Lets Hammer out our own CBA

[jdub1660]

What's wrong with the way it is now?

TP, other than the fact that the owners and players feel the need to argue now that the contract is up for renewal, my thoughts exactly...

[PosImpos]

What's wrong with the way it is now?

The NBA is a league of haves and have-nots.  Not all of the "haves" are big market teams, but small market "haves" can very quickly become "have-nots" when their star players leave for nothing, or force a trade.  Small market teams are faced with a choice between spending beyond their means to compete or not spending and never making it past the first round.  It's too easy for players to work hard to land their first big contract and then take it easy after they've been paid; other players suffer injuries that severely limit their productivity, making their contracts dead weight.  Yet since the contracts are guaranteed, their teams are saddled with the dead weight.

I could go on. 

[JBcat]

Fan from VT has some good ideas.

I actually like the idea of a Flex cap with keeping your exceptions however you can't go over a certain dollar threshold.

A franchise tag

The ability to waive a contract say once every 3 years so the Redd contracts of the world don't cripple teams.

Reduce the length of guaranteed contracts by 1 or 2 years.

More flexibility with trading.  Instead of being within $100,000 or 10% (I know it's something like that) have it within 20% or $500,000.

Maybe like baseball if you lose a free agent you get a compensation draft pick.   Makes it more challenging to build teams through the draft and trades.

The revenue sharing has to be worked out somehow between the big market and small market teams. 

[KGs Knee]

I vote Fafnir gets 1% of all BRI.

Just know that the 1% you'll be getting is after I get my 1% (mine is a deductible expense-because, you know, I AM a real body part of a real NBA player that won an NBA championship)

[Chris]

What's wrong with the way it is now?

The NBA is a league of haves and have-nots.  Not all of the "haves" are big market teams, but small market "haves" can very quickly become "have-nots" when their star players leave for nothing, or force a trade.  Small market teams are faced with a choice between spending beyond their means to compete or not spending and never making it past the first round.  It's too easy for players to work hard to land their first big contract and then take it easy after they've been paid; other players suffer injuries that severely limit their productivity, making their contracts dead weight.  Yet since the contracts are guaranteed, their teams are saddled with the dead weight.

I could go on. 

Yeah, I just don't think Basketball is a sport (at least with 30 teams) where you can have a system that has teams working with such dramatically different financial resources.  The sport is just way too reliant on top end players.

Especially since the rookie salary system is set up so young guys get paid big time money just 3-4 years after being drafted, and in many cases, the first year or two of that they are not really ready to compete at the top levels (as compared to baseball, where players will not be brought to the big leagues until they are ready, and their 6 year clock does not start rolling until they make it to the bigs). 

So, essentially, teams get 1-2 years of affordable play on rookie contracts, and then they have to pay the guys dramatically more money.  And this really does prevent most small market teams from any sustained success, and creates a situation where they are forced to either overpay these guys to keep them, and then put themselves in a tough position cap-wise, or let them go, alienate fans, and become an even smaller market team, starting from scratch again.

This BTW is also the argument for raising the age of eligibility for the draft.  If guys are coming in at 20 instead of 19, then perhaps the 1-2 years of quality basketball on a rookie contract becomes 2-3 years, because players will be further along in their development (on average) when they enter the league.

[Moranis]

What's wrong with the way it is now?

The NBA is a league of haves and have-nots.  Not all of the "haves" are big market teams, but small market "haves" can very quickly become "have-nots" when their star players leave for nothing, or force a trade.  Small market teams are faced with a choice between spending beyond their means to compete or not spending and never making it past the first round.  It's too easy for players to work hard to land their first big contract and then take it easy after they've been paid; other players suffer injuries that severely limit their productivity, making their contracts dead weight.  Yet since the contracts are guaranteed, their teams are saddled with the dead weight.

I could go on.  

Yeah, I just don't think Basketball is a sport (at least with 30 teams) where you can have a system that has teams working with such dramatically different financial resources.  The sport is just way too reliant on top end players.

Especially since the rookie salary system is set up so young guys get paid big time money just 3-4 years after being drafted, and in many cases, the first year or two of that they are not really ready to compete at the top levels (as compared to baseball, where players will not be brought to the big leagues until they are ready, and their 6 year clock does not start rolling until they make it to the bigs).  

