without wasting away on the end of the bench or overseas. You also won't find as many high school and college players as willing to run to the pros if they know that there's a real possibility that they might not make the big $$$ if they're not a high-lottery pick. It's one thing for Dwight Howard or John Wall to be selected with the first pick and be able to play for their respective teams right away; their talents are obvious. But what about the 6'7" tweener who suddenly can't get his shot off cleanly in the Portsmouth Invitational because he's no longer going up against guys three inches shorter and much slower than him? You think he would've declared so early if he knew he'd spend his entire time in Pensecola or South Haven MS with no guarantee that he'd ever get to the show? I think he stays in school. This keeps more veterans who earned their keep on NBA rosters and more guys who haven't paid their dues in places where they can.

[Guest Walter]

1) I'd like to get the minimum AGE raised to 21/ 3 yrs removed from hs

I would say go the baseball way. Hard to turn back the clock but if you let either 18 yos/HSers and/or 3rd year college/21 yo enter the draft (and nothing in between) you aren't closing the door. then only the top of the top (hopefully) would enter the NBA draft as a HSers.

W

[sturt]

Well, I guess I'll play along...

First, an abolishment of guaranteed salaries. IMHO, I think the salary structure of pro sports is backwards. The NFL players should be getting guaranteed $$ and the other three sports signing bonuses only. Teams should be able to divorce itself from a guy if he isn't putting out as he did before (see Arenas, Gilbert) or spending more time in Armani suits than on the court (see Claxton, Craig). I guess from watching Alan Henderson make up injuries 0.0000302 seconds after signing a $50 million extension can make a person sour on guaranteed deals.

Speedy... Alan Henderson... Jon Koncak... wow, when you think about it, it's been a rarity in Hawks history that the roster didn't have some drag on our salary cap.

An expansion of the NBDL to include a squad from every NBA team. If the minors worked in baseball for over a century, why would it not in this sport? All you really need is around $2M for each roster ($100k per player, $250k for the head coach, $150k for two assistants) and you're set. That way, you can get cities near NBA towns (for example, Macon or Columbus for the Hawks) to stay more involved with the local product instead of casually watching the NBA when Kobe or Lebron is on ABC. You think the locals in Macon will forget the time when young Josh Smith was learning his craft in their hometown seven years ago? And you can also send younger players who aren't quite ready for prime time some real grooming on and off the court without wasting away on the end of the bench or overseas. You also won't find as many high school and college players as willing to run to the pros if they know that there's a real possibility that they might not make the big $$ if they're not a high-lottery pick. It's one thing for Dwight Howard or John Wall to be selected with the first pick and be able to play for their respective teams right away; their talents are obvious. But what about the 6'7" tweener who suddenly can't get his shot off cleanly in the Portsmouth Invitational because he's no longer going up against guys three inches shorter and much slower than him? You think he would've declared so early if he knew he'd spend his entire time in Pensecola or South Haven MS with no guarantee that he'd ever get to the show? I think he stays in school. This keeps more veterans who earned their keep on NBA rosters and more guys who haven't paid their dues in places where they can.

It's a non-starter in the current economic environment--WNBA-style risk that your average NBA owner would be reluctant to take on.

Why would they be reluctant?

Well, most obviously, it's not clear how this would be a money-making proposition instead of a money-losing one, particularly in light of the fact that there is NCAA competition for the winter sports dollar. And to your question above, that is a big difference. There is no competition for local sports dollars in the summer in these smaller markets.

As to the point made that an ATL would benefit from having a minor league team in a not-too-distant town, first, ATL is one of the few franchises who have such a clear problem of having other teams' fans show up at the home arena, so again, it's hard to see owners throwing money at a problem that they don't really perceive to be a problem.

I think it's conceivable that the same purpose could be served with an adjustment in thinking away from separate, independent teams in a developmental league.

So abandon the D-league, that is, at least, in its current form... and instead, do these two things...

