Change to the CBA You Would Like To See

sp6r=underrated
RealGM
Posts: 17,197
And1: 8,517
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
 

Re: Change to the CBA You Would Like To See 

Post#21 » by sp6r=underrated » Fri Jul 10, 2015 7:38 pm

Elimination of the players' draft would be the single most change that could be made to the CBA to improve the quality of the league. The draft prevents teams from investing in player development outside of players already in the NBA because they have no guarantee that they'll be able to keep the player.

If there was no draft NBA teams would open basketball camps throughout the globe which would result in many more people taking up the sport. More young people playing the game of basketball would quickly result in better basketball. Nigeria has a population of 174 million people and only two active players in the NBA. The tallest people in the world are Western Northern European men and yet very few play in the NBA. That is a gold mine of potential talent that is being wasted. If there was no draft NBA teams would quickly open camps in these countries and sign talented young players to developmental deals that would bring them over to the NBA.
sp6r=underrated
RealGM
Posts: 17,197
And1: 8,517
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
 

Re: Change to the CBA You Would Like To See 

Post#22 » by sp6r=underrated » Fri Jul 10, 2015 7:50 pm

contract wrote:
AkronsFinest91 wrote:Get rid of guaranteed contracts.

Why should players be bound to a team at a fixed salary while the team has the freedom to terminate the contract whenever it pleases?


Posters would go ballistic if all of the companies in their industry formed a cartel and mandated the elimination of guaranteed contracts and employment at will with unguaranteed contracts as a replacement. Unguaranteed contracts are highly exploitative of labor. Workers who over perform their contract can't leave but workers who under perform or become superfluous can be discarded at will. That is disgraceful from a fairness perspective.
User avatar
Dr Aki
RealGM
Posts: 34,292
And1: 29,109
Joined: Mar 03, 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
   

Re: Change to the CBA You Would Like To See 

Post#23 » by Dr Aki » Sat Jul 11, 2015 6:23 am

ability to restructure contracts
Image
nodeal
Rookie
Posts: 1,136
And1: 216
Joined: Dec 16, 2009

Re: Change to the CBA You Would Like To See 

Post#24 » by nodeal » Sat Aug 1, 2015 6:03 am

sp6r=underrated wrote:
contract wrote:
AkronsFinest91 wrote:Get rid of guaranteed contracts.

Why should players be bound to a team at a fixed salary while the team has the freedom to terminate the contract whenever it pleases?


Posters would go ballistic if all of the companies in their industry formed a cartel and mandated the elimination of guaranteed contracts and employment at will with unguaranteed contracts as a replacement. Unguaranteed contracts are highly exploitative of labor. Workers who over perform their contract can't leave but workers who under perform or become superfluous can be discarded at will. That is disgraceful from a fairness perspective.


Non guaranteed contracts does not hurt over performing players it helps them a lot. The money goes from the underachievers to the overachievers the owners make the same amount no matter what.

This is what would happen in a non guaranteed system.

- ALL players would sign contracts which are about 5-20% greater than what they would be in a guaranteed system.
- Underachievers would get cut. This would result in the players not receiving their fair share of revenue. Which means the players who were not cut would get that money. With a little going to the players who take the cut players roster spot. The owners do not get this money.

100% of the money the underachievers lose in the non guaranteed system goes to the over/neutral achievers. If the players want to be protected from injury risk. They can simply create an insurance fund.

The reason the players union is against non guaranteed contracts is because its the 7+ yr vets that have the loudest voice in the union. Underachieving 27+ yr olds are the most at risk to get cut. They dont want to sign a 100m contract only to underachieve and lose that contract. Even if it means that money goes to more deserving players. if future NBA players had a voice in the union you might see a greater push for non guaranteed contracts.
perempe20
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,819
And1: 924
Joined: Aug 20, 2015
 

Re: Change to the CBA You Would Like To See 

Post#25 » by perempe20 » Tue Mar 29, 2016 12:27 am

I would limit the number of players on a team with higher salaries. let's say 1 max player, 1 player between 15 to 20 million dollars. (rule against super teams).
DoItALL9
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,676
And1: 1,272
Joined: Oct 08, 2016
       

Re: Change to the CBA You Would Like To See 

Post#26 » by DoItALL9 » Tue Dec 6, 2016 4:52 pm

All fifteen players on the roster should be eligible to dress out and play every game. (This is excluding weird injury scenarios and exemption players of course). Why isn't it currently allowed?

