Changes to the current CBA ?

[LeCalinou]

First of all, I base this on the (perceived) level of talent in the league, right now, and that of International basketball.

1. There are less truely elite // dominant players than there were, say, 10 years ago, or even 20. This doesn't necessarily mean that the game is worse, because the "middle of the pack" players are better and more numerous. Other countries have better basketball programs, even though the best ones always come from the States.

2. With the schedule NBA franchises have (games - up to 100 per year // training and recovery - more and more time is spent on taking care of bodies //other commitements - community work, etc.), everybody would benefit from having more time off.
We've had examples (extreme ones, sadly), like Memphis last year, that had to finish the season - play in the playoffs that is - with a bunch of players that they had recently signed. Mind you, they weren't bad players, on the contrary, but they hadn't been on the same roster together. So they didn't even stand a chance.

3. The ever-increasing salary cap would allow teams to sign more quality players, and not just on minimum contracts.
Teams already employ players for camp-purposes only, so why not let them stay on the teams.
And if you need more players to fill out the rosters, you can make the draft last longer - 3 or 4 rounds. Yes, we would risk boredom, of course, but it would be an incentive for teams to focus more on drafting and scouting. I think it's only fair - you find good talent with the 99th pick, you get to keep it.

Which brings me to a double-sided solution...
1. First of all, increase the number of salary slots to 18, with a minimum of 16. Even the players that don't get to play constantly, would get a chance to stay around the team. Just to give you an example, it is common culture to expect yound players to run out gas as the season advances because they're not used to traveling, distractions, lack of sleep etc.
If you have a larger player pool, it's only logical that teams will invest in more players (and training staff as well ?), so those players will be better prepared when they're called upon.

2. Create specific salary slots - instead of just the supermax // minimum salary slots // rookie-scale contracts. For example, if you have 18 contracts to offer, we could have 6 different slots, each consisting of 3 different "max-level" figures. We could say something like "teams are allowed to carry only 3 max-level contracts", and that would mean that the number of really big contracts on teams is limited. Less chances of super-teams.
I mean, would New York overpay for everyone on their roster (being a big market) ?!? No way, they would be prohibited to do so. Another example, Portland this year, they signed some decent players to contracts that they didn't deserve. With the new rules, they wouldn't be able to give 6 such salary slots to lesser players (Leonard, Ezeli, Crabbe, Harkless, Turner etc.), they wuld be limited to 3.

3. I would add a "Philadelphia" rule : a minimum of 5 veteran players on their roster. Say, with more than 8 years of experience. First of all, everybody will agree that you need veteran guidance, even if your roster is young and meant to tank.
In the long term, that would give teams the incentive to treat their players better, while they play for you. Every now and then, I hear rumblings about ex-players claiming their injuries were ignored, that the team forced them to play. Bill Walton is the most famous example, right after his MVP season and first title.
With rosters comprised of more balanced individuals, teams would be assured of staying away from tanking - because the veterans wouldn't allow it. If you've been in the league for 8 years, you woulnd't want to waste a year playing to lose, would you?
With at least 5 veteran voices on the team, there's no way coaches or management would get away with stuff like "playing the young guy because we need to lose".

4. And a Phoenix // Houston rule, for good mesure : You need to have at least 3 players with at least 3 years experience on YOUR team. No more trade-trade-trade-trade-trade stuff, that disgusted D-Mo recently, or the Morris twins in Houston, for example.
This would also prevent the formation of super-teams : no more gutting the roster to nothing (like Miami, in 2010), than signing veterans chasing a ring. They only kept Wade and Haslem from the year before.

5. A Miami rule as well (I've just thought of this !): At least 3 young players on your roster (less than 4 years of experience). There will be less ring-chasing, because when making up a roster six players, continuity would come into play.

Add it all up, and I think this will ( chronologically) encourage :
- better scouting and drafting
- better team management - taking better care of your employees - since you know you can't just get new ones that easily
- better level of play, since a larger pool of players could benefit from the developpement programs teams offer
- better product on the floor - like when Popovich decided to rest his veterans, you'ld have younger players with incentive to play well
- less injuries - with more players on rosters, there will be less wear-and-tear, with more competitive balance

[villematic32]

First of all, I base this on the (perceived) level of talent in the league, right now, and that of International basketball.

1. There are less truely elite // dominant players than there were, say, 10 years ago, or even 20. This doesn't necessarily mean that the game is worse, because the "middle of the pack" players are better and more numerous. Other countries have better basketball programs, even though the best ones always come from the States.