1. Expand the team rosters from 15 with 12 active for a given game to 20, with the new five having to qualify as developmental players (using a definition that's TBD).

2. Each NBA game is preceded by a B-team game played by... you guessed it... each team's 8 non-actives.

Why would owners do this and not do the other? Because it genuinely does not require any additional expense that isn't already there. The d-league-sized salaries are already being subsidized by the league... and even better, you get fans in the doors that much earlier with an opportunity to sell that much more in concessions.

Now, the point is well-taken that fans do indeed feel some attachment to players that they see develop. In that respect, you could set up some advantage to teams to have first-dibs on signing players who either played HS or college ball within a certain distance of the NBA team's location.

So again, this method accomplishes much the same thing, but without the outlay of setting up franchises where none exist and in competition with about 300 NCAA D1 teams dotting the country.

[Joker]

I doubt the players will do away to guaranteed contracts or having a luxury tax but some of what dlpin said made sense.

[Joker]

Well, I guess I'll play along...

First, an abolishment of guaranteed salaries. IMHO, I think the salary structure of pro sports is backwards. The NFL players should be getting guaranteed $$$ and the other three sports signing bonuses only. Teams should be able to divorce itself from a guy if he isn't putting out as he did before (see Arenas, Gilbert) or spending more time in Armani suits than on the court (see Claxton, Craig). I guess from watching Alan Henderson make up injuries 0.0000302 seconds after signing a $50 million extension can make a person sour on guaranteed deals.

An expansion of the NBDL to include a squad from every NBA team. If the minors worked in baseball for over a century, why would it not in this sport? All you really need is around $2M for each roster ($100k per player, $250k for the head coach, $150k for two assistants) and you're set. That way, you can get cities near NBA towns (for example, Macon or Columbus for the Hawks) to stay more involved with the local product instead of casually watching the NBA when Kobe or Lebron is on ABC. You think the locals in Macon will forget the time when young Josh Smith was learning his craft in their hometown seven years ago? And you can also send younger players who aren't quite ready for prime time some real grooming on and off the court without wasting away on the end of the bench or overseas. You also won't find as many high school and college players as willing to run to the pros if they know that there's a real possibility that they might not make the big $$$ if they're not a high-lottery pick. It's one thing for Dwight Howard or John Wall to be selected with the first pick and be able to play for their respective teams right away; their talents are obvious. But what about the 6'7" tweener who suddenly can't get his shot off cleanly in the Portsmouth Invitational because he's no longer going up against guys three inches shorter and much slower than him? You think he would've declared so early if he knew he'd spend his entire time in Pensecola or South Haven MS with no guarantee that he'd ever get to the show? I think he stays in school. This keeps more veterans who earned their keep on NBA rosters and more guys who haven't paid their dues in places where they can.

Okay

spending more time in Armani suits than on the court (see Claxton, Craig). I guess from watching Alan Henderson make up injuries 0.0000302 seconds after signing a $50 million extension can make a person sour on guaranteed deals.

The last CBA addressed Speedy and Hendu types.

Most NBA teams don't want to pay for the NBDL as they are forking out money for the WNBA as it is. LOL, the really good players are always at a NBA level even in the last years in HS. You will never see Damarcus Cousins or Josh Smith in the NBDL. Too talented and can get minutes in the NBA. The boarder-line guys like Jimmer Fredette would just do what they are doing now and stay in college. The NBA talent level is so high and the measurements needed is so high that most guys just aren't good enough to really contribute for the NBA now and for the future.

Edited March 7, 2011 by nbasuperstar40

[dlpin]

I think you're failing to see that, instead, you would have, not just more teams, but pretty much all teams having to be more fiscally responsible in making the choices that they do. The luxury tax threshold would be exceeded on rare occasions when a given team felt like they could justify giving up a 1st in a given year... so this notion that you'd have all these under-cap teams gaining several multiple picks just wouldn't happen.

On the other hand, what you are more likely to see, though, is some of those under-cap teams gaining additional 2nd round picks with some regularity... which, I would contend, is just fine.

