Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How would you change the NBA?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How would you change the NBA?

    So.. since there is (likely) not going to be a lot of Raptors-related stuff over the next few days/weeks, thought it might be interesting to hear posters specific ideas about how to address competitive balance in the NBA

    Presumption / Hypothesis: Current competitive balance levels in the NBA are inadequate, and damaging the ability for the sport to sustain itself (presumption may not be true for all posters)

    (Created own thread, so as not to muck up the Off-Season thread further)

  • #2
    Same thing I've been saying since the 2011 lockout.

    Hard cap. No individual max. High minimums to get the players association to pass it. Done.
    twitter.com/dhackett1565

    Comment


    • #3
      To get the discussion rolling..

      One of the prime drivers for the increase in salaries over the last few years has been massive increases in the size of media contracts in the US (and around the world).

      Would increasing the number of teams (the dreaded 'e' word) by say 4 teams improve the competitive balance of the league? Assuming that the expansion doesn't dramatically increase the amount of money being given to the NBA from the media - those revenues are then distributed over a larger number of teams (which would lower the exceptions, since they're based on the cap), which could dissuade players from leaving significant monies on the table from other teams to go 'ring chasing'

      Heck - could even get to the old 'baseball model' - where the two conferences don't even play each other all season, until the NBA finals.

      Comment


      • #4
        DanH wrote: View Post
        Same thing I've been saying since the 2011 lockout.

        Hard cap. No individual max. High minimums to get the players association to pass it. Done.
        How do u stop 20 mil players from signing min contracts u can’t. Once players reach free agency they do what they want

        Comment


        • #5
          Restricted free agency and franchise tags. Nba cba expires in 2023 the warriors hold this team for the next 5-10 years if they want

          Comment


          • #6
            Lower the number of franchises. Not enough talent for true parity.
            Only one thing matters: We The Champs.

            Comment


            • #7
              grindhouse wrote: View Post
              How do u stop 20 mil players from signing min contracts u can’t. Once players reach free agency they do what they want
              Yes, as it should be.

              The Cousins scenario is unavoidable. He just didn't have offers. Except of course that the Warriors wouldn't have their team right now in my system.

              Durant taking 30M instead of 35M is an easy enough decision for him. Taking 30M when he has a 70M offer on the table - that's where the financial incentive becomes overwhelming.
              twitter.com/dhackett1565

              Comment


              • #8
                This is a player's league.. and the league wants to encourage player movement and free agency. I don't want to get rid of that.. Half the excitement of the NBA is free agency and trades. You add more rules like hard caps and those kinds of things diminish and the off season become boring.

                A simple rule that I think can help with something I think most teams might actually favour:

                Championship teams forgo ALL exceptions the following season. So if you win it all you cannot use your MLE, or BAE, or any TPE's etc. If you want to fill out your roster than you have to get guys that went undrafted in the 2nd round on minimum deals. If you want to ring chase, than sit out a year and then try again.

                Warriors should not have been able to use their tax payer mid-level. Miami shouldn't have either the year they won. If you want a super star team and win that way.. cool. But the following year will be really tough to repeat.

                Comment


                • #9
                  DanH wrote: View Post
                  Same thing I've been saying since the 2011 lockout.

                  Hard cap. No individual max. High minimums to get the players association to pass it. Done.
                  Hard cap, yes. I don't think eliminating the individual max is tenable due to the nature of the game. But you could probably raise it a little from where it is now, as a percentage of the overall cap, and it would have significant positive effects on league wide competitiveness.
                  "Stop eating your sushi."
                  "I do actually have a pair of Uggs."
                  "I've had three cups of green tea tonight. I'm wired. I'm absolutely wired."
                  - Jack Armstrong

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    But there's one exception that should be worked into a hard cap: players a team has drafted. If you draft well, you should be able to keep those players.
                    "Stop eating your sushi."
                    "I do actually have a pair of Uggs."
                    "I've had three cups of green tea tonight. I'm wired. I'm absolutely wired."
                    - Jack Armstrong

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      JimiCliff wrote: View Post
                      Hard cap, yes. I don't think eliminating the individual max is tenable due to the nature of the game. But you could probably raise it a little from where it is now, as a percentage of the overall cap, and it would have significant positive effects on league wide competitiveness.
                      The nature of the game (single players being so important) is precisely why if you want any parity at all, you have to abolish the artificial maximums.
                      twitter.com/dhackett1565

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        DanH wrote: View Post
                        The nature of the game (single players being so important) is precisely why if you want any parity at all, you have to abolish the artificial maximums.
                        Yeah, I get this, but the disparity in contracts from the highest players to the average player would be too high. I can't see the players union ever signing off on it.
                        "Stop eating your sushi."
                        "I do actually have a pair of Uggs."
                        "I've had three cups of green tea tonight. I'm wired. I'm absolutely wired."
                        - Jack Armstrong

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Also, getting rid of a huge incentive to lose - ie the draft lottery - would do wonders to increasing parity.
                          "Stop eating your sushi."
                          "I do actually have a pair of Uggs."
                          "I've had three cups of green tea tonight. I'm wired. I'm absolutely wired."
                          - Jack Armstrong

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I know it's silly and impossible to dictate, but I hate that warm climate locations are such a draw for players. Place a damn tax on playing for Miami, LAC, LAL, Hou etc.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              LJ2 wrote: View Post
                              I know it's silly and impossible to dictate, but I hate that warm climate locations are such a draw for players. Place a damn tax on playing for Miami, LAC, LAL, Hou etc.
                              start the season in spring would've been my solution but it's little too late for that
                              Only one thing matters: We The Champs.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X