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