Losing late 1st round and 2nd round picks are not going to stop the top teams from spending money. Getting late 1st round and 2nd round picks will not make the cheap teams competitive. What it will make is provide an extra incentive to be cheap, as those picks can be sold later. If there is a max that teams shouldn't spend more, then make it a hard cap. Rewarding cheap owners with mostly irrelevant picks that they will end up selling anyways is not the answer to anything.

Of the teams in that list, there is an argument that several of those have been limited by their financial capacity to do more... the Hornets, in particular, have obviously been limited by their market size, and yet have done remarkably well in putting some pieces beside CP3 to make them, at times, extremely competitive. To gloss over that point that some teams just naturally are not going to have the same resources as others is absurd.

In fact, the only franchises that have been completely inept over the last 10 years in that list are the Clippers, the Bobcats and the Warriors. (Bobcats are an expansion team and a smaller-market team that already lost one franchise, so I don't think they belong.) Regardless, we're talking about 10% or less of the teams having been pathetically incompetent over 10 years or more. Statistically, that's about what ought to be expected, so I don't resort to thinking we need to overhaul things... but am supportive of initiatives that make it less and less financially-rewarding to those teams to remain mediocre-at-best.

Hornets lucked into a superstar, and the only reason they haven't been more successful is the owner's cheapness. And the fact is that none of those franchises have a plan. The pacers, raptors, suns, utah and so may have had varying degrees of success, but at least they clearly had a plan.

[Dejay]

Okay

The last CBA addressed Speedy and Hendu types.

Most NBA teams don't want to pay for the NBDL as they are forking out money for the WNBA as it is. LOL, the really good players are always at a NBA level even in the last years in HS. You will never see Damarcus Cousins or Josh Smith in the NBDL. Too talented and can get minutes in the NBA. The boarder-line guys like Jimmer Fredette would just do what they are doing now and stay in college. The NBA talent level is so high and the measurements needed is so high that most guys just aren't good enough to really contribute for the NBA now and for the future.

We all know that Smith and Cousins would be players in the league from jump street but what about the team who picked Gerald Green? And the WNBA should've been given the heave-ho years ago but we all know what that's about so it isn't worth mentioning again.

I like Sturt's idea of extending the rosters and having those extra 8 or so developmental guys play B-team games before the start of the regular season ones. It gives fans a chance to get in the door an extra hour or so before the 'main event', which means extra $$$ in possible concessions, parking, and so on.

[sturt]

Losing late 1st round and 2nd round picks are not going to stop the top teams from spending money. Getting late 1st round and 2nd round picks will not make the cheap teams competitive. What it will make is provide an extra incentive to be cheap, as those picks can be sold later. If there is a max that teams shouldn't spend more, then make it a hard cap. Rewarding cheap owners with mostly irrelevant picks that they will end up selling anyways is not the answer to anything.

*scratches head*

In the previous response you gave, my interpretation was that your complaint was that the picks were worth something, and under the modification I proposed, would be wasted on bad teams.

In this response, there seems to be a stunning change of heart.

Here's the thing. Teams cannot survive long without having one or the other -- either the injection of young talent mainly first round picks or having cap space with which to land veteran talent. So you'll have to explain to me how a given team is going to succeed if over the cap and unable to do either--draft promising youth or sign proven veterans.

(The only other way is to do it through trades, but that's largely irrelevant to the discussion since there's no way to outlaw bad basketball trades. You will always have GMs who make bad decisions.)

If you set your team up, say, the way the Celtics have ($72M committed for next season), or the Lakers have ($92M committed for next season), or the Magic ($78M committed for next season plus the following season)... and this system were in place today, you'd be losing 4-6 young players, in most cases, entire drafts worth of picks. And even if you've given up some talent for picks as BOS has done for 2012, they're losing the best of those picks, so it's no small deal.

