RealGM

We already have a draft thread and free agent thread somewhere but I think the biggest thing that will shape this team's future (other than the arena situation of course) is the new CBA. The major changes that we're likely could see will almost definitely swing in the Kings' favor. So ... what do you expect to see? What do you want to see? What parts could be good [and bad] for the Kings?

I'll start


What do I want to see in the next CBA:

From a high level perspective something that creates a level playing field and the parity of football. While the NFL may have 2-3 teams that contend nearly every year for a decade they also tend to have a bunch of teams that contend out of nowhere or make the playoffs out of nowhere. I think this should be the NBA's goal. So here's what I'd like to see implemented to get there:

1) Set a hard cap. This is the #1 priority to achieving the dream scenario. A hard cap does a number of things:
a) It limits the amount of talent that any one team can acquire.
b) By removing Bird rights and the exceptions (MLE, LLE, etc.) it means that contending teams cannot continue to hoard talent every year by passing out 5 year/$40mil deals (which is roughly what the full MLE comes to). Now, if you're Lebron, Bosh, & Wade would you have teamed up and taken nearly the ENTIRE cap up by yourselves knowing full well that the team CAN'T go out each summer and sign a mid-level player? Doubt it.

2) Implement a far bigger revenue sharing system. The NFL shares what amounts to every single dollar that comes in from all teams. Why do they do this? Because the teams collectively make the league together. The Giants & Jets couldn't function (i.e. they'd have no one to play) if the Jags, Raiders, Packets, Steelers, etc. didn't exist. The NBA should do the same thing here and share [almost] all revenue between all teams.

3) To deal with the Donald Sterlings of the world with respect to #2 above: remove the minimum team salary requirement as it currently is (75% of the cap). All teams could be required to spend 100% of the cap. Every dollar under that should either be distributed amongst the players on the team or go into a giant pot to be distributed to all the players in the league equally. This way owners can't pocket revenue from the revenue sharing model.

4) Remove the max player salary. The max player salary is a partial cause of the "super team" thing we're currently seeing. It screws up the market place.

5) Create a franchise player tagging system so that teams can keep the players they invest so much in. There are many ways to do this but I'd do it the following way:

I'd base the tag on restricted free agency (which actually is a great give and take between a team and a player). Before a player hits free agency a team would have 3 options:
a) Do nothing--letting them become a free agent
b) Sign them to an extension at any yearly salary allowable under their cap
c) Tag them. Tagging them would immediately make the player eligible for a multiyear contract of X dollars (where X would be a % of the cap based on the number of years the player has been in the league).

If a player is tagged then he is free to go out and talk to other teams. If he signs an offer sheet with another team then his previous team (who tagged him) may match the offer .... but at a price: whatever deal the player is offered must be 1 year longer (with the extra year being a player option) and a certain percentage high (let's say 15%).

So let's say Deron Williams is about to be a free agent and NJ tags him. The Knicks come along and offer Deron a 3 year, $60mil deal. If NJ wanted to match that offer they'd have to give Deron a 4 year, $92mil deal.

Doing this allows smaller markets to keep their talent but at the same time allowing players to get market value AND allowing for player movement.

6) Contracts continue to be guaranteed (well, teams have the option of making contracts non-guaranteed but rarely take the option) for the life of the contract. However, players may be cut at any time so that a team can remain under the cap. Doing so creates a cap penalty equal to some % of the player's salary (let's say 50%).

7) No contracts can be longer than 4 years (when a team resigns it's own player) or 3 years (when a team signs a free agent from another team).

8) Flopping is now punishable by fine &/or suspension and is fiercely regulated. This may not DEFINITELY be a CBA issue but I think that it would help to get this into the CBA so that there isn't a **** when the league starts fining and suspending the Manu's, Kirilenko's, & Wade's of the world.



What do I think will get into the new CBA? I think a hard cap is almost certain at this point and if that's the case then some form of #6 (cutting players to create space) MUST be there. I'm fairly certain that we see some kind of solution for franchise tagging and we also see a shortening of player contracts (though I think it'll go from its current 5/6 to 4/5 instead of to 3/4 like I'd like to see).

