This topic contains 2 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by 
Toronto16 14 years, 9 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
- Posted on: Tue, 09/20/2011 - 8:23pm #33108
Charlie SheenParticipantOk here me out
62mil Flex cap
70mil maximum
so say during free agency a team is at 63mil they only got 7mil to work with and if a team is at 61mil they only got a 1mil to work with now that doesnt seem fair but at that point a team under the cap who hasnt filled out their roster gets an exception and here’s how it works say they got 10 players and the min is 12 we take the differenc of the max cap (70) and how much their cap is currently at (61) so the difference would be (9mil) and take the number of players they need to fill out the roster (2) and divide them 9/2=4.5 so a team has an exception of 4.5mil to go to 2 players which I think is fair
Max Salary would be for a player just finishing their rookie contract 4yrs/60mil
Max Salary for a player 2 contracts removed 5yr/85mil
Max Salary for a player 3 contracts removed 3yrs/65mil
Non Guarnateed deals so each deal is a max 70% guaranteed( so the max would be 85mil we take 70% 59.5mil and divide that by 5= a 11.9mil cap hold for 5yrs) this is good for small markets as they can max a guy out but truly only be committed to 12mil while big market teams can get big names too but stil have the opportunity to add quality talent as small markets usually draft lower and get better players
Draft- the top 4 teams of each conference would not have 1st rounders, the other 22 teams would be in the lottery where the top 5 teams would be drawn rather than the top 3. Late in the year teams start to forfiet games intentionally so this is fair especially for teams that get 7 and 8 seeds but clearly arent true contenders ala New Orleans this past year. the 23-30 picks would go to the worst 8 teams by order of worst conference record as the West and East are not equally competitive. The 2nd round would have the top 4 from each conference each getting 2 picks in the round while the other 14 go to teams via best record so the other 8 playoff teams and the 6 best "lottery teams".
The competitive balance in the NBA would be very fair in my opinion. Small market teams would look more like Memphis and OKC more often as long as they 1. draft correctly and 2 spend wisely big market teams would also maintain the advantage they have as far as MAX contracts go while small market teams would still be able to match big deals without throwing out 100mil dollars
side notes:
No more player/team options
teams can cut players who dont produce but they have to have buyouts that dont reflect on the cap but teams are still obligated to paying players also a player can only be cut after they’ve completed 3/5 of the contract length unless they get into legal trouble where they are unable to participate in team activities
no more restricted FA you have to agree to an extension before year 4 of the rookie contract starts year 3 for 2nd rounders if not that player becomes an UFA but players and teams can still negotiate but other teams have thier chance also but can not start til July 1
players can opt out of thier contracts if they want but they void all agreements of the contract meaning no buy out, now you may think this is bad but here’s the catch they can only do 1 time for as long as their in the league they also have to wait until 3/5 of their contract is done
Im sick of players being unhappy on teams, teams being stuck with papers, this is a business if someone isnt doing thier job they get fired, if your job isnt treating you right you quit its as simple as that.
tell me what you guys think of my proposal negative or positive but I think this is the best way for the NBA to go
Thank You
"Bring Basketball Back"
0 - Posted on: Wed, 09/21/2011 - 4:36am #600735
mikeyvthedonParticipantI think the 62 million flex cap and 70 million max makes no sense. If the cap is 62 million, that means you cannot go over it to sign Free Agents. The flexibility would be only to deal with your current roster. If you wanted to keep the mid level exception, that would be fine, but to grant teams the ability to sign players if they are under a 70 million plateau, you might as well make the "flex-cap" 70 million. The flexibility would be for teams that currently have players signed to long term contracts at a high volume, and for teams wishing to do so.
The Draft: Honestly, what is wrong with the draft the way it is? Does taking away the 23-30th picks in the draft really make things fair? I think it is a ridiculous proposal personally. I am surprised they want to change anything in the draft under it’s current terms. The reward for being a mediocre to bad play-off team is getting a mid-first round pick. Even if they were included in a lottery, their chances of moving up would be less than 1%. I just do not understand the thinking behind changing the draft, especially with some of these suggestions to supposedly make things more fair.
Yes, there are players that do indeed become good players as late first, early second round picks. But, the percentages of finding these players are not at all in your favor. The higher you pick, the more likely you are to draft a player that will help your team, pure and simple. Once you choose outside of the top 10, it is a total crap shoot. I have posted this before, but I guess some people have not seen it. It is not the end all be all, but I think it at least gives you an idea that the draft, under its current system, seems to be fine. It is not like teams picking 23-30 are stacking the decks, and to give them lower picks than that would be even more unfair:
http://www.82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm
I guess people see players like Tony Parker and Josh Howard get picked in the late first round, so they start thinking every late first rounder is a steal. The odds are, the higher you pick, the better player you will choose. It does not always happen that way, but on average, that is what seems to happen. That is why I have little idea why people feel like the best teams should be denied first round picks. I think they are in fair positions as is.
Player/Team Options: What is wrong with that system? I actually think it is completely fine the way it is. Honestly, if players do not want to sign extensions, they can just accept a qualifying offer and become Unrestricted Free Agents. If you want to make things INCREDIBLY unfair for smaller market teams, than eliminate team options and see what happens. You would see a bunch of players head for the hills after year 3, I will tell you that much. I think you have the absolute wrong idea when it comes to this. Restricted Free Agency IS the thing that makes the system fair for smaller market teams. To eliminate these restrictions, you would have just had LeBron James, Chris Bosh, Chris Paul, Carmelo Anthony and others leave earlier than they did before. They would have very little incentive to stay in smaller markets. Meanwhile, smaller market teams would probably be signing the cream of the crop in players that help you dabble in mediocrity.
As much as you seemed to put work into this, I think you need to look at things a little more closely and think of the cause and effect of these things you have suggested. I think there is incredibly little wrong with the current system, unless you dislike owners spending money for players under a salary cap that really is less than the 70 million you suggested. The system you have suggested would still give larger markets a huge advantage in signing players, while denying them menial draft picks. I think that things are more complicated and involve more than you put into your proposal. This is why it has taken this long. I want NBA basketball back as much as anyone, but if this is what the league chooses as the structure of its new CBA, than I think we will all lose.
0 - Posted on: Wed, 09/21/2011 - 4:38am #600737
Toronto16ParticipantI’m feeling a hard cap of 65 million would work.
0 - AuthorPosts
| You must be logged in to reply to this topic. | Login |