Hornets lucked into a superstar, and the only reason they haven't been more successful is the owner's cheapness. And the fact is that none of those franchises have a plan. The pacers, raptors, suns, utah and so may have had varying degrees of success, but at least they clearly had a plan.

Only Salt Lake City is occupies a smaller MSA than New Orleans. Now maybe ownership has been cheap, but obviously, they weren't cheap enough since they lost as much money as they did.

And c'mon. Unless you're now claiming insider status, there can be no "fact" that the franchises don't "have a plan." In general, it's easy for fans to pretend they know the landscape and the production/production capacity ratio for any given team.

The point again being one has to approach the conundrum from both sides of the equation--you need to have a system that works against the motivations that push the outliers at either end (one money-driven, one competition-driven) of the bell curve. Not just the lower end.

Edited March 7, 2011 by sturt

[dlpin]

*scratches head*

In the previous response you gave, my interpretation was that your complaint was that the picks were worth something, and under the modification I proposed, would be wasted on bad teams.

In this response, there seems to be a stunning change of heart.

Here's the thing. Teams cannot survive long without having one or the other -- either the injection of young talent mainly first round picks or having cap space with which to land veteran talent. So you'll have to explain to me how a given team is going to succeed if over the cap and unable to do either--draft promising youth or sign proven veterans.

(The only other way is to do it through trades, but that's largely irrelevant to the discussion since there's no way to outlaw bad basketball trades. You will always have GMs who make bad decisions.)

If you set your team up, say, the way the Celtics have ($72M committed for next season), or the Lakers have ($92M committed for next season), or the Magic ($78M committed for next season plus the following season)... and this system were in place today, you'd be losing 4-6 young players, in most cases, entire drafts worth of picks. And even if you've given up some talent for picks as BOS has done for 2012, they're losing the best of those picks, so it's no small deal.

Only Salt Lake City is occupies a smaller MSA than New Orleans. Now maybe ownership has been cheap, but obviously, they weren't cheap enough since they lost as much money as they did.

And c'mon. Unless you're now claiming insider status, there can be no "fact" that the franchises don't "have a plan." In general, it's easy for fans to pretend they know the landscape and the production/production capacity ratio for any given team.

The point again being one has to approach the conundrum from both sides of the equation--you need to have a system that works against the motivations that push the outliers at either end (one money-driven, one competition-driven) of the bell curve. Not just the lower end.

There was no inconsistency. The picks are worth something. Just not enough to turn around any franchise. But enough for cheapskate owners to either fill out their rosters with players in the bottom of the rookie scale or sell the picks. Meanwhile, for the top teams they are mostly worthless. The celtics aren't going to spend less in order to keep the Billy Walkers and Omar Bradleys of the world. So you have a proposal that accomplishes nothing in terms of balance and provides yet another incentive for the bad owners to keep being bad. If teams spending too much is a problem, have a hard cap. That is it.

As for plans, we might not have insider information, but all it takes is to actually look at how consistent the actions of a team are to see if there are any long term plans. The hornets had a couple of fire sales after being a game away from the conference finals. I wouldn't call that a basketball plan (and the owner who complained about money was also the owner who moved the team there).

Making it easier for cheapskate and incompetent owners to just keep doing what they are doing is really not the answer.

[Diesel]

Speedy... Alan Henderson... Jon Koncak... wow, when you think about it, it's been a rarity in Hawks history that the roster didn't have some drag on our salary cap.

It's a non-starter in the current economic environment--WNBA-style risk that your average NBA owner would be reluctant to take on.

Why would they be reluctant?

Well, most obviously, it's not clear how this would be a money-making proposition instead of a money-losing one, particularly in light of the fact that there is NCAA competition for the winter sports dollar. And to your question above, that is a big difference. There is no competition for local sports dollars in the summer in these smaller markets.

As to the point made that an ATL would benefit from having a minor league team in a not-too-distant town, first, ATL is one of the few franchises who have such a clear problem of having other teams' fans show up at the home arena, so again, it's hard to see owners throwing money at a problem that they don't really perceive to be a problem.

