Cba

[mudyez]

Its about 10 months away from now, but I'd like to start a discussion to give insight as eraly as possible.

Not talking about the lockout and so on. What do you think, the new CBA should include, do improve the NBA.

One thing, you always hear, is the implementation of a "hard cap", but the downfall with this is, that players would change teams more often, which is exactely what the NBA (and most of us) doesnt want!

But what are other ways to improve the situation?

My proposal: Make the Luxery Tax Cap = Salary Cap, meaning that the SalCap is calculated the same way as before, but teams have to pay the dollar for dollar from that number on!

any oppinons or ideas?

[JamStone]

Making the luxury tax = the salary cap cripples teams that try to manage their payroll prudently. The luxury tax is higher than the salary cap because it takes into consideration that many if not most contracts escalate yearly. So say a team that is just getting by does everything they can do to build a winner and not end up in the red too much pays fairly smart and valued contracts to help build a winning team and does it with about $1 million to spare under the salary cap. Well 2, 3, 4 years down the line, many of those contracts will be worth more in annual salary and puts their payroll over the cap. They either have to get rid of players, let players walk, or can't sign any additional pieces, or all of the above because they can't afford to get into the luxury tax.

If the NBA does something like that, they would have to find a way not to punish teams that tried to build a team under the cap but got into the luxury tax due to escalating contracts. Something like taking the average annual salary of a contract so that a $45 million contract over 5 years is always worth $9 million every year towards the cap even if it starts around $7 million and ends around $11 million. They do something like that in the NHL. Or the value of contracts 4 years or longer in length are always worth the first year salary when it comes to calculating the salary cap. You can't cripple teams that are borderline financially viable that try to build winning teams. It would hurt those teams most. Teams like the Lakers, Knicks, and Mavericks under Mark Cuban would still go way past the salary cap/luxury tax. So who would that rule really hurt?

As for new rules...

-I imagine they are going to scale down the % of what the players make, so the maximum players can make is significantly less than it is now. That's part of the reason we saw some players surprisingly opt out of their guaranteed money. Personally, I would like to see the max a player in his prime can get in the 20-25% of the salary cap range. That allows teams at least in the first couple seasons of that max contract to have more manageable financial maneuverability unless they have a bunch of crap contracts already.

-This has been mentioned in another thread recently, but when a player opts out of a guaranteed contract, he shouldn't be allowed to re-sign to that same team for a minimum salary. That was brought up when James Jones returned to the Heat, although I'd make certain exceptions to that.

-I would like a league wide veto power on blockbuster trades. In recent years, some people have cried conspiracy with the Gasol and KG trades among others. What I propose is that if every other of the 28 (or 27 if it's a three team trade) teams unanimously think the trade is unfairly lopsided, they have the power to veto the trade. That doesn't automatically mean trades like Gasol and KG don't go down. It has to be unanimous among all the other teams. It would only take one team to be cool with it to allow it to go through. But it gives the egregious trade some accountability. And maybe it helps stupid GMs like Kahn out.

[spursfan1000]

Making the luxury tax = the salary cap cripples teams that try to manage their payroll prudently. The luxury tax is higher than the salary cap because it takes into consideration that many if not most contracts escalate yearly. So say a team that is just getting by does everything they can do to build a winner and not end up in the red too much pays fairly smart and valued contracts to help build a winning team and does it with about $1 million to spare under the salary cap. Well 2, 3, 4 years down the line, many of those contracts will be worth more in annual salary and puts their payroll over the cap. They either have to get rid of players, let players walk, or can't sign any additional pieces, or all of the above because they can't afford to get into the luxury tax.

If the NBA does something like that, they would have to find a way not to punish teams that tried to build a team under the cap but got into the luxury tax due to escalating contracts. Something like taking the average annual salary of a contract so that a $45 million contract over 5 years is always worth $9 million every year towards the cap even if it starts around $7 million and ends around $11 million. They do something like that in the NHL. Or the value of contracts 4 years or longer in length are always worth the first year salary when it comes to calculating the salary cap. You can't cripple teams that are borderline financially viable that try to build winning teams. It would hurt those teams most. Teams like the Lakers, Knicks, and Mavericks under Mark Cuban would still go way past the salary cap/luxury tax. So who would that rule really hurt?