Sent from my LG-H901 using RealGM mobile app
DoItALL9
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,676
And1: 1,272
Joined: Oct 08, 2016
       

Re: Change to the CBA You Would Like To See 

Post#27 » by DoItALL9 » Tue Dec 6, 2016 4:56 pm

The champion defending their title is preferable in most situations/sports. Allow championship teams to go over the cap too resign all players from the championship roster if they want to do so. 2011 Dallas Mavericks come to mind as a championship team that was broken up over cap concerns

Sent from my LG-H901 using RealGM mobile app
DoItALL9
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,676
And1: 1,272
Joined: Oct 08, 2016
       

Re: Change to the CBA You Would Like To See 

Post#28 » by DoItALL9 » Tue Dec 6, 2016 4:58 pm

This might include going over the hard cap or softening the tax penalty for that one year. (If they didn't repeat those taxes would be in effect the following year so it'd still be risky to sign guys to big long deals.)

Sent from my LG-H901 using RealGM mobile app
giberish
RealGM
Posts: 15,823
And1: 5,808
Joined: Mar 30, 2006
Location: Whereever you go - there you are

Re: Change to the CBA You Would Like To See 

Post#29 » by giberish » Fri Dec 9, 2016 11:38 pm

The hard cap is only an issue if you either use the big MLE or add a player in a S&T deal. So the hard cap would never prevent a team from bringing back everyone (outside of a few guys on 1-year deals with no Bird rights but those aren't generally the core of a title team - at most it's the ring chaser they added after they were waived by someone else at the trade deadline). The luxury tax is just a mater of how much you want to pay to keep a team together.
DBoys
Starter
Posts: 2,094
And1: 220
Joined: Aug 22, 2010

Re: Change to the CBA You Would Like To See 

Post#30 » by DBoys » Sat Dec 10, 2016 6:23 am

Mavs made a choice. The CBA didn't force them to dynamite that title team. It was a stupid one, but it was their own choice.
LonZoBallin
Rookie
Posts: 1,165
And1: 539
Joined: Dec 02, 2016

Re: Change to the CBA You Would Like To See 

Post#31 » by LonZoBallin » Mon Dec 12, 2016 4:16 am

I know the players would never agree to it but I'd like for the cap to get lowered. Then allow each team to sign one player up to 60 million per and their salary doesn't count towards the cap. You're only allowed one player per team to not count towards the cap and the next highest a player can make is 15 million per.

This would break up superteams in a heartbeat. You wanna make 60 million per year or 15 million? All the best players would be spread across the NBA. And lets be honest, the NBA is a star driven league. Mozgov makes 16 million per because Lebron James is good at basketball. This is the problem with unions. By doing this the players that actually bring in the money would be getting the majority and the talent would be even out throughout the league.

Players obviously get the same % the best players just get a bigger piece of the pie. But like I said originally, the players wouldn't agree. It's a huge raise for 30 players and a giant pay decrease for over 300. But it is not only the right thing to do but it's fair as well. Stars fill the seats.

Thoughts?
DoItALL9
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,676
And1: 1,272
Joined: Oct 08, 2016
       

Re: RE: Re: Change to the CBA You Would Like To See 

Post#32 » by DoItALL9 » Mon Dec 12, 2016 5:35 am

giberish wrote:The hard cap is only an issue if you either use the big MLE or add a player in a S&T deal. So the hard cap would never prevent a team from bringing back everyone (outside of a few guys on 1-year deals with no Bird rights but those aren't generally the core of a title team - at most it's the ring chaser they added after they were waived by someone else at the trade deadline). The luxury tax is just a mater of how much you want to pay to keep a team together.

Those happenings that you're minimizing as "rarely ever happens" I want those covered also.

Sent from my LG-H901 using RealGM mobile app
DoItALL9
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,676
And1: 1,272
Joined: Oct 08, 2016
       

Re: Change to the CBA You Would Like To See 

Post#33 » by DoItALL9 » Mon Dec 12, 2016 5:59 am

DBoys wrote:Mavs made a choice. The CBA didn't force them to dynamite that title team. It was a stupid one, but it was their own choice.