I think it's conceivable that the same purpose could be served with an adjustment in thinking away from separate, independent teams in a developmental league.

So abandon the D-league, that is, at least, in its current form... and instead, do these two things...

1. Expand the team rosters from 15 with 12 active for a given game to 20, with the new five having to qualify as developmental players (using a definition that's TBD).

2. Each NBA game is preceded by a B-team game played by... you guessed it... each team's 8 non-actives.

Why would owners do this and not do the other? Because it genuinely does not require any additional expense that isn't already there. The d-league-sized salaries are already being subsidized by the league... and even better, you get fans in the doors that much earlier with an opportunity to sell that much more in concessions.

Now, the point is well-taken that fans do indeed feel some attachment to players that they see develop. In that respect, you could set up some advantage to teams to have first-dibs on signing players who either played HS or college ball within a certain distance of the NBA team's location.

So again, this method accomplishes much the same thing, but without the outlay of setting up franchises where none exist and in competition with about 300 NCAA D1 teams dotting the country.

I think you can make it a money making venture. Easily. Promote it and take the limits off of who you can draft.

Let's do a for instance here.

For instance, what if the Hawks could have drafted: Derrick Favors (for instance). He played 1 year of minor league ball on a team that had some other local athletes (maybe a Mario West or a Garrett Siler)... Those guys would have a following from HS to the minor leagues. That following would become Hawks fans. When those guys get called up, they will bring their fans with them. Moreover, the product on the floor would be better.

[AHF]

If I were going to make changes I would do the following which would all be focused around what I think would make the product more attractive for fans:

(1) HARD CAP - Eliminate the luxury tax and go with a hard cap and minimum spending floor. Eliminate the exceptions. The appeal of sports to me as a fan is seeing which team can win from the same starting point. In fantasy leagues, everyone starts with the same auction budget and as a fan I want to see that in my pro league. Tie the cap number to a % of the finances to be determined in collective bargaining between the owners and players.

(2) DRAFT ELIGIBLE AGE - Raise the minimum age to 2 years removed from high school. Better scouting and higher impact players makes the draft more meaningful and reduces the "training on the job" concerns.

(3) CLOSE BUYOUT LOOPHOLE - If a player agrees to a buyout, he cannot sign with the team that bought him out or any team that traded him that season unless other teams are offered the chance to match the contract offered by one of the prohibited teams and pass. That protects a marginal player like Mario West who might only have value to the Hawks from losing a job that he would otherwise have in the league while preventing the trade and resign scenarios for desirable players.

(4) FRANCHISE TAG - Institute a franchise tag. As a fan, I detest seeing my team held ransom by the star player who earns the most money on the roster. Make teams pay a premium for using the tag but no more "Decisions" or "Melodrama." The franchise tag is a salary 5% above the maximum (or some other premium).

(5) LIMITED GUARANTEED CONTRACTS/RESTRUCTURING - Give players and teams the right to restructure contracts any way they want and teams the right to cut a player while being on the hook for them for two years. For example, if Orlando wanted to cut Gilbert Arenas they would pay him for the next two years (roughly $39 million) but would be relieved of the rest of his contract. This gives both players and teams leverage if they want to restructure a deal.

(6) OPEN SALARIES UP TO MAXIMUM. I would allow teams to resign players at any price up to a league maximum figure so there would be no more situations where Golden State can't resign their own player for as much as another team can (unless it was based on room under the cap). There would also be no limits on contract length as long as no one was trying an Ilya Kovalchuck sort of contract as a way to lower the annual salary for a player beyond their playing years.

(7) TRADE ANY PLAYERS. As long as you remain above the salary floor and at or below the cap, I would allow any players to be traded for any others without needing to match salaries.