As for new rules...

-I imagine they are going to scale down the % of what the players make, so the maximum players can make is significantly less than it is now. That's part of the reason we saw some players surprisingly opt out of their guaranteed money. Personally, I would like to see the max a player in his prime can get in the 20-25% of the salary cap range. That allows teams at least in the first couple seasons of that max contract to have more manageable financial maneuverability unless they have a bunch of crap contracts already.

-This has been mentioned in another thread recently, but when a player opts out of a guaranteed contract, he shouldn't be allowed to re-sign to that same team for a minimum salary. That was brought up when James Jones returned to the Heat, although I'd make certain exceptions to that.

-I would like a league wide veto power on blockbuster trades. In recent years, some people have cried conspiracy with the Gasol and KG trades among others. What I propose is that if every other of the 28 (or 27 if it's a three team trade) teams unanimously think the trade is unfairly lopsided, they have the power to veto the trade. That doesn't automatically mean trades like Gasol and KG don't go down. It has to be unanimous among all the other teams. It would only take one team to be cool with it to allow it to go through. But it gives the egregious trade some accountability. And maybe it helps stupid GMs like Kahn out.

Great post.

[mudyez]

thanks for your thoughts...very interesting

- as für the sal=lux: I see what you mean, but wouldnt a hard cap be the same for contenders minus the advantage of the big market cities?

- your first point probably will be one of the main objectives of the new CBA

- never saw, that the second point is that big of a deal, but it reminds me of anothe issue: Stern surely will kill those "comeback-trades" a la Ilgauskas, Barry and so on. Maybe something like a rule, a player cant come back for 12 months or until the next offseason

- for the veto-thing: I believe its to fantasie basketball like. Pop would love it, but I dont see anything like that, even if it would be great!

- how about something totaly different? I believe the NFL has something like that in place, but wouldnt it be great to be able to renegotiate contracts if a player play above/below his contract? not sure, how it is handled in the NFL exactly...The Albert Haynesworth thing shows, that its not a perfect system, as long as owners are insane.

[Giuseppe]

They'll lightly tinker, but, by & large what we have now will be sustained.

There will be no lock out. There will be no strike.

Just like that.

[mudyez]

They'll lightly tinker, but, by & large what we have now will be sustained.

There will be no lock out. There will be no strike.

Just like that.

but I think, we all agree that something has to happen...some of the latest signings proofed, that the owners have to be safed from their own!

BTW.: can someone tell me, how a hard cap works? I would think, that there is a major problem for players to get any contracts, when all team caps are filled (a little bit like Shaq this year, but to a bigger degree with more and better players).

[Giuseppe]

but I think, we all agree that something has to happen...some of the latest signings proofed, that the owners have to be safed from their own!

^That is the key, the owners proved during this current free agency period that they have the money laying around to spend recklessly, humiliating themselves in the process. What, the player's union ain't takin' notes? The owners blew whatever advantage they had here.

Stern had every right in the world to refuse the union's demand to open up the books. The owners just did it for him during this last month.

Each side will give a trace, and they'll go on= the owner's with their cash cows|||the players with their windfalls.

[Dunc n Dave]

-I would like a league wide veto power on blockbuster trades. In recent years, some people have cried conspiracy with the Gasol and KG trades among others. What I propose is that if every other of the 28 (or 27 if it's a three team trade) teams unanimously think the trade is unfairly lopsided, they have the power to veto the trade. That doesn't automatically mean trades like Gasol and KG don't go down. It has to be unanimous among all the other teams. It would only take one team to be cool with it to allow it to go through. But it gives the egregious trade some accountability. And maybe it helps stupid GMs like Kahn out.

This opens the door for more collusion with under the table offers.

EXAMPLE: Put those rules in place before the Gasol trade and all Mitch Kupchack would have to do its call up a GM buddy of his and offer (under the table, of course) a draft pick or trade down the road in exchange for that GM being "OK with" the Gasol trade. It's too easy to convince ONE GM to be OK with it.

The idea might work if, say like in Fantasy BBall you have a league-wide vote and 2/3 or more of the league thinks it's an unfair trade. It's gonna be impossible for even the Lakers or Celtics to bribe 10 GMs into letting their one sided deals go through.