The one thing I'm skeptical of is the revenue sharing. That's the 1 big thing that I could see being left out of the deal even though it's one of the most paramount things that this league needs.

rpa wrote:We already have a draft thread and free agent thread somewhere but I think the biggest thing that will shape this team's future (other than the arena situation of course) is the new CBA. The major changes that we're likely could see will almost definitely swing in the Kings' favor. So ... what do you expect to see? What do you want to see? What parts could be good [and bad] for the Kings?

I'll start


What do I want to see in the next CBA:

From a high level perspective something that creates a level playing field and the parity of football. While the NFL may have 2-3 teams that contend nearly every year for a decade they also tend to have a bunch of teams that contend out of nowhere or make the playoffs out of nowhere. I think this should be the NBA's goal. So here's what I'd like to see implemented to get there:

1) Set a hard cap. This is the #1 priority to achieving the dream scenario. A hard cap does a number of things:
a) It limits the amount of talent that any one team can acquire.
b) By removing Bird rights and the exceptions (MLE, LLE, etc.) it means that contending teams cannot continue to hoard talent every year by passing out 5 year/$40mil deals (which is roughly what the full MLE comes to). Now, if you're Lebron, Bosh, & Wade would you have teamed up and taken nearly the ENTIRE cap up by yourselves knowing full well that the team CAN'T go out each summer and sign a mid-level player? Doubt it.

2) Implement a far bigger revenue sharing system. The NFL shares what amounts to every single dollar that comes in from all teams. Why do they do this? Because the teams collectively make the league together. The Giants & Jets couldn't function (i.e. they'd have no one to play) if the Jags, Raiders, Packets, Steelers, etc. didn't exist. The NBA should do the same thing here and share [almost] all revenue between all teams.

3) To deal with the Donald Sterlings of the world with respect to #2 above: remove the minimum team salary requirement as it currently is (75% of the cap). All teams could be required to spend 100% of the cap. Every dollar under that should either be distributed amongst the players on the team or go into a giant pot to be distributed to all the players in the league equally. This way owners can't pocket revenue from the revenue sharing model.

4) Remove the max player salary. The max player salary is a partial cause of the "super team" thing we're currently seeing. It screws up the market place.

5) Create a franchise player tagging system so that teams can keep the players they invest so much in. There are many ways to do this but I'd do it the following way:

I'd base the tag on restricted free agency (which actually is a great give and take between a team and a player). Before a player hits free agency a team would have 3 options:
a) Do nothing--letting them become a free agent
b) Sign them to an extension at any yearly salary allowable under their cap
c) Tag them. Tagging them would immediately make the player eligible for a multiyear contract of X dollars (where X would be a % of the cap based on the number of years the player has been in the league).

If a player is tagged then he is free to go out and talk to other teams. If he signs an offer sheet with another team then his previous team (who tagged him) may match the offer .... but at a price: whatever deal the player is offered must be 1 year longer (with the extra year being a player option) and a certain percentage high (let's say 15%).

So let's say Deron Williams is about to be a free agent and NJ tags him. The Knicks come along and offer Deron a 3 year, $60mil deal. If NJ wanted to match that offer they'd have to give Deron a 4 year, $92mil deal.

Doing this allows smaller markets to keep their talent but at the same time allowing players to get market value AND allowing for player movement.

6) Contracts continue to be guaranteed (well, teams have the option of making contracts non-guaranteed but rarely take the option) for the life of the contract. However, players may be cut at any time so that a team can remain under the cap. Doing so creates a cap penalty equal to some % of the player's salary (let's say 50%).

7) No contracts can be longer than 4 years (when a team resigns it's own player) or 3 years (when a team signs a free agent from another team).

8) Flopping is now punishable by fine &/or suspension and is fiercely regulated. This may not DEFINITELY be a CBA issue but I think that it would help to get this into the CBA so that there isn't a **** when the league starts fining and suspending the Manu's, Kirilenko's, & Wade's of the world.



What do I think will get into the new CBA? I think a hard cap is almost certain at this point and if that's the case then some form of #6 (cutting players to create space) MUST be there. I'm fairly certain that we see some kind of solution for franchise tagging and we also see a shortening of player contracts (though I think it'll go from its current 5/6 to 4/5 instead of to 3/4 like I'd like to see).

The one thing I'm skeptical of is the revenue sharing. That's the 1 big thing that I could see being left out of the deal even though it's one of the most paramount things that this league needs.

These are all really good suggestions, and I would guess they (or ideas very similar) are being discussed. For me personally the things I'd like to see most are more revenue sharing, and some sort of franchise tagging system (your suggestion there is pretty solid).

