New CBA and 14 players minimum - flaw as designed?

[Yuma]

I was looking at the new CVB, where the new salary cap can go up to $50 million per team, but is likely to be less.

An article I read earlier said only 4 teams, the Suns being one of them, are significantly under the cap as of now, and in the projected cap range.

How in the heck are teams going to sign guys to new deals this off season and have to come up with a minimum of 14 guys?

It's not like the cap is REALLY going up a lot. It's only going up a few million. Ciouple this with veteran and rookie MINIMUM salaries, and it looks like the league will have to fill with second round type talent that will really dilute the skill level and play.

For example, last night Detroit had Rasheed Wallace and Antonio McDyess get into foul trouble, and they had NOONE to replace these bigs on the bench. Detroit went small, San Antonio went on a scoring run with Duncan and ended the third quarter tied. Detroit was supposed to be one of the deeper teams in the league, and they are already not deep enough, now they have to add two guys, too. That means with more bodies, your salary pool has to spread out more, so even Detroit may end up with even less skill overall on their front court.

I am not so sure this new CBA is going to be that great overall in the next 6 years.

 

[Chaplin]

You have to concede that most teams had the minimum number of players last year, already. I think the fact that the Suns only had 12 was the exception, not the norm.

 

[Yuma]

There's more teams in the league now, more skilled guys spread out on more teams, so less depth now. The cap really wasn't high enough with the old CBA, now it barely goes up while making each team guarantee 2 more contracts, so it dilutes talent more. The trends are going in the wrong direction. With more teams, they should have made it less players per team, especially if they can't make the league viable with a higher cap for more teams. If the league is having financial difficulties, in theory, then why ADD teams. This doesn't make sense. I don't think the new CBA did anything to make the league any more viable over the next six years anyway. Maybe made it worse.

Teams today that say they are better than the old Lakers and Celtics back in the days when they were less teams and the talent was more concentrated and deeper, are just fooling themselves. Individual players may be bigger and stronger, but teams overall are not as good top to bottom.

 

[SweetD]

There's more teams in the league now, more skilled guys spread out on more teams, so less depth now. The cap really wasn't high enough with the old CBA, now it barely goes up while making each team guarantee 2 more contracts, so it dilutes talent more. The trends are going in the wrong direction. With more teams, they should have made it less players per team, especially if they can't make the league viable with a higher cap for more teams. If the league is having financial difficulties, in theory, then why ADD teams. This doesn't make sense. I don't think the new CBA did anything to make the league any more viable over the next six years anyway. Maybe made it worse.

Teams today that say they are better than the old Lakers and Celtics back in the days when they were less teams and the talent was more concentrated and deeper, are just fooling themselves. Individual players may be bigger and stronger, but teams overall are not as good top to bottom.

I agree I don't like the expansion to 14. I do like not having a injured reserve, but there is going to be a lot of undrafted players getting picked up this year. If the teams had to be at 14 a least 2-3 of those could be sent to NBDL.

 

[Yuma]

You have to concede that most teams had the minimum number of players last year, already. I think the fact that the Suns only had 12 was the exception, not the norm.

Yeah, you make my point. We already had stiffs on a 12 man roster we didn't use. Adding two more is going to make us better?

 

[scotsman13]

most teams had 15 people on their rosters last year. 12 and then 3 on the IR. well now there is no more injuried reserve list. one more thing is that you can send 2 player to the NBDL so now the people on your roster is down to 12 and there is no IR on top of that. so it is very likely that there maybe a drop in the number of people in a roster next year.

 

[Yuma]

I agree I don't like the expansion to 14. I do like not having a injured reserve, but there is going to be a lot of undrafted players getting picked up this year. If the teams had to be at 14 a least 2-3 of those could be sent to NBDL.

The way I read it, you have to have 14 on your bench for each game. You can have more than 14 and send those guys to the NBDL, or let them stay in Europe. I just see more Paul Shirley's all over the league. Teams will start bitching about not making money when their product is less skilled and worse to watch so fans are less likely to spend money on higher priced tickets for a worse product.

I went and looked at Season Ticket prices for the Suns and the per game price for the season tickets is outrageous, and the per game price is a third less than individual ticket prices overall. The NBA is becoming a league only the elite can frequent regualarly from what I am seeing. Forget a guy who wants to take his family all year. There's one nosebleed section that I could barely afford for a family of four!

 

[Chaplin]

Yeah, you make my point. We already had stiffs on a 12 man roster we didn't use. Adding two more is going to make us better?

Unfortunately, we don't have a choice. The rule change does exactly what it's supposed to do--get work for vet players--even if it's just practice work.

 

[Azlen]

I don't see how this would dillute the talent level of the players that will actually be playing. Sure, adding two stiffs to the bench reduces the overall talent level of the league, but it doesn't reduce the talent level of the product on the floor. All it is going to do is increase the DNP's in a game from around three to around five.

 

[elindholm]

I don't see how this would dillute the talent level of the players that will actually be playing. Sure, adding two stiffs to the bench reduces the overall talent level of the league, but it doesn't reduce the talent level of the product on the floor. All it is going to do is increase the DNP's in a game from around three to around five.

You got it.

 

[Yuma]

I don't see how this would dillute the talent level of the players that will actually be playing. Sure, adding two stiffs to the bench reduces the overall talent level of the league, but it doesn't reduce the talent level of the product on the floor. All it is going to do is increase the DNP's in a game from around three to around five.

You got it.

In the event there's two more new salaries to pay, thus less for the stars, so instead of teams having a good trio of guys, to get paid some guys will have to go to new teams, so most teams now only have 2 good players.

Used to be when I started watching as a kid, teams had 10 really good players on a team. Then it became 7, then 5, now 3. The trend is the talent on the starting 5 is not as good overall as what the league had in days gone by. Stern is not doing anything to adress this, if anything he wants to expand MORE! I guess most guys on the board are too young to see the trends over several decades.

 

[Azlen]

In the event there's two more new salaries to pay, thus less for the stars, so instead of teams having a good trio of guys, to get paid some guys will have to go to new teams, so most teams now only have 2 good players.

Used to be when I started watching as a kid, teams had 10 really good players on a team. Then it became 7, then 5, now 3. The trend is the talent on the starting 5 is not as good overall as what the league had in days gone by. Stern is not doing anything to adress this, if anything he wants to expand MORE! I guess most guys on the board are too young to see the trends over several decades.

The reason for the trend over the decades has been the addition of franchises, not the addition of a team's roster spots. If a team had a trio of great players and could only keep two of them, then the third great player has to go somewhere else, they don't just disappear. If there are 90 really good players over 30 teams before the increase in roster spots, then there are 90 really good players over 30 teams after the increase in roster spots.