[JamStone]

That's a reach. With that proposed change, I would make it so that the NBA league office would know which team voted to allow the trade and if it's only one team, or even a couple of teams, the NBA would be heavily su ious and likely keep an eye on future dealings those GMs made with either of the GMs involved in the trade. Just how collusion and and other rules violations have been addressed now, there would be heavy penalties if caught, like what happened to the Timberwolves, even if it's years later. Now I won't say that there aren't GMs dumb enough to not take that chance because there likely are, but I doubt it would lead to "more" collusion.

I do see how it sounds more like something that would happen in a fantasy basketball league. But I do think just like in government, there needs to be some kind of "checks and balances" where there isn't so much overall discretion left to the league office and with Stern. I'd even be open to amending my original proposed change to not a full veto power over trades, but have teams still "vote" on whether they think trades are unfair and/or egregiously lopsided. And then Stern takes those votes into heavy consideration before accepting the trades. Perhaps if it's say a huge majority (something like 3/4 of the teams not involved think it's an unfair trade) and Stern still approves, teams can take it up with an arbitrator. At the very least, it will give some sense of having a thoughtful examination of the fairness of proposed trades before they go through.

Back to the salary cap/luxury tax issue...

I think a hard cap could work ok if it were reasonable enough, but more like a max ceiling as opposed to having the actual salary cap be the hard cap as well. So perhaps an introduction of a "max ceiling hard cap" in addition to the salary cap and luxury tax. The salary cap and luxury tax remain basically the same and then the hard cap is above the luxury tax. So using hypothetical numbers, if the salary cap is $60 million and the luxury tax threshhold is $70 million, then the max ceiling hard cap is something like $80 million. What this does is help even things out. You don't have teams like the Lakers or the Mavericks just keep overpaying contracts, collecting players when previous players don't work out, and keep getting quality players that other teams would otherwise have a shot at acquiring. But it also helps stupid teams like the New York Knicks from making stupid acquisition after stupid acquisition, throwing money at problems as a band-aid instead of tearing the team down and starting from scratch. So it addresses a couple of issues, and should at least partly help bring a little more parity. Right now with the NBA's CBA, there are still loopholes around what the CBA is intended to do in terms of creating an even playing field for all teams.

[coyotes_geek]

I think they'll up the minimum age from 19 to 20. I think it's also a safe bet that the new CBA will have another round of "amnesty rule". Other than that, all the fighting is going to be over how to divvy up the revenue pie. The fundamental structure to the whole thing isn't going to change much.

I don't see a hard cap, but I could see them tweaking the luxury tax a bit to where there's a $1 for $1 line and then a $2 for $1 line.

[Goran Dragic]

I think there should be radical change but I don't think there will be. The rumor is that the owners gave out all these stupid contracts this off season because they think that they'll negotiate a new CBA that makes them non guaranteed deals in a year and they can waive the ones that don't work out, but that's not gonna in happen. This is America, you can't just draw up a contract with both parties signing it and then a year later say the contract is invalid because of a new CBA.

IMO, the NFL is the model of parity in pro sports, and the NBA should try to mimic their structure so it's more than a 3-4 team race every year. The two exceptions I have are profit sharing and rookie scale contracts. A hard salary cap does more than enough to give small market teams a fair shake, but profit sharing basically makes it so bad teams make money off good teams which is dumb.

1) there should be a hard salary cap.
2) I would say there needs to be non guaranteed deals but there already is, the problem is that players don't accept non guaranteed deals when another team that could care less about cap management is willing to give the guaranteed deal. Unless there is a hard salary cap that forces teams to be careful, non guaranteed deals are pointless.
3) Get rid of the draft lottery and just do it by record. The worst team should get the best pick, plain and simple. I know this could lead to more tanking but I still have my doubts about how many owners/GMs/coaches would be willing to intentionally tank games and put all their eggs in the basket of an unproven player.
4) Make any player bought out sit out the rest of the season
5) Make an injured reserve so players like Yao Ming risk losing money when they do selfish things during the off season
6) Give kids the option of going to the NBA right out of high school but make it so they need to stay in college for 3 years if they go to college. This one year rule bull is hurting college basketball and it's rewarding s coaches like Calipari. I'd prefer they just make it so the kids need to go to college for 3 years but the union would never allow that.