Edited March 7, 2011 by AHF

[dlpin]

If I were going to make changes I would do the following which would all be focused around what I think would make the product more attractive for fans:

(1) HARD CAP - Eliminate the luxury tax and go with a hard cap and minimum spending floor. Eliminate the exceptions. The appeal of sports to me as a fan is seeing which team can win from the same starting point. In fantasy leagues, everyone starts with the same auction budget and as a fan I want to see that in my pro league. Tie the cap number to a % of the finances to be determined in collective bargaining between the owners and players.

(2) DRAFT ELIGIBLE AGE - Raise the minimum age to 2 years removed from high school. Better scouting and higher impact players makes the draft more meaningful and reduces the "training on the job" concerns.

(3) CLOSE BUYOUT LOOPHOLE - If a player agrees to a buyout, he cannot sign with the team that bought him out or any team that traded him that season unless other teams are offered the chance to match the contract offered by one of the prohibited teams and pass. That protects a marginal player like Mario West who might only have value to the Hawks from losing a job that he would otherwise have in the league while preventing the trade and resign scenarios for desirable players.

(4) FRANCHISE TAG - Institute a franchise tag. As a fan, I detest seeing my team held ransom by the star player who earns the most money on the roster. Make teams pay a premium for using the tag but no more "Decisions" or "Melodrama." The franchise tag is a salary 5% above the maximum (or some other premium).

(5) LIMITED GUARANTEED CONTRACTS/RESTRUCTURING - Give players and teams the right to restructure contracts any way they want and teams the right to cut a player while being on the hook for them for two years. For example, if Orlando wanted to cut Gilbert Arenas they would pay him for the next two years (roughly $39 million) but would be relieved of the rest of his contract. This gives both players and teams leverage if they want to restructure a deal.

(6) OPEN SALARIES UP TO MAXIMUM. I would allow teams to resign players at any price up to a league maximum figure so there would be no more situations where Golden State can't resign their own player for as much as another team can (unless it was based on room under the cap). There would also be no limits on contract length as long as no one was trying an Ilya Kovalchuck sort of contract as a way to lower the annual salary for a player beyond their playing years.

(7) TRADE ANY PLAYERS. As long as you remain above the salary floor and at or below the cap, I would allow any players to be traded for any others without needing to match salaries.

I agree with 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7.

3 is already there. Bought out players have to clear waivers, which means that teams have a chance to get the bought out players. It just doesn't happen as a sort of courtesy between owners, in order to avoid stepping on each other's toes.

4 is also already here with restricted free agency. A team already has a guaranteed 5 years (if no one else offers the player a contract and he plays a season on the offer sheet to become an UFA), or 7 (if the player signs for the minimum necessary to become a UFA). And in any case, the Deron Williams and Vince Carter examples show that nba stars have a lot of say in where they play. A superstar is so important in the nba that they can sulk and force their way where they want because no one is going to want to waste them. This is not like the NFL where virtually everyone is replaceable.

[AHF]

I agree with 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7.

3 is already there. Bought out players have to clear waivers, which means that teams have a chance to get the bought out players. It just doesn't happen as a sort of courtesy between owners, in order to avoid stepping on each other's toes.

I don't think it is there because I am talking about post-waivers. Bibby gets waived but no one wants to pick up his contract. When he signs a new minimum contract deal, the Hawks should be prohibited from signing him unless the other teams in the league all pass on him at that price, IMO.

4 is also already here with restricted free agency. A team already has a guaranteed 5 years (if no one else offers the player a contract and he plays a season on the offer sheet to become an UFA), or 7 (if the player signs for the minimum necessary to become a UFA). And in any case, the Deron Williams and Vince Carter examples show that nba stars have a lot of say in where they play. A superstar is so important in the nba that they can sulk and force their way where they want because no one is going to want to waste them. This is not like the NFL where virtually everyone is replaceable.

I'd like to see less movement of the top players than we are seeing today and I don't think Utah trades Deron if they can franchise him. Likewise, you wouldn't see a situation where a team is led on and then utterly destroyed ala Cleveland. As a fan, I prefer some type of franchise tag to the existing structure.

