What do us fans want out of the new CBA?

by socaljazzfan on Oct 29, 2011 1:25 PM MDT

Well, Friday was supposed to be "The Day" and still "No Deal". So as it stands, the Billionaire owners and the Millionaire players still can't decide how to divi-up our money. It is, after all, our money, so shouldn't we have a say in how it is spent? In other words, if we as fans had a seat at the bargaining table what would we want?

Please share your thoughts and ideas. And please no attacking each other, after all we need to present a united front. Perhaps we can get T-shirts that say "Stand United" (Just kidding players).

Here's mine in order:

End the lockout already. Just take my money, say thank you, shut up and "Play the Basketball".
Achieve competitive balance. The NBA is the least competitive league with only 9 teams winning championships in the last 30 years. This will probably always be true no matter what as you can only play 5 guys. As Mark Cuban put it "if you don't have a superstar then you're just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic". The league should be doing everything they can to encourage competitive balance. Most of my ideas follow with numbers 3-6.
More revenue sharing. The Lakers new TV deal is 3 Billion over 20 years or $150 Million per season. Their old one was $30 Million per year. The Sacramento Kings TV deal is for $11 Million. As a consequence, their team payrolls were $110 Million for the Lakers (147% of the league's salary cap) and $42 Million for the Kings. The Kings actually were faced with having to either sign a D-leaguer or give all of their players a raise to meet the NBA's 75% minimum salary cap requirement of $44 Million. In the NFL all TV money is shared. If we're going to have a soft cap with a minimum salary of 75% can we have a maximum of 125%? Or how about a hard cap, period? As fans I think we would like to know that, at least financially every team can compete.
Help teams keep their superstars. No one wants to get "LeBron-ed". Can you imagine what it was like as a fan in Cleveland or Toronto last year? How about the "Melo-Drama" in Denver or Dwight Howard watch 2012 in Orlando, let alone the Deron Williams saga . The league tried this by allowing players who resigned with their old teams a 6th year on their contract and 10.5% annual raises vrs 5 year contracts with 8% annual raises if they sign elsewhere. The agents basically found a loophole with the "Sign and Trade" so that player that is leaving, gets to have his cake and eat it too. Close this loophole. Plus it would be nice if the new team were required to give up a 1st round pick for a max 5 year contract, 2nd round pick for a 4 year contract and nothing for 3 years or less. In this scenario, Portland would have had to give us a 1st round pick for signing Wes Mathews to a 5 year deal.
Allow teams to waive one bad contract each year. Let teams waive one bad contract each year. Let the worst teams have first chance of claiming that player (helps bad teams get better). If a team claims that player, then the new team is "on-the-hook" for the full contract. If no team claims the player and his full contract, then let the player sign elsewhere (not his old team) at his fair market value for the same remaining number of years on his contract. The old team that waived the player would still be "on-the-hook" for the difference between the player's new contract and his old one but would get a trade exception for the balance. This would also preserve the guaranteed contract due to the player. For example, Gilbert Arenas was the 5th highest paid player last year at $19 Million but now he's not worth that, so Orlando waives him (helps Orlando keep Dwight Howard by clearing cap space, gets a trade exception and gets rid of a locker room distraction). Of course, no body claims him at $19 Million, so now he's a free agent. He signs with Boston for 5 Million and Orlando is still on the hook for 14 Million. Orlando now has a $14 Million dollar trade exception plus $5 Million off of their cap. Alternatively, how about decreasing the amount of guarantee over the length of the contract.
Shorten the season by 6 games. This is just one game per month. No one likes to watch a team play it's 4th game in 5 nights. The players are exhausted, it makes for ugly blowouts and it's just plain hard to watch 4 games in 5 nights. We're talking the quality of the product here.

Anyways, these are my thoughts, what are yours?

All comments are the opinion of the commenter and not necessarily that of SLC Dunk or SB Nation.

