I wrote this in response to people complaining about the NBA Draft system in a Warrior thread and I just wanted to get everyone's take on it: I do not think that there is anything wrong with the current system of the lottery. This is the first year in the lottery's history that none of the bottom three teams got into the first three picks. It seemingly erased the notion that the lottery is rigged considering that two of the least marketable teams got the first two picks. I doubt that you will see teams tanking in the future to secure more ping pong balls when there is a 75 percent chance that you will not get the first pick when you have the worst record. Those aren't the best odds in the world. If I had to make any changes to the league I would require that all contracts exceeding four years would have an team option to terminate after the third year and in the fourth year (if the team didn't terminate the contract) would have a player option to test the free agent market. This would give owners a smaller window of error in the cases of players who are not reaching their expectations but would also give players more incentive to front load their contracts in the event that they feel their organization could choose to terminate their contracts. Players would have more incentive to play hard b/c they could potentially be free agents every third year in the league. I believe that there should be no restrictive free agency. If after the fourth year of a contract a rookie wants to test the free agent market he shouldn't feel compelled to resign with the team he played for just b/c they have the right to match a contract that they sign for another team. It is difficult enough that a player really doesn't have the right to pick the team that they want to play for out of college because of the draft. If they prove themselves in a situation that they may not have wanted to be in after four years they should have the right to choose what team they will play for without the worry that the team they are on will match the offer. That is giving an organization too much power--b/c I have yet to see a player sign a qualifying offer and have a breakout season. Teams should also be able to restructure the deals of any existing player on their team at any time after they have completed one year of the initial signed contract--without that player becoming a free agent in the process. For instance, what happened to Carlos Boozer should not have hurt the Cavaliers. If a team feels that a player on their roster market value far exceeds what they are getting paid, at the end of the season they can restructure that contract if the player agrees and pay them more (or less) money without them becoming a free agent in the process. For instance if Kevin Durant in his first season puts up outrageous numbers, he could, if the Sonics would choose and Durant would agree, tear up his rookie contract and be offered a max deal in his second season. Most teams wouldn't want to do that considering they would save a lot of money, but that player when he was a free agent could remember that he wasn't compensated for his hard work and choose to go to another team. This would give players more incentive to play harder every year b/c of the chance that ownership would want to issue them a more lucrative deal at the end of the year. It would make GM's work excessively hard to keep the core of their team together, while also giving college players more incentive to continue to work on their games so that they could possibly restructure their contracts before they were free agents.. You wouldn't have to worry about anyone holding out as a draft pick (one of the best things about the current CBA agreement) b/c all rookies first year salaries would be based on where they were drafted. An existing player who wants to win a championship could, if they choose, give up guaranteed money to ensure that the team could pursue worthwhile free agents and remain under the salary cap. Obviously there could be drawbacks to these proposals. A team could insist that a player restructure their contract or else they would not play the minutes that they would hope the next season. If the player would choose not to they would still get their money, regardless of the pressure from the organization. Other players may get upset that a team wouldn't tear up their contract when they had a breakout year and could demand a trade to a team that was willing to restructure their contract. There would then be a clause that said that only after a player was on a roster for an entire year would they be able to restructure their contract with the team that they are on. Lot of provisions, lot of loopholes, but it would allow players to be compensated for a job well done, and owners to not be fiscally responsible for a player who is simply trying to cash in a pay check. It wouldn't be like the NFL, but a 3 year contract is much less imposing than a 5 or 6 year deal -- if a player is not performing. And if he is, it would benefit the player to have the right to opt out after four years of service. and it would give the player incentive to give his best effort every year in hopes that management would restructure their contract at seasons end--and not have to worry about restricted free agency either. And the rookie salary cap would only take precedence if a team chooses to use it--if they wanted to max out a rookie after his first year they could choose to do so. I also believe that a college player should not have the option of going back to school if they declare for the draft. One it waste the NBA's time evaluating someone who may not be in the draft, two it puts the college in limbo not knowing whether or not their star player is coming back for another year, three it takes away the opportunity for someone who may be a fringe NBA draft pick an opportunity to showcase himself against NBA draft prospect (there is a limit to the amount of entries for predraft camps and workouts). It hurts the college game and it hurts the pro game. If you declare you have to live with the results. Period. That is about the dumbest rules that I can remember. Just my views of how the NBA could improve their product.
I wrote this in another thread about the draft lottery... <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Dallas got Josh Howard at 29. Seattle got Rashard Lewis at 32. Milwaukee got Michael Redd at 42. Gilbert Arenas went in the 40s, Carlos Boozer in the 30s. All All-Stars. Dirk went 8, Amare dropped to 9, Pierce dropped to 10 etc. It's only when there is a can't miss superstar or two that people whinge about the draft lottery system. Otherwise it comes down to scouting, judgement and luck. Boston could have had Brandon Roy last year, but instead opted for Telfair and a salary dump. And FWIW, that is the first time since the lottery was introduced that the worst three teams have all missed a top three pick. Looking at all the contenders in the league, San Antonio is the only one who is really built around draft luck, and even they have surrounded Duncan with Parker (pick 28) and Ginobili, who went second round.</div> Nothing annoys me more than teams/fans complaining because they feel they had a right to a top pick more than another team. It's luck and it's always been luck. Just because we have a draft where there are potentially two franchise players, doesn't mean that should change. As for player contracts, when was the last time you actually saw a star rookie who didn't resign a max deal with the team who drafted him as soon as he was eligible? I don't have a problem with the current rookie pay scale - it's not like these guys need to be paid any earlier than they already are. I guess you can point to someone like Jay Williams as a counter argument, but that's life in any industry. Completely agree with the declaration bit though - once you declare, that should be it.