One I forgot to mention:

(8) PLAYER COLLUSION - In addition to teams being barred from soliciting players under contract with another team, players under contract with one team are prohibited from going after players under contract with another team. If you want to plan out future free agency, do it with your agent and not with players who are under contract with another team. There are lots of practical problems with enforcing this but I would want it on the books in case of egregious examples ala the T-Wolves Joe Smith type of scenario (i.e., a scenario where people are so blatant and stupid about it that they get caught anyway).

[Guest]

If I were going to make changes I would do the following which would all be focused around what I think would make the product more attractive for fans:

(1) HARD CAP - Eliminate the luxury tax and go with a hard cap and minimum spending floor. Eliminate the exceptions. The appeal of sports to me as a fan is seeing which team can win from the same starting point. In fantasy leagues, everyone starts with the same auction budget and as a fan I want to see that in my pro league. Tie the cap number to a % of the finances to be determined in collective bargaining between the owners and players.

How about we have a re-draft every season? That way, every team truly does start at the same point!

Caps are bad, caps are unAmerican, caps promote cartel behavior, caps help owner's of big market teams (contrary to popular narrow-minded opinion), caps harm players (you know, the product), caps work for the NFL because the NFL has the weakest Union in all of sports, caps distort player values, caps

(3) CLOSE BUYOUT LOOPHOLE - If a player agrees to a buyout, he cannot sign with the team that bought him out or any team that traded him that season unless other teams are offered the chance to match the contract offered by one of the prohibited teams and pass. That protects a marginal player like Mario West who might only have value to the Hawks from losing a job that he would otherwise have in the league while preventing the trade and resign scenarios for desirable players.

(4) FRANCHISE TAG - Institute a franchise tag. As a fan, I detest seeing my team held ransom by the star player who earns the most money on the roster. Make teams pay a premium for using the tag but no more "Decisions" or "Melodrama." The franchise tag is a salary 5% above the maximum (or some other premium).

(5) LIMITED GUARANTEED CONTRACTS/RESTRUCTURING - Give players and teams the right to restructure contracts any way they want and teams the right to cut a player while being on the hook for them for two years. For example, if Orlando wanted to cut Gilbert Arenas they would pay him for the next two years (roughly $39 million) but would be relieved of the rest of his contract. This gives both players and teams leverage if they want to restructure a deal.

(6) OPEN SALARIES UP TO MAXIMUM. I would allow teams to resign players at any price up to a league maximum figure so there would be no more situations where Golden State can't resign their own player for as much as another team can (unless it was based on room under the cap). There would also be no limits on contract length as long as no one was trying an Ilya Kovalchuck sort of contract as a way to lower the annual salary for a player beyond their playing years.

(7) TRADE ANY PLAYERS. As long as you remain above the salary floor and at or below the cap, I would allow any players to be traded for any others without needing to match salaries.

Those all already exist in some form or fashion. (5) exists in the sense of NBA owners are the ones who dish out the contracts, if you b*tch and moan about them being guaranteed then there is a fix to that, DON'T GUARANTEE THEM! However, the other point of (5) is having to pay a player but relieved of the burden on the cap. Well that just opens up a pandora's box and creates more bad then good. Want a loophole around paying LeBron up to the max? Sign him for the league mandated max, cut him after one year. Wait, resign him to max again. Or, instead of cutting then restructure the deal each time so that LeBron could get more money than before.

Most solutions in this thread are to add on more legal jargon onto a document that is already broken. Its like the political process, just adding on more and more crap onto something that already is crap. Adding on more ad hoc statements to the CBA is a bad idea, increased size of legal documents typically leads to increased problems. The CBA should either have minor changes or stripped down to the essentials. People should also take a second to think about who really benefits from having a cap. Most draw the wrong conclusion that it helps small-market teams. Posters are also completely forgetting the human element of this CBA, mainly that every proponent of a cap is a proponent of giving rents to Owners and harming every single player. The cap proponents usually think "I'm equaling the playing field!" when in reality they are shifting more rents towards Owners who already enjoy plenty of rents as is. If you want equal playing fields then why not change basketball to a coin flipping game. First to 7 heads wins, ok go! Thats as equal as you can get, I think I will start to advocate that. (slippery slope obviously)

[AHF]

How about we have a re-draft every season? That way, every team truly does start at the same point!