[Goran Dragic]

BTW.: can someone tell me, how a hard cap works? I would think, that there is a major problem for players to get any contracts, when all team caps are filled (a little bit like Shaq this year, but to a bigger degree with more and better players).

It'll be like the NFL with non-guaranteed deals. In the NFL teams enter the off season all the time over the cap or close to it and they create cap space by waiving players near the end of their deals who are making way more than they're worth. One thing NFL teams do is front load the amount of guaranteed money on the contract so down the road they can waive the player and almost all of his salary stops counting against the cap.

[JamStone]

4) Make any player bought out sit out the rest of the season

Agree with your intent, but don't agree with that as a rule. Perhaps something more along the lines what they do in baseball when a veteran player out of options is designated for assignment. Teams with bad records get first dibs on them, but they have to pay the remainder of the salary. If the player passes waivers, then all teams have a shot at him. Not exactly that, but something where a waived player can't just go to the team with the best record for a prorated minimum salary.

6) Give kids the option of going to the NBA right out of high school but make it so they need to stay in college for 3 years if they go to college. This one year rule bull is hurting college basketball and it's rewarding s coaches like Calipari. I'd prefer they just make it so the kids need to go to college for 3 years but the union would never allow that.

I would be in favor of allowing high school kids back in the draft, but having a screening process. Have a panel of NBA scouts and NBA executives. If they find as a panel that the high school kid will likely be a first round pick, then allow them to enter the draft. If not, they can't.

I agree college basketball is getting ruined by the one-and-dones, especially with snakes like Calipari as head coaches at programs like Kentucky. But I also think 3 years is extreme. I'd be all for 2 years though. Or 2 years after graduating high school. So if college isn't for some kids, they can play a year overseas. I don't know. I do think 3 years in college for some players is just overkill when they are clearly ready for the NBA after 1 or 2 years of college.

[Dunc n Dave]

That's a reach. With that proposed change, I would make it so that the NBA league office would know which team voted to allow the trade and if it's only one team, or even a couple of teams, the NBA would be heavily su ious and likely keep an eye on future dealings those GMs made with either of the GMs involved in the trade. Just how collusion and and other rules violations have been addressed now, there would be heavy penalties if caught, like what happened to the Timberwolves, even if it's years later. Now I won't say that there aren't GMs dumb enough to not take that chance because there likely are, but I doubt it would lead to "more" collusion.

I do see how it sounds more like something that would happen in a fantasy basketball league. But I do think just like in government, there needs to be some kind of "checks and balances" where there isn't so much overall discretion left to the league office and with Stern. I'd even be open to amending my original proposed change to not a full veto power over trades, but have teams still "vote" on whether they think trades are unfair and/or egregiously lopsided. And then Stern takes those votes into heavy consideration before accepting the trades. Perhaps if it's say a huge majority (something like 3/4 of the teams not involved think it's an unfair trade) and Stern still approves, teams can take it up with an arbitrator. At the very least, it will give some sense of having a thoughtful examination of the fairness of proposed trades before they go through.

I agree there should be some way to veto trades, but your earlier suggestion of needing only 1 other GM who's not part of the trade to OK a trade is still too risky.

Even though you say they would get caught, no one would be able to prove it if a side deal was made to OK a trade, especially if the only ones who know about the side deal are the 2 GMs. Let's say later that off season after the Gasol trade, the Lakers "trade down" in the draft to the team that OKed the deal by dealing their #29 pick for a future 2nd rounder. Or the Lakers salary dump a player that summer to the team (or take back a salary dump from the other team). How is anyone gonna prove it was part of a "wink, wink" deal to OK a trade last season?

The burden of proof would be on the accusers. You know, the whole innocent until PROVEN guilty thing... Good luck trying to prove that.

And if you get an arbritrator involved, what happens to the players involved in the trade while they fight it out in court? Are they stuck in limbo? Do you make them go back and play for the team that tried to trade them and watch as they play half-assed, knowing their team doesn't want them anymore?

Whatever they do when it comes to judging trades, it needs to be something that can be completed in 48 hours MAX, so those players involved aren't stuck unable to play. If more than HALF of the teams in the NBA think it's an unfair trade, I'd say something needs to be done to stop it.