I agree. That's basically true the Dallas Mavericks could've brought that team back and just paid the tax penalties. (The Dallas Mavericks generally never go into tax territory. Mark Cuban is tighter in that regard than most would imagine.) I believe they did not try to defend the title mostly because of tax concerns. (I know Allegedly, they also did not because they were going after Deron Williams & Dwight Howard. SMH)
I didn't say clearly what I meant in my first post. My idea: It would be better/interesting if the defending champion was an untaxed team the following year in regards to all players who were on the championship roster the previous season. (All Additional signings would be taxed)
1) I believe it would encourage some other teams to go over the tax for "chips-all-in" seasons more often which is exciting for fans. The thinking would be to pay high this year and reap the dividends after winning the upcoming season.
2) It would cause some more/bigger breakups which is also what make the NBA's offseason better than other sports via trades etc.
3) Maybe it would create more Dynasties which are good for the game according to the TV numbers.
4) The champ would more often get to defend the title with the same players instead of losing key players because it's their only chance to cash in and the defending team can't/won't pay to go over the cap. "To be the champ you have to beat the champ" is just a phrase but it's much more enthralling that way the next season. The other teams have a deeper hunger when going after the true champ. Just like when you're at your neighborhood basketball court and lose a game you want to "run it back" versus the same team.
Smitty731
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 21,363
And1: 24,639
Joined: Feb 09, 2014
       

Re: Change to the CBA You Would Like To See 

Post#34 » by Smitty731 » Mon Dec 12, 2016 5:52 pm

DoItALL9 wrote:
DBoys wrote:Mavs made a choice. The CBA didn't force them to dynamite that title team. It was a stupid one, but it was their own choice.



I agree. That's basically true the Dallas Mavericks could've brought that team back and just paid the tax penalties. (The Dallas Mavericks generally never go into tax territory. Mark Cuban is tighter in that regard than most would imagine.) I believe they did not try to defend the title mostly because of tax concerns. (I know Allegedly, they also did not because they were going after Deron Williams & Dwight Howard. SMH)
I didn't say clearly what I meant in my first post. My idea: It would be better/interesting if the defending champion was an untaxed team the following year in regards to all players who were on the championship roster the previous season. (All Additional signings would be taxed)
1) I believe it would encourage some other teams to go over the tax for "chips-all-in" seasons more often which is exciting for fans. The thinking would be to pay high this year and reap the dividends after winning the upcoming season.
2) It would cause some more/bigger breakups which is also what make the NBA's offseason better than other sports via trades etc.
3) Maybe it would create more Dynasties which are good for the game according to the TV numbers.
4) The champ would more often get to defend the title with the same players instead of losing key players because it's their only chance to cash in and the defending team can't/won't pay to go over the cap. "To be the champ you have to beat the champ" is just a phrase but it's much more enthralling that way the next season. The other teams have a deeper hunger when going after the true champ. Just like when you're at your neighborhood basketball court and lose a game you want to "run it back" versus the same team.


I don't think it would be better at all. For example, this year's Warriors group is fairly young. If they win a title, they stay together with no penalty for paying everyone what they want and also using various Exceptions to add even more talent. And then they win again. And then again. Basically, until the stars age out, they just keep winning.

Things are largely fine the way they are. As DBoys pointed out, and you agreed with, the Mavs made their choice to break up that team.
DoItALL9
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,676
And1: 1,272
Joined: Oct 08, 2016
       

Re: Change to the CBA You Would Like To See 

Post#35 » by DoItALL9 » Tue Dec 13, 2016 12:27 am

Smitty731 wrote:
DoItALL9 wrote:
DBoys wrote:Mavs made a choice. The CBA didn't force them to dynamite that title team. It was a stupid one, but it was their own choice.