2. With the schedule NBA franchises have (games - up to 100 per year // training and recovery - more and more time is spent on taking care of bodies //other commitements - community work, etc.), everybody would benefit from having more time off.
We've had examples (extreme ones, sadly), like Memphis last year, that had to finish the season - play in the playoffs that is - with a bunch of players that they had recently signed. Mind you, they weren't bad players, on the contrary, but they hadn't been on the same roster together. So they didn't even stand a chance.

3. The ever-increasing salary cap would allow teams to sign more quality players, and not just on minimum contracts.
Teams already employ players for camp-purposes only, so why not let them stay on the teams.
And if you need more players to fill out the rosters, you can make the draft last longer - 3 or 4 rounds. Yes, we would risk boredom, of course, but it would be an incentive for teams to focus more on drafting and scouting. I think it's only fair - you find good talent with the 99th pick, you get to keep it.

Which brings me to a double-sided solution...
1. First of all, increase the number of salary slots to 18, with a minimum of 16. Even the players that don't get to play constantly, would get a chance to stay around the team. Just to give you an example, it is common culture to expect yound players to run out gas as the season advances because they're not used to traveling, distractions, lack of sleep etc.
If you have a larger player pool, it's only logical that teams will invest in more players (and training staff as well ?), so those players will be better prepared when they're called upon.

2. Create specific salary slots - instead of just the supermax // minimum salary slots // rookie-scale contracts. For example, if you have 18 contracts to offer, we could have 6 different slots, each consisting of 3 different "max-level" figures. We could say something like "teams are allowed to carry only 3 max-level contracts", and that would mean that the number of really big contracts on teams is limited. Less chances of super-teams.
I mean, would New York overpay for everyone on their roster (being a big market) ?!? No way, they would be prohibited to do so. Another example, Portland this year, they signed some decent players to contracts that they didn't deserve. With the new rules, they wouldn't be able to give 6 such salary slots to lesser players (Leonard, Ezeli, Crabbe, Harkless, Turner etc.), they wuld be limited to 3.

3. I would add a "Philadelphia" rule : a minimum of 5 veteran players on their roster. Say, with more than 8 years of experience. First of all, everybody will agree that you need veteran guidance, even if your roster is young and meant to tank.
In the long term, that would give teams the incentive to treat their players better, while they play for you. Every now and then, I hear rumblings about ex-players claiming their injuries were ignored, that the team forced them to play. Bill Walton is the most famous example, right after his MVP season and first title.
With rosters comprised of more balanced individuals, teams would be assured of staying away from tanking - because the veterans wouldn't allow it. If you've been in the league for 8 years, you woulnd't want to waste a year playing to lose, would you?
With at least 5 veteran voices on the team, there's no way coaches or management would get away with stuff like "playing the young guy because we need to lose".

4. And a Phoenix // Houston rule, for good mesure : You need to have at least 3 players with at least 3 years experience on YOUR team. No more trade-trade-trade-trade-trade stuff, that disgusted D-Mo recently, or the Morris twins in Houston, for example.
This would also prevent the formation of super-teams : no more gutting the roster to nothing (like Miami, in 2010), than signing veterans chasing a ring. They only kept Wade and Haslem from the year before.

5. A Miami rule as well (I've just thought of this !): At least 3 young players on your roster (less than 4 years of experience). There will be less ring-chasing, because when making up a roster six players, continuity would come into play.

Add it all up, and I think this will ( chronologically) encourage :
- better scouting and drafting
- better team management - taking better care of your employees - since you know you can't just get new ones that easily
- better level of play, since a larger pool of players could benefit from the developpement programs teams offer
- better product on the floor - like when Popovich decided to rest his veterans, you'ld have younger players with incentive to play well
- less injuries - with more players on rosters, there will be less wear-and-tear, with more competitive balance

Have to disagree with the first portion of this. It's been about 40 years seen we've seen guy play as well rounded as Westbrook. The most athletic PG of all-time and has a motor unlike another. Harden is doing things as a shooting guard that we haven't even seen from the best SGs of all time. Anthony Davis is a freak, Kevin Durant is a 7 foot guard who can score with the best of them and I haven't even mention King James who is rivalry Jordan at this point and the greatest shooter of all time, Steph. Along with Leonard, Lillard, Cousins, George, Thompson and plenty more to go, its safe to argue the top of the NBA is as good as its ever been. I think the bottom of the league and some parts of the middle are whats hurting the game. Guys who come off benches and even start on some teams couldn't compete back in the 90s that's why I think we only have 4 or 5 well rounded teams. The superstars on top of the league are carrying this generation of basketball.