Tweet Comment 7 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Here's my dream system

I agree that competitive balance will always be harder in the NBA than other sports. One great player makes a much bigger impact in basketball than baseball or football. Mini-dynasties will be and should be the norm in the NBA. The teams truly contending for a championship will be and should be small every year — 4-6 teams. And there will be and should be little variety in those teams. That’s just how basketball works.

And nothing can be guaranteed. There will always be draft busts. There will always be underachievers. There will always be stars that come unexpectedly. That’s life.

And I also want teams to be able to collect stars. Could you imagine if the salary cap had been such that the 90’s Jazz had to choose to build around either Stockton or Malone, but there was no way for them to keep both? That’s crap. I want loaded teams. I want Duncan with Ginobli and Parker. Portland with a fully healthy Oden, fully healthy Roy, and Aldridge would have been a blast to watch.

I just want to end the disparity we see in the big-market vs. small market teams in opportunities to create a loaded team.

I got the crap beat out of me in Provo one time

by Yucca Man on Oct 30, 2011 2:20 PM MDT reply actions

forget all of this

as a fan, i just want basketball.

by handlogten on Oct 31, 2011 9:44 AM MDT reply actions

Agreed! That's why I listed them in order

As a fan I don’t think we really care all that much about the logistics, we just want to see the games.

by socaljazzfan on Oct 31, 2011 9:45 PM MDT up reply actions

I do think that number 4 is a good thing and the only thing that we need for "competitive balance."

As far as the "NBA is the least competitive league with only 9 teams winning championships in the last 30 years" argument I would have to counter with you don’t need to be a big market team to get into that group. The Lakers, Bulls, and Celtics won rings as the big market teams. Though the Lakers did bring in Kareem and Shaq as free agents, drafting Magic (with the Jazz Pick) Worthy and Kobe ( with the Hornets pick), and getting gift wrapped Gasol, so a big part of their championships is from smart drafting and trades as much as it is signing 2 big free agents in the last 40 years. I know the big market has helped the Lakers, but flip it and look at the Clippers. They are in the same market, could make the same big splash with free agents and yet they draft the Michael Olowokandi, Benoit Benjamin, and Darius Miles. Then they sign guys like Barron Davis as a free agent. Part of it is luck, part of it is smarts, but the market is the same.

Look at the Knicks. They are the biggest market in the entire NBA and they haven’t won anything since the series that Willis Reed limped out of the tunnel. They spent the most money of any team in the league in the last decade, but kept using the money on everything from Allen Houston’s ACLs to Starbury and Eddy Curry. You realize Zach Randolph has won more Playoff games in Memphis then he ever did with the Knicks.

The next biggest market in the legaue is New Jersey and they came close with Kidd, but since then they were such a great market that Vince Carter died there and Carmelo wasn’t willing to sign an extension there. They have what may be the wealthiest owner in the game and one of the biggest markets in the game and their big free agent signing last year was Travis Outlaw.

The Bulls won their rings because the drafted a Jordan guy. Then they added Scott Pippen from Central Arkansas and traded Jordan’s best friend for Bill Cartwright. Wow the big names that came in to join forces with this team were BJ Armstrong, John Paxson, Toni Kukoc, Luc Longley, and Dennis Rodman. But they had Horace Grant leave and for the big market Orlando Magic.

The giant market that is San Antonio has four rings. Detriot got rings almost 20 years apart, even though the only common thread was Joe Dumars. Miami got a ring after mortgaging their future to get Shaq.

Dallas won a ring this year and has been good ever since Cuban. Even with the same big Dallas market the 20 plus years before Cuban they never won anything or signed any top free agents, even though they are a big market and have good weather. Now they win their first title and it is because they are a big market team in a league that isn’t competitive? Give me a break.

Do you know why the league hasn’t had more champions in the last 30 years? More than big markets it has been great players that have affected who got the rings. If Jordan didn’t play in the 90s we could have had another Lakers title, a Portland title, a Cleveland title, a Phoenix title, the two Houston titles, a Seattle title, an Orlando title, a Utah title, and an Indiana title. Now the league looks more competitive. If we didn’t have Kobe, some of the champs could have been Sacramento, Minnesota (yes you read that right) New Jersey, Philadelphia, Indiana, Portland, Orlando, and Phoenix with another one for both Boston and San Antonio. So you can blame Bird, Magic, Jordan, Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe for the league not having more champions, but wouldn’t you rather have those guys in the league then a league without them?

by BobbyD31 on Oct 31, 2011 11:34 AM MDT reply actions

Yes, Superstars are the difference makers.

