But, it would be great for both the owners & the players if they could use the NBDL as a minor league system like baseball. Up the pay a bit, give teams more incentive to develop play at that level.

With all the cash rolling in, you would think both sides could work towards something like this.

BRIGGS wrote:Give teams the ability beyond roster spot 15 to have rights to say 2 d league players perhaps ata modified rate 300 k or something kind of like the nfls taxi squad

i AGREE! and i would also have official minor league teams (D league) for each team. theres no way curry plays well for the pelicans then signs with the kings. ndour plays well with the knicks then signs with the mavs. lol. that doesnt make sense that theyre free agents.

holfresh wrote:How many scrubs at the end of the bench does one team really need?

Well to have a legit farm system --I think beyond any Euro player you should have access to 4-5 players. Perahsp 2 of the players are higher end prospects who belong as 14-15 on your roster and the other two on the taxi squad have a different pay scale and you own their rights while they play in Westchester. Lets say after mak9ng the team you make 700-1mm and the other 2 roster spots are 250-300k but you control the player so he cant leave for the year.

Also think a 3rd round in the draft should come back.

BRIGGS wrote:Give teams the ability beyond roster spot 15 to have rights to say 2 d league players perhaps ata modified rate 300 k or something kind of like the nfls taxi squad

Factoring in "controllable" rights to players NOT on an NBA roster creates an issue of service time and voting rights. Expanding the current NBA 15 man roster is a labor issue, the larger the roster, the increased number of union votes. Also having more players accrue service time means more players dipping into funds set aside for players pension and medical benefits.

That's a pretty large trade off considering the rate of return on players at that "Quad A" type level. Most are on the fringe, won't make an NBA rotation, and won't have an impact on most teams barring several levels of major injury compressed in a season.

Right now, IIRC, on any NBA 15 man roster, at any given time, two players with NBA contracts and less than 2 years of actual NBA and/or D League service time can be shuttled up and down to the D League at will by the parent franchise.

Not to mention the open conflict with international leagues when the NBA can have teams claim controllable rights to players who might be best served playing regularly overseas and having their service time "tolled" and not on an NBA payroll.

In the NFL, other teams can poach from any other team's practice squad. I suspect for the same reasons, limiting service time accrual for fringe players and thinning the ranks of players who vest and have pension/medical rights in retirement. Not to mention the issue of changing the dynamic of union votes. A 17 man roster would have likely 6-7 guys out of the regular rotation and 4-5 at any given time on the very thin razor fringe of keeping their jobs year to year, that will have a major impact in how they vote, and with increased numbers, they'll have to be a chunk of the union whose needs have to be pacified but represent a very fringe element in actual marketing for the league and generating revenue. On some rosters, 40 percent of the votes could swing from fringe players. You don't want too much influence from any one segment of the typical roster ( i.e. superstars, 2nd bananas, rotation guys, rookies and fringe guys)

"Rights" to players isn't as simple when you dramatically change the landscape of how the labor agreements work or don't work.

CrushAlot wrote:If not adding roster spots they need to change the salary system for the d league. I think the max a guy can make there is $25,000. You might do that for a year but it isn't much incentive to keep a prospect from going overseas.

The D League, by it's nature, needs to have a player pool that is "transient"

You don't want career D leaguers and you don't want incentives in place for D League teams to acquire career type D League players. If a D League team could pay a player 250K a year max, then you might even see Allen Iverson show up. Which ups the marketing and ticket sales, and given the level of competition, he might still be a nice draw for fans. However he does nothing but chew up minutes and take away from a prospect who needs to be developed.

Low "minor league" salaries is a function of keeping the players moving, either to Europe or the NBA or somewhere else. After a player's third full year attempting pro ball, that player is likely to have hit their developmental ceiling. Jeremy Lin doesn't become Jeremy Lin if he was floating for 6 years after his nominal draft ( yes he did not get drafted, but in what would have been his nominal draft class, whatever he was likely to be would be discovered about Year 3 from that point)

Freedom VS Security. A team can have more rights, but in doing so, must create more guarantees and more security for said player. NBA first rounders can essentially be leveraged for the first seven years of their career. They get, barring a Jon Huestis sham, two years of guaranteed money no matter what. Second rounders are guaranteed nothing, which is why many contenders like flipping late firsts into seconds. But they can reach freedom sooner. I.E. Chandler Parsons, Omer Asik, Gilbert Arenas, Monta Ellis.

Locking in more fringe prospects and vesting them to their parent teams means you limit said players security and freedom. He's making 25K, and if Team A could use him, they can't get him, since Team B has his rights. Any functional system has to have some type of "market correction" mechanisms built into it.

What Briggs suggests is a radical change that would incite another major conflict within an already soon to be brutal labor war ahead.

A compromise however would be for NBA parent teams to create dormitories for their players near their D League home playing court. Curb rent and food expenses. Would cut down on their transportation expenses as well. It would not solve all the problems, but it would be a way to avoid creating a massive labor issue while garnering some PR and creating a functional team environment for players to assemble and bond and reduce their living costs. It would be a way to infuse better nutrition, better training equipment and medical staff and help regulate young players behavior, esp the wayward ones, to focus on the game and development. The league could factor in the tax writeoff consideration as mitigating the overall cost. I do think a bump from 25K to say 40K would also be a functional compromise.

I'm not against minor league players having at least a functional existence while trying to make the pros. However there have to be ways to do so without creating a labor issue ( which guarantees nothing will change ever) and without creating drawbacks to practical development by way of incentive/disincentive to the D League franchises.

It will be very difficult to see any widespread D League change until each NBA team has it's own supported D League franchise and the are all using the same ownership/partnership model.