[Goran Dragic]

I agree college basketball is getting ruined by the one-and-dones, especially with snakes like Calipari as head coaches at programs like Kentucky. But I also think 3 years is extreme. I'd be all for 2 years though. Or 2 years after graduating high school. So if college isn't for some kids, they can play a year overseas. I don't know. I do think 3 years in college for some players is just overkill when they are clearly ready for the NBA after 1 or 2 years of college.

For every kid where 2 years is overkill, there are countless kids who would greatly benefit from a junior or senior season. It's unfair to the kids who don't need that 2nd year, but I think people really lose perspective here. The life of a college athlete isn't something that's miserable to experience. If it keeps college basketball better and it generates more NBA ready players, I feel little sympathy for someone who has to play basketball for free while having to maintain very mediocre grades and in exchange get all expenses paid by the university, gets to screw tons of college girls, gets to party whenever they want to and get treated like a king in general for 3 years when they might only need 2.

[mudyez]

3) Get rid of the draft lottery and just do it by record. The worst team should get the best pick, plain and simple. I know this could lead to more tanking but I still have my doubts about how many owners/GMs/coaches would be willing to intentionally tank games and put all their eggs in the basket of an unproven player.
6) Give kids the option of going to the NBA right out of high school but make it so they need to stay in college for 3 years if they go to college. This one year rule bull is hurting college basketball and it's rewarding s coaches like Calipari. I'd prefer they just make it so the kids need to go to college for 3 years but the union would never allow that.

3) I'm for the opposite: Giving all non Playoff teams the same chance! That would surely kill the tanking (or do you think, teams would purposly miss the playoffs for a 1:14 chance to get the top pick?)
6) Would it be possible to have all players drafted that finish highschool and asure them what they make under the rokie scale even if they choose to go to college first?...normaly risking having bad years or an injury?

[lefty]

I would like a league wide veto power on blockbuster trades. In recent years, some people have cried conspiracy with the Gasol and KG trades among others. What I propose is that if every other of the 28 (or 27 if it's a three team trade) teams unanimously think the trade is unfairly lopsided, they have the power to veto the trade. That doesn't automatically mean trades like Gasol and KG don't go down. It has to be unanimous among all the other teams. It would only take one team to be cool with it to allow it to go through. But it gives the egregious trade some accountability. And maybe it helps stupid GMs like Kahn out.

At first, I thought you copied/pasted that from The Onion.

If other teams can veto a potentiel trade, then it will be a big mess

[Goran Dragic]

3) I'm for the opposite: Giving all non Playoff teams the same chance! That would surely kill the tanking (or do you think, teams would purposly miss the playoffs for a 1:14 chance to get the top pick?)

Teams never purposefully miss the playoffs to tank, almost all the time teams that are clearly gonna miss the playoffs anyway figure they might as well tank since they'll be missing the playoffs regardless. Giving a team like the 2010 Rockets or 2009 Suns the same chance at the top pick as a team like the 2010 Nets makes very little sense.

[JamStone]

I agree there should be some way to veto trades, but your earlier suggestion of needing only 1 other GM who's not part of the trade to OK a trade is still too risky.

Even though you say they would get caught, no one would be able to prove it if a side deal was made to OK a trade, especially if the only ones who know about the side deal are the 2 GMs. Let's say later that off season after the Gasol trade, the Lakers "trade down" in the draft to the team that OKed the deal by dealing their #29 pick for a future 2nd rounder. Or the Lakers salary dump a player that summer to the team (or take back a salary dump from the other team). How is anyone gonna prove it was part of a "wink, wink" deal to OK a trade last season?

The burden of proof would be on the accusers. You know, the whole innocent until PROVEN guilty thing... Good luck trying to prove that.

And if you get an arbritrator involved, what happens to the players involved in the trade while they fight it out in court? Are they stuck in limbo? Do you make them go back and play for the team that tried to trade them and watch as they play half-assed, knowing their team doesn't want them anymore?

Whatever they do when it comes to judging trades, it needs to be something that can be completed in 48 hours MAX, so those players involved aren't stuck unable to play. If more than HALF of the teams in the NBA think it's an unfair trade, I'd say something needs to be done to stop it.