Like I said above "The NBA is the least competitive league with only 9 teams winning championships in the last 30 years. This will probably always be true no matter what as you can only play 5 guys. As Mark Cuban put it “if you don’t have a superstar then you’re just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic”.
As for the Clippers, they have the exact same market, arena, etc as the Lakers. However they are owned by an owner who doesn’t care about winning. The Clippers have made a handsome profit every year. They sell lots of tickets and get away with their incompetence by being in a big market. Same goes for the Knicks except for the spending thing. That kind of stuff wouldn’t fly in a small market.
As for San Antonio, they have won 4 championships but to do that they had to do the following: 1) Lose a lot, win the lottery, draft David Robinson, have him be a sure fire Hall of Famer and want to stay and play in a small market. 2) Have David Robinson get hurt, lose a lot, win the lottery again, and draft Tim Duncan, have him be a sure fire Hall of famer and want to stay and play in a small market. 3) Draft Ginobli, Parker et. al.
There’s only one #1 pick each year and in theory each team should get it once every 30 years. The Spurs got it twice in a short span and both times they drafted hall of famers. What are the chances that history will repeat itself?

by socaljazzfan on Oct 31, 2011 10:01 PM MDT reply actions

That is why I agree with your point on making it easier for a team to keep their star players.

The rest of your points (other than number 1) I am not so sure it would help create more balance. Revenue sharing is going to happen, but the Kings who were trying to shed salary are not a good comparable to a team like the Lakers that is trying to win the title. A hard cap if it would help teams keep their stars I might be in favor of, but if it would have made it so the Jazz would have had to choose between Stockton and Malone, I don’t want to have it.

I believe that your number 5 would end up hurting small market teams more than big market teams. because big market teams would throw their money around and if they screwed up, just use their yearly get our of jail free card. The small market teams would have to waive the players and exactly like in your example, Boston comes in and signs them to help them win the title, or New York or the Lakers, or the Heat. With this new rule how soon before Barron Davis is thowing lobs to LeBron and Wade, and Miami is only on the hook for $1Million of Barron’s deal. This could be the unlitmate rich get richer play ground and it could cover up lots of big market screw ups.

Shortening the season by 6 games also lowers total revenue and I don’t see either side agreeing to that.

So I think basically helping teams keep their own players is the only thing that will have a big impact on helping small markets compete. But I think smart GMs and good owners are more important to helping a small market than all of the rest of the ideas that have been put out there. Luckly for the Jazz we have both.

by BobbyD31 on Nov 1, 2011 11:18 AM MDT up reply actions

You're probably right on #5

I just thought that #5 would be better from a fan’s point of view. Nobody likes an overpaid/underachieving athlete.
I used the Lakers as they have the highest payroll and the Kings as they have the lowest. Jerry Buss has said that he has already earmarked his TV revenue for estate taxes so his son can continue to own the team after his death. Dr. Buss has no other real revenue sources. So, I’m not sure that the small amount of revenue sharing is really going to prevent the Lakers from always being the highest payroll team irregardless of their championship aspirations. I mean $150 Million a year?!?!
No, I don’t see either side agreeing to lop off 6 games for the reasons you said, but It does make for some sloppy basketball. Besides who came up with the idea of 82 games? It’s not a balanced schedule now (not all teams play each other the same number of times).
I definitely think that the owners are still pissed about LeBron and the “Decision”. So they are trying their darndest to be able to keep their superstars.
Yes, we are very lucky to have a GREAT owner and a GREAT GM. Both of those things counts for a lot. Just look at New York.

by socaljazzfan on Nov 1, 2011 8:44 PM MDT reply actions