I agree. That's basically true the Dallas Mavericks could've brought that team back and just paid the tax penalties. (The Dallas Mavericks generally never go into tax territory. Mark Cuban is tighter in that regard than most would imagine.) I believe they did not try to defend the title mostly because of tax concerns. (I know Allegedly, they also did not because they were going after Deron Williams & Dwight Howard. SMH)
I didn't say clearly what I meant in my first post. My idea: It would be better/interesting if the defending champion was an untaxed team the following year in regards to all players who were on the championship roster the previous season. (All Additional signings would be taxed)
1) I believe it would encourage some other teams to go over the tax for "chips-all-in" seasons more often which is exciting for fans. The thinking would be to pay high this year and reap the dividends after winning the upcoming season.
2) It would cause some more/bigger breakups which is also what make the NBA's offseason better than other sports via trades etc.
3) Maybe it would create more Dynasties which are good for the game according to the TV numbers.
4) The champ would more often get to defend the title with the same players instead of losing key players because it's their only chance to cash in and the defending team can't/won't pay to go over the cap. "To be the champ you have to beat the champ" is just a phrase but it's much more enthralling that way the next season. The other teams have a deeper hunger when going after the true champ. Just like when you're at your neighborhood basketball court and lose a game you want to "run it back" versus the same team.


I don't think it would be better at all. For example, this year's Warriors group is fairly young. If they win a title, they stay together with no penalty for paying everyone what they want and also using various Exceptions to add even more talent. And then they win again. And then again. Basically, until the stars age out, they just keep winning.

Things are largely fine the way they are. As DBoys pointed out, and you agreed with, the Mavs made their choice to break up that team.


Your argument seems to be that they would become a dynasty and never lose? What are you basing that on? It completely negates the possibility of injuries which happen every year. (The Warriors were a victim of this just last year in the Finals and Cleveland before them.) Moreover, last year's Warriors team essentially brought back the same players from the previous championship winning roster and they did not win. I also addressed your dynasty scenario in relation to TV viewers which trends up when they occur. The NBA history is full teams going to the Finals repeatedly in the: Celtics-60s, Lakers/76ers/Celtics-80s, Bulls-90s, early 00s, and the current LeBron lead teams. I don't tend to hear anyone saying they wish they had seen less of those teams again and again.
The 70s with its Finals parity and no repeat champions (never again and again) is actually a time when basketball was struggling (yes that's not the only reason but it is one nonetheless).
Smitty731
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 21,363
And1: 24,639
Joined: Feb 09, 2014
       

Re: Change to the CBA You Would Like To See 

Post#36 » by Smitty731 » Tue Dec 13, 2016 1:12 am

DoItALL9 wrote:
Smitty731 wrote:
DoItALL9 wrote:

I agree. That's basically true the Dallas Mavericks could've brought that team back and just paid the tax penalties. (The Dallas Mavericks generally never go into tax territory. Mark Cuban is tighter in that regard than most would imagine.) I believe they did not try to defend the title mostly because of tax concerns. (I know Allegedly, they also did not because they were going after Deron Williams & Dwight Howard. SMH)
I didn't say clearly what I meant in my first post. My idea: It would be better/interesting if the defending champion was an untaxed team the following year in regards to all players who were on the championship roster the previous season. (All Additional signings would be taxed)
1) I believe it would encourage some other teams to go over the tax for "chips-all-in" seasons more often which is exciting for fans. The thinking would be to pay high this year and reap the dividends after winning the upcoming season.
2) It would cause some more/bigger breakups which is also what make the NBA's offseason better than other sports via trades etc.
3) Maybe it would create more Dynasties which are good for the game according to the TV numbers.
4) The champ would more often get to defend the title with the same players instead of losing key players because it's their only chance to cash in and the defending team can't/won't pay to go over the cap. "To be the champ you have to beat the champ" is just a phrase but it's much more enthralling that way the next season. The other teams have a deeper hunger when going after the true champ. Just like when you're at your neighborhood basketball court and lose a game you want to "run it back" versus the same team.


I don't think it would be better at all. For example, this year's Warriors group is fairly young. If they win a title, they stay together with no penalty for paying everyone what they want and also using various Exceptions to add even more talent. And then they win again. And then again. Basically, until the stars age out, they just keep winning.

Things are largely fine the way they are. As DBoys pointed out, and you agreed with, the Mavs made their choice to break up that team.