You do not think that the league would benefit if every player had the opportunity to restructure their deal after each season? I'd like to think that it would give each player more incentive to play hard if they felt like the organization could potentially reward them for their efforts. You do not think that the league would benefit from being able to terminate a long term contract three years after it has been signed? They already do it for rookies. As a general manager if you make a mistake in free agency you can rectify it by terminating the contract three years later. That means that players like Allan Houston, Jalen Rose, Danny Fortson, Adonal Foyle, etc. could all be off of the books b/c of their lack of production. I like the idea that every contract that is extended over four years would have an opt out clause to give players who have the ability an opportunity to become a free agent. A guy like Rashard Lewis deserves the opportunity to become a free agent -- in 2002 no one had any money so he really didn't have a choice but to come back to Seattle. This year it is a little different and it is going to force whomever our general manager is to shelve out some serious cash in order to keep him. I honestly do not think that the current system of play really gives NBA players incentive to play hard every night. No player wants to lose guaranteed money, but at the same time they should be held accountable if they are not living up to the expectations that the organization has placed for them when they offered them the contract. In three years time a team will know if that is the case. I have no problem at all with the rookie pay scale. But at the end of the day there is something to be said when your marquee young star is the fifth or sixth highest paid player on your team. If ownership wanted to make that change they could reserve the right to do so--I would assume though b/c most owners are in the business of saving money (Jim Dolan excluded) that they would not liberally excercise that right. Either way it would make for a better product--and would force all players to play to the best of their abilities. There could be a lot of turnover b/c of the increased free agents but in this day in age if you are able to get three or four years out of a player in one city that player has done well for himself. Where do you see the drawbacks in these proposals?
<div class="quote_poster">Iron Shiek Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">You do not think that the league would benefit if every player had the opportunity to restructure their deal after each season? I'd like to think that it would give each player more incentive to play hard if they felt like the organization could potentially reward them for their efforts.</div> Why does a player need extra incentive to play hard? I'd have no problem with the overall length of deals being shortened on average, but if you feel you're being underpaid for the production you're giving, then you play hard towards your next contract. If you feel, at the time of signing a new deal that you can exceed the terms of it production-wise, then don't sign a longterm deal. Sure, it might limit your security, but it's the risk you take. Maybe if it was a reward for loyalty, say if you'd been at a franchise for more than five years then you'd have that option, but how much more power do players need contract wise? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">You do not think that the league would benefit from being able to terminate a long term contract three years after it has been signed? They already do it for rookies. As a general manager if you make a mistake in free agency you can rectify it by terminating the contract three years later. That means that players like Allan Houston, Jalen Rose, Danny Fortson, Adonal Foyle, etc. could all be off of the books b/c of their lack of production.</div> If this was in place you'd just see more ridiculous contracts being signed, as a GM could say "hey, we'll offer this guy more money because we can just terminate it if he doesn't produce in three years". Do your research more, and if you ***** it up, then wear the consequences. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I like the idea that every contract that is extended over four years would have an opt out clause to give players who have the ability an opportunity to become a free agent. A guy like Rashard Lewis deserves the opportunity to become a free agent -- in 2002 no one had any money so he really didn't have a choice but to come back to Seattle. This year it is a little different and it is going to force whomever our general manager is to shelve out some serious cash in order to keep him.</div> I have no problem with player options, that's fine, I just object to teams having options to terminate player contracts early without compensation. I think if you sign someone you honour the deal - if the player wants to opt out and risk being a FA, then fine. In any respect, the Player's Association would never agree to teams having the option to terminate a deal after three years anyway. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I honestly do not think that the current system of play really gives NBA players incentive to play hard every night. No player wants to lose guaranteed money, but at the same time they should be held accountable if they are not living up to the expectations that the organization has placed for them when they offered them the contract. In three years time a team will know if that is the case.</div> If we're going along this line of thinking, why not limit any contract to a maximum of three years? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I have no problem at all with the rookie pay scale. But at the end of the day there is something to be said when your marquee young star is the fifth or sixth highest paid player on your team. If ownership wanted to make that change they could reserve the right to do so--I would assume though b/c most owners are in the business of saving money (Jim Dolan excluded) that they would not liberally excercise that right.</div> Again, when was the last time you saw a dominant rookie not end up signing a mega deal as soon as he's eligible? I've got no problem with these guys serving their apprenticeship, and in any case, most of the best rookies make a lot of money on the side from endorsements anyway. Kevin Durant might come in and average 22/8 straight away, but do you think he'll care that he's only on a rookie deal? He'll be paid squillions from Nike or Adidas and Gatorade etc. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Either way it would make for a better product--and would force all players to play to the best of their abilities. There could be a lot of turnover b/c of the increased free agents but in this day in age if you are able to get three or four years out of a player in one city that player has done well for himself. Where do you see the drawbacks in these proposals?</div> Not saying they wouldn't work, I just think you're cutting players and GMs too much slack in personnel choices.