I actually disagree with your feelings on the probability of revenue sharing being worked out. I think there is a good chance that the small market, and even medium market teams are going to see quite a bit more money coming their way. Think of it this way, only about five or six teams made money in the last year (one of which interestingly being the Kings). Now of these five or six we can presume that New York and L.A. (certainly the Lakers, possibly the Clippers) are among them. This means that there are perhaps 25 teams right now that have a fire under them to start asking for a bigger piece of the NBA pie, I believe that 25 will win out over the 4 or five left over.

Also I like the idea of penalizing floppers, but maybe you're a little strong, with the fines and suspensions and all that. Certainly though if they were to make it count as a technical foul, maybe in the same way 3 sec. in the key is, I'd be down with that.

wiltchamberlain wrote:Also I like the idea of penalizing floppers, but maybe you're a little strong, with the fines and suspensions and all that. Certainly though if they were to make it count as a technical foul, maybe in the same way 3 sec. in the key is, I'd be down with that.

The problem with techs is that they're only really worthwhile when given in game and most of the flops we see are either non calls or go the wrong way (i.e. the flopper wins). That's why I think that they should be league reviewed. I also think this way because, let's face it, officials are woefully incompetent. Do you really want them to have yet ANOTHER way to make a bad call?

rpa wrote:

wiltchamberlain wrote:Also I like the idea of penalizing floppers, but maybe you're a little strong, with the fines and suspensions and all that. Certainly though if they were to make it count as a technical foul, maybe in the same way 3 sec. in the key is, I'd be down with that.

The problem with techs is that they're only really worthwhile when given in game and most of the flops we see are either non calls or go the wrong way (i.e. the flopper wins). That's why I think that they should be league reviewed. I also think this way because, let's face it, officials are woefully incompetent. Do you really want them to have yet ANOTHER way to make a bad call?

I suppose not. In general I think the league doesn't review enough. I suppose though there are quite a few other things I'd like to be reviewable, of those flops might be last on the list.

The biggest thing IMO is revenue sharing. The hard cap? I don't know, if it inhibits us from being able to re-sign all this talent we have drafted, and/or are about to draft I'll be pissed. That could destroy teams that suffered through tough years of rebuilding and put them right back where they started from. If the NBA pushes for a hard cap, depending on if it's too low, there will be no season next year guaranteed.

The problem with stars leaving their teams doesn't have anything to do with money, in fact, some are taking less money to leave, so tagging a player would only make the situation worse if these recent incidents are any indication. If a player is worth it and wants money, there is already a system in place that makes it far more worthwhile for him to stick with the team he's on. The franchise tag could help it for sure from that perspective if the disparity in $$$ another team could offer that player is quite drastic.

I think they should have a soft cap. 45 million is the set cap and teams can go over by 10 million to 55 which allows them to retain players that they draft. whatever you spend over the 45 million, 50% of the amount is distributed to the teams in the league that dont go over the 45 million.

So say we sign Tyreke and Omri to extensions after their rookie deal is up, and we are set at 43 million in total salary. The next year DMC is due his extension. We dont wanna let him go so we sign him so his extension and after a few other guys are let go, we are now at 52 million. We are over the cap by 7 million so the Team pays 3.5 million to the league.

This system would allow teams to keep their payrolls within reason and keep them competitive yet keep players they drafted when they are like Sac, Washington, Minn and have 3-4 years in the lottery. This would keep the Fakers and Celtics from racking up 95 million dollar payrolls to aquire 7 quality starters on their team. Most teams would be made up of one of the following:

1 Superstar, 1 Star, and roll players
2-3 Stars, and roll players
4-5 High quality starters, and roll players (Pistons from a few years ago)


I also think they should make contracts 4 years max and get rid of ETO, Player Option, and Team Options on regular contracts. Contracts should be set. And rookie deals should be the same as they are now with Team Options.

The only thing I am going to say in reguards to this as far as what will / what wont happen etc. is
that it is my belief the NBA will try to implement a simular rule that the NFL has & that would be that each team would be able to use a tag on 1 player in order to keep him .

This way each team is able to keep 1 star player . This way each team can have a great player & it also hepls each team have the ability to promote 1 great player to sell jerseys , commercialize them , sell tickets , whatever each team will have at least 1 player as the face of their franchise .