Your argument seems to be that they would become a dynasty and never lose? What are you basing that on? It completely negates the possibility of injuries which happen every year. (The Warriors were a victim of this just last year in the Finals and Cleveland before them.) Moreover, last year's Warriors team essentially brought back the same players from the previous championship winning roster and they did not win. I also addressed your dynasty scenario in relation to TV viewers which trends up when they occur. The NBA history is full teams going to the Finals repeatedly in the: Celtics-60s, Lakers/76ers/Celtics-80s, Bulls-90s, early 00s, and the current LeBron lead teams. I don't tend to hear anyone saying they wish they had seen less of those teams again and again.
The 70s with its Finals parity and no repeat champions (never again and again) is actually a time when basketball was struggling (yes that's not the only reason but it is one nonetheless).


The teams in the 50s and 60s aren't a fair comparison because the rules on changing teams were completely different.

As for the rest, those teams all competed under the same rules. What you are a proposing is a huge competitive disadvantage to the rest of the league by allowing the champs to compete under a different set of rules.

Not to be rude, but no one would want that and it makes no sense at all.
DoItALL9
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,676
And1: 1,272
Joined: Oct 08, 2016
       

Re: Change to the CBA You Would Like To See 

Post#37 » by DoItALL9 » Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:54 pm

What're the reasons that the CBA prevents a team such as New Orleans from taking the rest of Omer Asik's contract salary and putting all of it on this year's cap if they have the space or by just paying the tax? This would basically be equivalent to an amnesty clause which is rumored to not be included In this cba. The player not being able to sign back with that team for the remaining length of that contract or one calendar year would be a needed clause.
The player gets paid and the team would have better chance at becoming competitive again faster. Any reasons to be against this being regularly allowed by the cba?
Warriorfan
RealGM
Posts: 15,014
And1: 2,684
Joined: Jun 24, 2001
         

Re: Change to the CBA You Would Like To See 

Post#38 » by Warriorfan » Tue Dec 20, 2016 5:13 pm

I would make a hard cap allow for unlimited amnesty where the player still gets paid. I would make the min 1 million.
Vet min 2.5 min.

I would make the pool for winning much larger. A million dollars per player for the champ descalating to 1st rd team knocked off.
LeCalinou
Junior
Posts: 334
And1: 121
Joined: Feb 21, 2015

Re: Change to the CBA You Would Like To See 

Post#39 » by LeCalinou » Wed Jan 4, 2017 1:25 am

Smitty731 wrote:For those who understand the CBA, what is the number one change you would like to see? It could be anything. Contracts, schedules, general changes. I'm just curious to see what you all think.

For me, I would like to see the formation of a real minor league and expansion of the Draft. I combined them in to one thing, since they are related.

On the minor league side, nothing complicated. Simply, each team has their own minor league team.

The expansion of the Draft would be to 3-5 rounds. This is to fill out the minor leagues. In addition, for rookies, I would add some form of stipulation around options. Similar to MLB. A guy can be sent up and down only so many times. Obviously it needs fleshed out far more. But that is the change I would like to see.


I base this on the perceived level of talent in the league right now, and that of International basketball, taking several things into consideration:

1. There are less truly elite / dominant players than there were, say, 10 years ago, or even 20 years ago. 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 allows 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... ?
So, if you need more players to fill out the rosters, 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 for example, you get to keep it.

Which brings me to a multi-layered 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 young 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 in training staff as well ?), so those players will be better prepared when they're called upon to play.

2. Create specific salary slots - instead of just the (super)max // minimum salary slots // rookie-scale contracts etc. 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 would be limited to just 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 down to nothing (like Miami, in 2010), then signing veterans chasing a ring. Remember, Miami 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, 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
ep1987
Freshman
Posts: 52
And1: 5
Joined: Feb 24, 2013

Re: Change to the CBA You Would Like To See 

Post#40 » by ep1987 » Thu Apr 6, 2017 1:14 am

Split the cap into 2.

So each team has a hard cap of let's say $70m with a max salary of $20m. They also receive a soft cap of $50m (upper limit of $150m) which has a max salary of $50m but can only be exceeded by resigning/extending players who have played their entire career with that team.

Teams can move players between these caps with the obvious exception that no-one earning more than $20m can be placed in the hard cap section.

No luxury tax, no trade or free agent exceptions; just a simple system that the owners and players could both possibly agree to and which could potentially improve the chances of smaller market teams.

Return to CBA & Business