Caps are bad, caps are unAmerican, caps promote cartel behavior, caps help owner's of big market teams (contrary to popular narrow-minded opinion), caps harm players (you know, the product), caps work for the NFL because the NFL has the weakest Union in all of sports, caps distort player values, caps

You and I have been around the horn on this on baseball where you say the Yankees don't have a competitive advantage due to spending over the Pirates (but rather from smarter spending), so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Those all already exist in some form or fashion. (5) exists in the sense of NBA owners are the ones who dish out the contracts, if you b*tch and moan about them being guaranteed then there is a fix to that, DON'T GUARANTEE THEM! However, the other point of (5) is having to pay a player but relieved of the burden on the cap. Well that just opens up a pandora's box and creates more bad then good. Want a loophole around paying LeBron up to the max? Sign him for the league mandated max, cut him after one year. Wait, resign him to max again. Or, instead of cutting then restructure the deal each time so that LeBron could get more money than before.

I am not saying they should be relieved of the burden on the cap for anything they have to pay - just for the years beyond that which are wiped off the books. If they sign Lebron to the Max and cut him and then resign him they will be in salary cap hell:

Assumptions - $18M max salary and $70M hard cap

Lebron Signs Max Deal with Miami For $18M/year for 6 years.

Lebron cut after Year 1 - which means Miami owes him $18M/year for each of Years 2 & 3 but is relieved of spending and cap consequences for years 4-6.

Lebron resigned to another 6 year Max Deal for Year 2.

Now Miami is paying Lebron $36M for Year 2 and has $36M of its cap tied up in Lebron. It looks like:

Year 1 - $18M for Lebron, $52M to spend

Year 2 - $36M for Lebron, $34M to spend

Year 3 - $36M for Lebron, $34M to spend

Year 4 - $18M for Lebron, $52M to spend

etc.

As for restructuring, Lebron signs a Max Deal with Miami for $18M/year for 6 years.

Year 2 Lebron looks to restructure but is still limited by the maximum so all he can do is cut his salary down. He can't increase his salary when he is already getting the max.

Year 1 - $18M for Lebron

Year 2 - Lebron guaranteed $36M for Years 2 & 3 but can agree to restructure to a lower number rather than be cut if he has a career fall ala Alan Houston and wants to avoid being cut

Most solutions in this thread are to add on more legal jargon onto a document that is already broken. Its like the political process, just adding on more and more crap onto something that already is crap. Adding on more ad hoc statements to the CBA is a bad idea, increased size of legal documents typically leads to increased problems. The CBA should either have minor changes or stripped down to the essentials. People should also take a second to think about who really benefits from having a cap. Most draw the wrong conclusion that it helps small-market teams. Posters are also completely forgetting the human element of this CBA, mainly that every proponent of a cap is a proponent of giving rents to Owners and harming every single player. The cap proponents usually think "I'm equaling the playing field!" when in reality they are shifting more rents towards Owners who already enjoy plenty of rents as is. If you want equal playing fields then why not change basketball to a coin flipping game. First to 7 heads wins, ok go! Thats as equal as you can get, I think I will start to advocate that. (slippery slope obviously)

We'll have to agree to disagree that the NFL - where teams in Green Bay and Pittsburgh can be among the perennial league leaders - is akin to a coin flipping game.

As someone who drafts CBAs, I disagree with your statement that CBAs should be limited to the bare essentials - particularly in a sporting league where there are structured rules for competition. I agree that they should be simplified where they can and I think my suggestions would go a long way towards doing that.

Edited March 7, 2011 by AHF