So, essentially, teams get 1-2 years of affordable play on rookie contracts, and then they have to pay the guys dramatically more money.  And this really does prevent most small market teams from any sustained success, and creates a situation where they are forced to either overpay these guys to keep them, and then put themselves in a tough position cap-wise, or let them go, alienate fans, and become an even smaller market team, starting from scratch again.

This BTW is also the argument for raising the age of eligibility for the draft.  If guys are coming in at 20 instead of 19, then perhaps the 1-2 years of quality basketball on a rookie contract becomes 2-3 years, because players will be further along in their development (on average) when they enter the league.

San Antonio pretty much dispels much of this seeing as how it is a small market with a lot of success.  

And on the other side you have the Clippers and Warriors that are in two of the largest markets and are just consistently terrible.

Basketball is mostly about management.  If you get a good management team in place you will do well, if you don't you won't.

[Chris]

San Antonio pretty much dispels much of this seeing as how it is a small market with a lot of success.  

And on the other side you have the Clippers and Warriors that are in two of the largest markets and are just consistently terrible.

Basketball is mostly about management.  If you get a good management team in place you will do well, if you don't you won't.

San Antonio is the exception that proves the rule IMO.  They had all of their success because they had arguably the best player in the league for much of the last decade, and even they, over the last few years, have been struggling to stay below the luxury tax line. 

As for the Clippers, while they are technically in a large market, they are an ugly stepsister team, much like the Nets, and therefore are not able to take advantage of the market size, because the fans are not paying to see them.  I would argue that they would actually be better off in a smaller city, where they had a monopoly on the fans.

Plus, the Clippers are one of the few teams that do what people are blaming other teams for not doing.  The Clippers don't overpay.  Yes, everyone makes mistakes on individual players, but the Clippers always stay within their means, because Sterling always wants to make money...and that is why they are the worst franchise in professional sports.

As for the Warriors, well, they have made terrible decisions.  And that happens.  But that, IMO is not an argument against a hard cap. 

[heitingas]

Couldn't they just extend the current CBA another 6 years ?

[LooseCannon]

Plus, the Clippers are one of the few teams that do what people are blaming other teams for not doing.  The Clippers don't overpay.  Yes, everyone makes mistakes on individual players, but the Clippers always stay within their means, because Sterling always wants to make money...and that is why they are the worst franchise in professional sports.

Looking back, the Clippers have been incredibly horrible at drafting.  Their draft savvy is on par with Mike D'Antoni's defense.  A hard cap won't make the Clippers suddenly competitive, so a hard cap won't necessarily affect competitive balance, if your goal is to eliminate perennial losers.

Also, stories like Donald Sterling asking then-coach Paul Silas if he could tape up players before games so that he could fire the team trainer suggest that the Clippers go well beyond mere fiscal responsibility and into the realm of Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline.bag miserdom.

[PosImpos]

Plus, the Clippers are one of the few teams that do what people are blaming other teams for not doing.  The Clippers don't overpay.  Yes, everyone makes mistakes on individual players, but the Clippers always stay within their means, because Sterling always wants to make money...and that is why they are the worst franchise in professional sports.

Looking back, the Clippers have been incredibly horrible at drafting.  Their draft savvy is on par with Mike D'Antoni's defense.  A hard cap won't make the Clippers suddenly competitive, so a hard cap won't necessarily affect competitive balance, if your goal is to eliminate perennial losers.

Also, stories like Donald Sterling asking then-coach Paul Silas if he could tape up players before games so that he could fire the team trainer suggest that the Clippers go well beyond mere fiscal responsibility and into the realm of ****bag miserdom.

Okay, so a hard cap won't make a team competitive if they have the worst owner in sports.


So?

[LooseCannon]

I posted a CBA proposal as a FanShot.

The main feature is dual soft caps.  The second, harder cap is the luxury tax threshold.  Once you start spending that high, you lose all or some of the various exceptions.  A team like the Lakers would have an MLE half the size of other teams and no bi-annual exception (which I make annual).  Teams under the luxury tax also get more flexibility in trades with a wider allowance in matching salaries.

I also have a franchise tag (which teams in the luxury tax can't use).

