Diesel's incentive System...

[Diesel]

I have thought about it a little longer and it has become clear that this is something that the NBA should do...

Incentive System...

Winning teams get paid more... Losing teams less...

The teams that win 60 games or more get 15% salary increase from the league. 55 games 10 %. 50 games or more 5% 45 games 0% 40 game -5%, 35 games -10%, 30 games and below -15%

That means that each player will have that percentage added or subtracted from his contract based on how much he makes.

So if a player is making 10 million dollars and his team wins only 30 games, he will lose 1.5 Million. If his team wins 60 games, he will get an extra 1.5 million. This would also apply to owners like a luxury tax. The owner will gain or lose by the payroll. So if the team's payroll is 100 million and they win only 30 games, that owner will lose 15 million extra dollars to a luxury tax... However, if that 100 million dollar team wins 60 games, he will gain 15 million dollars from the luxury tax...

And maybe the penalty would need to be stiffer on Owners to make sure that they do business right...

The owners part was a good suggestion, not my original idea, but I like it.

What would be the effect of an incentive system...

1. No team would want to lose.

This means that teams would be more competitive. Players and Owners will want their teams to be as competitive as possible.

2. Teams would think before making boneheaded trades...

3. Good teams would want to stick together so many good teams would negotiate contracts to keep the chemistry.

4. Bad teams would try to work harder to win.

When the draft comes around, the bad teams would get rewarded with the best player. Losing teams would be less likely to draft for potential....

[vonrauss]

5. Bad teams would have an even harder time becoming better because they would have less revenue.

6. Players wouldn't sign with rebuilding teams for fear of reduced salaries.

This is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.

Ever seen Major League Baseball? That's essentially what you'd get. The NFL has the best profit-sharing plan, and the NBA is 2nd.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

5. Bad teams would have an even harder time becoming better because they would have less revenue.

---

No... the revenue would stil be the same. The cap is not changing and neither is the original contract... It's just an addition or subtraction...

Also.... Bad teams would get immediate help because they would be first in line in the Draft Lottery!

I mean... did it help Boston when Tim Duncan was sent to San Antonio (a team which tanked their season)... No. In this case, the worst team suffered....and never really recovered while San Antonio went on to win 2 championships....

Quote:

---

6. Players wouldn't sign with rebuilding teams for fear of reduced salaries.

---

No.. Players wouldn't have much of a choice if they want the money... Really what this does is put the onus on Players and Owners to win. An example... a team like Cleveland. Today.. if we followed these rules... Would a player want to go to Cleveland? yes. Especially if he is good... because he would believe that he can make the difference.

Moreover, Owners would be more likely to trade that player who may be good or big money to a rebuilding team. It would be like Portland trading SAR to Chicago for some of their talent. The way in which a team rebuilds would be changed....

[Sage11]

Is there not alread an "incentive" to win in the playoffs?

The deeper you go the more you get paid. That is incentive enough.

[Weez]

dude, come on. why would anyone sign with the Hawks this season? unless they think they can win by themselves...you're much more likely to take the guaranteed money/full salary, even if it's slightly less than sign with a team that might pay you half of what you signed for, under league rules.

no way anyone leaves.

[Wretch]

Billy Hunter would have a field day with that! The players would never accept it; and, if by chance, it became a key issue in renegotiating a CBA, then the NBA would be looking at the longest work stoppage in the history of sports!

I think a better solution would be place some kind of low-lottery penalty on teams who routinely finish near the bottom. LIKE THE %^@*&#^ CLIPPERS. Say, if you finish below a certain mark (say 6th) three or more times within a span of 4 or 5 years, then you are automatically DQ'd from winning either of the top 3 picks in the lottery for a specific amount of time. And if you win a top spot in the lottery, for say 3 times within a span of 5 years, then you are ineligible to win it again for 2 years.

