So I was just busy injecting insane trade ideas into my brain and then infecting everyone on the forum like some virtual monkey from outbreak when something occurred to me again. This league needs a fucking Contraction Draft. Yep, we need to pare this league down by about 5 to 6 teams. For sure two need to go, I'm looking at you Memphis & Charlotte. Seriously though, this league would be SOOO much better and more balanced if we shed a few teams and had a contraction draft with rules similar to the regular draft. The league would instantly be so much more balanced and competitive. Talent is just too spread thin in this league. I mean I couldn't find a single decent rookie contract SG + Expiring package that fit the bill for what I was trying to do. All the talent in the league is on about 8 or 9 teams right now. Yes, there are superstars elsewhere although at least one is leaving (Bosh) and so will the others when their contracts are up (Durant). Why extend the torture of fans on teams that won't compete for more then about 4 years? I mean really quite a few teams in this league are glorified farm teams for LA, Chicago, Boston, Florida teams etc. So a quick contraction example: Clippers (putting them out of their misery), Minnesota (ditto), Golden State, Memphis, Charlotte and Toronto or Washington or NJ or the Bucks. Yes, Wall landed in WAS and a billionaire owns NJ. So you can replace them with other Eastern teams or do a reorganization later to balance East vs. West. The point is there are DEFINITELY two teams too many and probably more then that. This League would be sick with the contraction draft I offered even if you don't agree with the teams (Waiting for fans of other teams I contracted to say Portland go right ahead) at least think about the proposition on it's merits. I think it needs to happen. Opening up 1st year college players and Europe hasn't added enough talent to make up for dilution. I say contract this sucka!
Re: (Not a trade) I was poking around on Trade Machine and a recurrent thought popped I have a feeling there are fanbases of six teams who would vehemently disagree with your choices.
Re: (Not a trade) I was poking around on Trade Machine and a recurrent thought popped Obviously, but we're talking about the greater good of the league. I'm sick of seeing 6 or so teams win for 30 fucking years. It's gonna keep happening until there is an absolute supernova draft that makes 1984 look like shit or a contraction. Memphis, Minnesota and Clippers fans need to be put out of their misery IMO, heck until this draft I would have added the Wiz to that. Until that Billionaire bought NJN it was the same. A good argmuent can be made to take out the Kings or GSW (4 teams in Cali? WTF?). Look if someone suggested this in 2004 I might have put the Blazers on that list not knowing the Sonics would be stolen so no good fall back.
Re: (Not a trade) I was poking around on Trade Machine and a recurrent thought popped There is a flaw in your point of thinking as a blazer fan. That is the fact we are a very small market team and if they start axing teams if you put NJ on the block with there billionaire owner then us having Paul Allen as ares will count for nothing and we could very well get put on the guillotine with David Stern smiling and doing a little jig and he pulled the handle.
Re: (Not a trade) I was poking around on Trade Machine and a recurrent thought popped Yeah, definitely make it based on income of team, or owner's viability (Kings and Bucks) has to be in there to protect Portland as otherwise its obviously a horrible idea . Excellent point and one I considered, but didn't think that through with the NJN example. Stern would love to Kill Portland and probably Dallas too.
Re: (Not a trade) I was poking around on Trade Machine and a recurrent thought popped I would point out that the NFL has great competition. And a hard salary cap, and the ability to cut players at any time.
Re: (Not a trade) I was poking around on Trade Machine and a recurrent thought popped I agree with some NFL structure but I think non-guaranteed contracts is a tad evil in the most injury riddled sport there is. Maybe half guaranteed contracts for injuries. I'm not an NFL guy so I may very well be wrong. I've had it described to me like that.
Re: (Not a trade) I was poking around on Trade Machine and a recurrent thought popped They are partially guaranteed, as players have adapted by demanding large signing bonuses, which are guaranteed. So they are guaranteed whatever they negotiate the signing bonus to be (generally the most important part of an NFL contract negotiation) and then in addition get paid their negotiated salary for as long as the team wants them.
Re: (Not a trade) I was poking around on Trade Machine and a recurrent thought popped Interesting, sounds better then it was presented to me. Well most on this forum seem to agree the NBA should look at the NFL model in the next CBA. I don't know how much impact it would have on the stars being in the big cities though. Can anyone elaborate on how that occurs? That's the key piece really if you're having small market teams like Portland etc.
Re: (Not a trade) I was poking around on Trade Machine and a recurrent thought popped Instead of nonguaranteed contracts players should get paid on team success. X amount of dollars per regular season win x+y for a post season win. Bonus for confrence and division titles and of course a big bonus for the championship. The more important players get a bigger X........ Nonguaranteed or statistic performace based contracts are counter productive because then everyone will be whineing about playing time and shots.
Re: (Not a trade) I was poking around on Trade Machine and a recurrent thought popped Great idea, something has got to give and it ain't gonna be Stern.
