View Full Version : Is the D-league brand outdated.

11-29-2010, 09:16 PM
The Texas Legends have 5 former No.1 picks on their 10 man roster. Idaho just signed 34 year old A. Walker. In my opinion the NBA is transitioning away from a league that develops youngsters to more of a second chance circuit or demotion league (see the T.Williams demotion). A number of nba assignees are putting up under whelm stats due to the new found high talent level of the D-league players.

12-10-2010, 04:06 PM
I agree...it is suppose to be a league of developing new talent...that is what it branded itself as. However, the big names that have come into the league this year have been strictly for money for those teams. Can you hate the teams for marketing a "former number 1 draft pick" or "former all-star" or such....no i can't fault them. I fault the league for allowing the "has-beens" (and I use that really loosely) who need to make "some coin" for allowing them to sign contracts. Then again, it helps to market the league also.

I am not a fan of having "old-timers" that have played in the NBA a while, playing in the D-league. But I do not mind those draftees that just could not stick with a team in the NBA, and now are trying to make it back to the league.

Tough situation...

12-11-2010, 07:53 PM
By this time next year the Eddie Curry's of the world will all be vanquished to the D-league. The D-league will become a glorified temp service for the NBA where a few 2nd round picks are garaged and players with bad contracts go to die. Walker is the tip of the iceberg, in a couple of years the only young players in the D-league will be the assignees. Once the NBDL salaries are raised veterans will flock into the league. Hopefully, the D-league adopts the old CBA rule where each team must carry one rookie.

12-12-2010, 02:26 PM
They already do have that rule

12-19-2010, 03:39 PM
Perhaps what the D-League has to do is take a page from the AHL. In the American Hockey League, each team can carry 6 players who have more than 320 (I believe) games of major pro experience (NHL, AHL, European). So if the D-League were to limit teams to say 3 players like this, that would help.

I also think the NBA should do away with the D-League draft and expand the NBA draft back to 5 or 6 rounds. Make the D-League less of an independent league and more of the NBA's minor league. Instead of cutting players drafted in Round 2 and beyond, each team could send them down to the D-League. Have them on some form of a two-way contract or an Entry Level Contract where the team could call up and send down players. Allow for conditioning assignments in the D-League and say a player like Lebron was injured, you could send him down to Erie for rehab. Plus, if NBA teams actually utilized their D-League teams, it would be easy to convince cities to support teams as it would be a chance to potentially see the stars of the future. Ergo, we could see it grow to a one D-League team for each NBA team. What the Lakers did with Jordan Farmer a couple years ago is what the D-League should be.

12-23-2010, 09:04 PM
I think NBA teams should drop down to 10 man rosters and adopt a no foul out policy. Also, each team should be required to have a D-league affiliate with a 15 man roster for temporary services(replacing injured NBA players). And as MBL does expand NBA roster to 15 players later in the season (call-up youngsters and additional bench players for the stretch run). this would increase the overall talent level in the D-league (and NBA) while preventing a lock-out (limit D-league salaries to 150K and increase the salaries for call-ups)

not so fast
01-02-2011, 08:28 PM
my understanding is the NBA and D league would do a lot of what you guys want if the players union would cooperate. And they won't .

I think the NBA wish they had never taken on the notion of a D league. They could have subsidized the old CBA with a fusion of cash, had a strong league, kept doing what they were doing for years, and save themselves a boatload of money.

Egos just would not let them.

01-03-2011, 11:11 AM
my understanding is the NBA and D league would do a lot of what you guys want if the players union would cooperate. And they won't .

I think the NBA wish they had never taken on the notion of a D league. They could have subsidized the old CBA with a fusion of cash, had a strong league, kept doing what they were doing for years, and save themselves a boatload of money.

Egos just would not let them.

To be fair, the NBA tried, but it was the CBA leadership that rejected their overtures. I was as critical as anyone else over the D-League's initial effort (which has improved by leaps and bounds over the years), but it was the CBA's Isaiah Thomas who blew a deal with the NBA.

01-07-2011, 10:51 AM
I doubt it is the union, the owners want to keep a bad economic system in place, which is based on a salary cap. When the real problem is that rookie contracts are not long enough (they should be 7 instead of 5 years long) and they don't put enough resources into developing players (the D-league). Why would the union be opposed to increasing membership?

not so fast
01-07-2011, 09:03 PM
Its simple, the players union don't want players being sent down back and forth that will effect their salaries.

Why should they? Unions want guarenteed contracts, and they don't want guys salaries effected with minorlegues. what can they gain as a union with players being sent down by the wim of a team, who may have an ax to grind with a player, versus actually trying to develop players?

Its a red herring for a union and for players who presently, dont have to worry about being sent down,. They don't want a major league baseball style run team that can keep a decent player on a farm team and pay him 40k, then bring him up for the playoffs, and teams would be saving money all over the place, and ruining the integrity of the game.

01-08-2011, 01:13 PM
What the owners really want is for the union to save them from their own stupidity. Therefore, the union has to come up with a plan that both secures guaranteed contracts while at the same time prevents teams from making poor long term contract decisions. The both sides can win if the unions plan increases the amount of players per team (from 13 to 15 with guaranteed deals) while also ensuring that teams are restricted from making ridiculous roster decisions (reduce the amount of players with more than 3 years experience to no more than 10). I have run the numbers and the solution is reducing the amount of veterans that don't contribute. The union has to convince the owners the whole current system should be canned instead of keeping the same system with reductions or letting teams reduce player salaries when they "demote" a player.

04-21-2011, 08:42 AM
NBA somehow negotiated an amnesty clause with the union in the last CBA, meaning that- apparently once in the life of the CBA, a team could gain cap relief from a big contract when the player has a major injury and loses value. Allan Houston was the trigger. One of the points of the coming lockout is to extend this concept, though the league would surely like to kill guaranteed contracts. You think the players want to give that up, you're kidding yourselves.

Some of the other concepts brought forth here are laughable... but no need to point fingers.

The league walks a fine line here. There are franchises that, no matter what announced attendance is, are getting kicked in the shorts with a lack of fans. On the other hand, if you put the iron squeeze on salaries, the NFL gets the next Derrick Rose.

PS- this means there won't be 1-for-1 D-League affiliations anytime soon, meaning the cities hosting teams want to put out a winner and fill seats and they have leverage.

04-22-2011, 11:40 AM
The Lakers just signed a 200 mil a year TV deal which they don't have to share with the players because local TV money is not included in the cap. The Lakers have to give the players 57% of the money they get from butts in the seats. Which makes ticket sales less desirable than TV money in the minds of owners. Which is why the Kings are willing to move to the LA area knowing full well that they will most likely be playing in a half empty gym most nights due to the Lakers and Blake Griffin playing games on those same dates. They project increased profits via a TV deal with Fox Sports West, an increase in luxury boxes (revenue which also is not shared with players) and projected increased apparel sales due to a new logo. The Owners want more revenue streams that they don't have to share with the players, not increased ticket sales which they only get a 43% share of anyway.

My point was simple supply and demand. If there are 25 roster spots instead of 13 then owners can justify reducing salaries, I.E.more players dividing the same pie.
That way a bad contract won't be as costly. A bad contract that is 1/25th of the pie is a less costly error than one that is 1/13th of the pie. Expanding rosters and limiting the amount of money role players earn makes a lot more sense than what the owners are currently suggesting because star players really don't need the owners. The top 100 players could easily start there own league based on their star power and earn more a heck of a lot more than they are currently earning.