I personally think it's hard to believe more "shady" "under the table" agreements will be made because of it. I won't say it's impossible to happen, but I do think it's improbable. Any collusion now is still hard to prove as well. There are ways the league can make it a pretty bad idea to do that. How about if you're the only team that voted it's fair, you cannot make any deals with either team involved in the trade for 3 years? Something like that where there are heavy incentives or stiff penalties so GMs do more than think twice about doing something shady.

I would probably have an arbitrator or arbitrators designated each NBA season and ones readily accessible to review appealed trades right away so that a 48 hour window is not only not impossible, but easily done.

I think half is too few. It really has to be such an egregiously lopsided trade that the vast majority of teams think it's unfair. Half of the teams could easily vote to veto a trade and it not be based on whether it's fair or not. If a team is going to greatly benefit from a trade, whether fair or not, most of the teams in that conference have an incentive to veto. And it probably wouldn't be hard to get enough from the other conference, particularly contending teams, who would feel the same, and not based on fairness. We're talking over-the-top, really horribly one-sided trades where the whole world thinks it's unfair.

I also have another related idea, but I'm about to have dinner and I'll come back on here and post it in a few...

At first, I thought you copied/pasted that from The Onion.

If other teams can veto a potentiel trade, then it will be a big mess

I was being dead serious. However, I do realize it's isn't a perfect solution or something that wouldn't need several tweaks to make it not only feasible, but practical and beneficial to the league. My general notion of having the league office and Stern accountable and culpable remains the same. The manner with which it's done is certainly a debatable issue. I initially proposed that "every" other team in the league had to veto it unanimously were directly related to what I assume would be your problems with it. It's too easy to have many teams want to veto trades merely because it makes a good team, particularly an already contending team, better as opposed to objectively thinking the trade is unfair and/or lopsided.

I will concede it's not an easy answer regardless how they address it. My main objective with the proposed change was to bring some kind of accountability to Stern and the league office, where it's not only their, or more poignantly "his," own discretion to approve or reject trades without the other teams in the league being able to at least voice their opinion. Obviously, it wouldn't be for every, single trade. But I think it's an issue that needs to be addressed. Whether it is with the next CBA, we'll have to wait and see. I think it's unlikely.

[mudyez]

Teams never purposefully miss the playoffs to tank, almost all the time teams that are clearly gonna miss the playoffs anyway figure they might as well tank since they'll be missing the playoffs regardless.

thats just, what I ment...no tanking in the playoof/nonplayoff area!

so why not make the cut there!

right now the worst that could happen to a team is beeing a 9-11seat (maybe you could even include 7+8 seats), coz you are not good enough to make a run, nor you have a real chance of becoming a contender via draft (unless you get some pretty nice steals, like our Spurs)...stuff like that is making teams do trades like the Gasol trade: "Hey, at least, we have a chance to get high draft picks now!"

I don't have a problem with 9th seats getting the top picks from time to time...I get the parity thing, creating some buzz even for the worst teams...But I'd actually like a team like Houston getting their hands on Wall/Turner and it would put an end to any tanking!

, I'd even like the idea, that the 9ths seats get the highes picks! That way, other teams would have to climb up the ladder to get better picks and so on. Every win would count!
only problem I see, is that with great top-picks like Duncan, Oden and so on, I really could see teams purposly becoming 9th instead of 8th!

[lefty]

I was being dead serious. However, I do realize it's isn't a perfect solution or something that wouldn't need several tweaks to make it not only feasible, but practical and beneficial to the league. My general notion of having the league office and Stern accountable and culpable remains the same. The manner with which it's done is certainly a debatable issue. I initially proposed that "every" other team in the league had to veto it unanimously were directly related to what I assume would be your problems with it. It's too easy to have many teams want to veto trades merely because it makes a good team, particularly an already contending team, better as opposed to objectively thinking the trade is unfair and/or lopsided.

I will concede it's not an easy answer regardless how they address it. My main objective with the proposed change was to bring some kind of accountability to Stern and the league office, where it's not only their, or more poignantly "his," own discretion to approve or reject trades without the other teams in the league being able to at least voice their opinion. Obviously, it wouldn't be for every, single trade. But I think it's an issue that needs to be addressed. Whether it is with the next CBA, we'll have to wait and see. I think it's unlikely.

I think the only way to do it would be to enforce the rules regarding trades, so there won't be a grey area

The problem lies in Stern's willingness to do it