Is the D-league brand outdated.

[bectond]

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.

[Pounder]

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.

[bectond]

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.