Something like that. Teams, LIKE THE %^@*&#^ CLIPPERS, would have to think long and hard about which seasons they decide to tank in - if at all; and lottery teams would have something to play for near the end of the season.

Nobody likes meaningless games; and whether you are for or against tanking, you have to admit that it is a very cheesy way to build a team.

[Diesel]

The playoff incentive is like $50,000 dollars are something really cheap. For most pros, that's dinner and a movie money....

[Diesel]

The Hawks would be forced to actually build a winner. Because remember, the incentive doesn't just effect the players, but the owners. Similar to the luxury tax, the owners will be forced to do what they can to win.

That means that...

1. Yes, players won't be overpaid...

But that also, owners will look to make trades. A team like Portland who has stockpiled talent with no concern for the cap will now have to face the reality that they could lose a lot of money if they don't win... What do they do?

They start to give away some of those big contracts coming off the bench. Who benefits... Most likely teams like the hawks who have the money to accept those players.

Let's take a today example.

So today... Dallas would be willing to deal to Atlanta.

Moreoever, Atlanta also gets help in the draft. Now, there is a benefit to losing and it can't be taken away. That benefit is that you get to get a good player.

Look at our situation this year.

This year, we lost a coin toss to the Clipps. This year in the "lottery, we were not only 1 spot back, but those same Clipps moved up to the 2nd position to take one of the best players in the draft....

In an incentive led program... Competitiveness will be up, but also, if you do lose, your reward will never be in question.

Lastly,

Can you honestly say that we are attracting free agents now??

The same thing we would need to attract a player then is what we would need to get them now.....$$$$$... So in that light, nothing really has changed.

However, do you think guys like Reef and JT would be half assing up and down the floor if they knew that they would reap what they sew? Why not make the TEAM responsible for their outcome? Right now, a guy can get paid 10 million dollars for nothing. Look at Hendu? He hasn't earned 2 years of his monster contract. Look at JT? Is he worth what we are paying him? where there is no penalty, there is no discipline.

[Diesel]

Well, you guys have focused on the penalty.. .But nobody has looked at the benefit...

For those teams that do win, they will get a percentage above what they make. Reward...

How can the players not go with that?

For example... If I said to KG... If your team wins 60 games, your salary increases from 25 million to 28.75 million with no impact on your team's cap... Do you think he'd say... No thanks...

or better yet, tell some guy making the vet min of 2 million that just because he is on a winning team he can make 2.6 million..... that he would say... No.

I know tht the idea of rewards and penalties seem foriegn to the sports world but I believe that it would be the right thing to do.

Then I bet you would see an end of these players who "quit" on their coaches or these owners who let it get to that point.

[Wretch]

If were were talking about STRICTLY adding revenu to players' existing salary scale, that would be one thing; say a 0% increase for underachievers and starting there. But when you start talking about taking money away from players, you get Hunter's nose twitching. Like a hungry dog catching a whiff of a freshly grilled steak...

Not only that, but you've already got people questioning the passion and desire of pro basketball players; saying even the best are only playing for a paycheck. Dangling dollars out there like that would make the focus of every team about winning money.

I think playoff teams and contending teams have plenty to play for. It's the guys at the bottom, that are out of playoff contention, that couldn't compete even if they were given a playoff birth...they're the ones who need motivation. I say tie lottery eligibility to results. I'm not suggesting that it be directly linked (as in finish better, get a better pick); just find a way to reward those teams at the end of the season who continue to play - or punish those franchises (like the #^$*! Clippers) who year after year continue to stockpile he league's best young talent.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

They start to give away some of those big contracts coming off the bench. Who benefits... Most likely teams like the hawks who have the money to accept those players.

Let's take a today example.

So today... Dallas would be willing to deal to Atlanta.

---

This makes no sense. Under your idea Dallas would get a 10% bonus from this season. Why would they downgrade the talent on their team compared to what they would otherwise do when they are getting a clear benefit from your system?

There is more incentive for them to dump the Twons now then there is with a 10% revenue bonus.