I have a few ideas which I think no one has suggested before.  I propose limiting under-21 players to 100% of the rookie-scale, compared to 120% for older draft picks.  (I also consider subjecting those players to an additional year of restricted free agency.)  I allow for offering restricted free agents a two-year qualifying offer at less per year than a one-year offer.  So, giving Greg Oden $8 million may seem crazy, but giving him two years at $12 million may be more palatable.  I suggest decreasing the value of traded player exceptions.

I also address some minor points that have come up in the past.  Double technicals not counting for a full technical when calculating suspensions (unless the league upgrades it).  Players who are traded and bought out not being allowed to return to their old teams.

[Moranis]

San Antonio pretty much dispels much of this seeing as how it is a small market with a lot of success.  

And on the other side you have the Clippers and Warriors that are in two of the largest markets and are just consistently terrible.

Basketball is mostly about management.  If you get a good management team in place you will do well, if you don't you won't.

San Antonio is the exception that proves the rule IMO.  They had all of their success because they had arguably the best player in the league for much of the last decade, and even they, over the last few years, have been struggling to stay below the luxury tax line. 

As for the Clippers, while they are technically in a large market, they are an ugly stepsister team, much like the Nets, and therefore are not able to take advantage of the market size, because the fans are not paying to see them.  I would argue that they would actually be better off in a smaller city, where they had a monopoly on the fans.

Plus, the Clippers are one of the few teams that do what people are blaming other teams for not doing.  The Clippers don't overpay.  Yes, everyone makes mistakes on individual players, but the Clippers always stay within their means, because Sterling always wants to make money...and that is why they are the worst franchise in professional sports.

As for the Warriors, well, they have made terrible decisions.  And that happens.  But that, IMO is not an argument against a hard cap. 

I believe Salt Lake City is the smallest market in the league and it has done quite well for itself. 

Basketball is about management.  That really is all there is to it.

[Moranis]

Plus, the Clippers are one of the few teams that do what people are blaming other teams for not doing.  The Clippers don't overpay.  Yes, everyone makes mistakes on individual players, but the Clippers always stay within their means, because Sterling always wants to make money...and that is why they are the worst franchise in professional sports.

Looking back, the Clippers have been incredibly horrible at drafting.  Their draft savvy is on par with Mike D'Antoni's defense.  A hard cap won't make the Clippers suddenly competitive, so a hard cap won't necessarily affect competitive balance, if your goal is to eliminate perennial losers.

Also, stories like Donald Sterling asking then-coach Paul Silas if he could tape up players before games so that he could fire the team trainer suggest that the Clippers go well beyond mere fiscal responsibility and into the realm of ****bag miserdom.

Clippers actually haven't been all that bad at drafting (a few misses of course, but overall not all that bad), they just don't keep hardly anyone past the rookie contract.

[PosImpos]

San Antonio pretty much dispels much of this seeing as how it is a small market with a lot of success. 

And on the other side you have the Clippers and Warriors that are in two of the largest markets and are just consistently terrible.

Basketball is mostly about management.  If you get a good management team in place you will do well, if you don't you won't.

San Antonio is the exception that proves the rule IMO.  They had all of their success because they had arguably the best player in the league for much of the last decade, and even they, over the last few years, have been struggling to stay below the luxury tax line. 

As for the Clippers, while they are technically in a large market, they are an ugly stepsister team, much like the Nets, and therefore are not able to take advantage of the market size, because the fans are not paying to see them.  I would argue that they would actually be better off in a smaller city, where they had a monopoly on the fans.

Plus, the Clippers are one of the few teams that do what people are blaming other teams for not doing.  The Clippers don't overpay.  Yes, everyone makes mistakes on individual players, but the Clippers always stay within their means, because Sterling always wants to make money...and that is why they are the worst franchise in professional sports.

As for the Warriors, well, they have made terrible decisions.  And that happens.  But that, IMO is not an argument against a hard cap. 

I believe Salt Lake City is the smallest market in the league and it has done quite well for itself. 

Basketball is about management.  That really is all there is to it.

Yeah uh, how many titles have the Jazz won again?

[LooseCannon]

Yeah uh, how many titles have the Jazz won again?

In the past 17 years, the Jazz have made it to the NBA Finals twice and to the conference finals another two times.  They've been as competitive as all but a handful of teams in that time-span when it comes to having a legitimate shot at the title.