View Poll Results: Change this about the D-League:

luther · 12-09-2007, 02:23 PM

What would you most like to see changed about the D-League? Please note, I didn't include a one-to-one ratio of NBA to D-League teams just because I think that one is obvious: everyone (I think) wants that. It would be better for all involved, if it were financially viable at the moment.

**Krstic All Star** · 12-10-2007, 03:31 PM

I'd want to see more shuffling of players as needed, but retaining rosters ran a close second.

**Pimped Out** · 12-10-2007, 04:23 PM

I think when a player gets sent down, he shouldnt count as part of the teams 15 man roster. That way teams can keep more guys around to develop them. That way it can become more of a true farm system.

**Krstic All Star** · 12-10-2007, 04:26 PM

^ Good idea.

luther · 12-10-2007, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pimped Out

I think when a player gets sent down, he shouldnt count as part of the teams 15 man roster. That way teams can keep more guys around to develop them. That way it can become more of a true farm system.

That was part of why they allowed 15 man rosters to begin with. There used to be 12-man rosters, plus one (or was it two?) guy on IR. The change was made the same year they began allowing players to be sent down to the D-League.

**Krstic All Star** · 12-10-2007, 09:14 PM

^ But they're still counted against the team's total.

**Pimped Out** · 12-10-2007, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luther

That was part of why they allowed 15 man rosters to begin with. There used to be 12-man rosters, plus one (or was it two?) guy on IR. The change was made the same year they began allowing players to be sent down to the D-League.

Allowing one extra guy doesnt really allow for a whole lot of flexibility

luther · 12-11-2007, 03:42 PM

I realize that. I'm just noting that they increased roster size to allegedly account for that. But when they removed the IR, that did counteract it (mostly).

I think I like having it count against the roster, at least if a guy is only down for a short stint. If a guy goes down for a week, I don't think you ought to be able to sign someone else to a 10-day. But perhaps if there were a rule where you could guarantee a guy would remain in the D-League for some period of time--a month, 2 months, the season--then you'd get a roster spot exemption.

**HKF** · 12-11-2007, 03:56 PM

When the D-League reaches 30 teams, most of these improvements should take place.

D-League players won't count against active roster (as long as the player is not recalled). Obviously, this is not a possibility when in some cases 2 or 3 teams are sharing a team. If San Antonio or the Lakers had the ability to do that and grab seasoned vets with the extra room created by sending unseasoned players to the D-League, other teams would cite it as competitively unfair (and they would be right).

Thankfully, the D-League should be expanding by 5 teams next year (perhaps six). Reno, NV (Former Ft. Worth Flyers); Frisco, TX (Dallas Mavericks team); Omaha, NE; Youngstown, OH (Cleveland Cavaliers); Toledo, OH

Still wondering what will happen to the former Arkansas RimRockers. If they come back, it remains to be seen where they will be.

nbanoitall · 01-24-2008, 08:07 PM

I'd like to see every nba team affliate themselves with two teams. The D league should have 30 teams. However all those teams shouldn't be in the the USA. We got I believe 14 d league teams right now. I'd put 8 teams in Europe. 8 between hong kong, japan, australia, and new zealand. 8 in the USA and Canada. 6 in Latin America.
You keep the most viable 8 teams in the USA and you move the rest of the teams. Then you add 16 more to get to 30 teams. One D league team per nba team. You play a schedule like the IBL so you limit travel. The areas in which the teams are clustered allow for that. Teams in the geographical cluster will play a lot of games against each other. They might play a team across the globe just once. Doing this allows the D league to become very profitable which allows salaries to rise. I'd set a 100k min. to play in the league.
You leave NBA rosters at 15, but the players that are sent down don't count as one of the 15. The salary cap is still done the same. Lets say you draft your first rounder then send him down to get experience. He doesn't count as being on your roster, but his salary is still on the payroll.
On top of that I'd partner with teams across the globe to partner up with D League teams. Turn the d league into basically a triple A. Then these partnerships lead to a double a.
The D league team can keep its roster full by calling up from its affliate during the season. Plus they can send someone down that needs playing time as well.
Here is a classic example. The Miami heat leave the Des Moines Energy and their d league team becomes the Auckland New Zealand Toliet Flushers. The Toliet Flushers have a market about 3 times the size of the Energy so they will be able to support high salaries. The Flushers will then have a affliate that supports their roster. This is where it gets interesting because a lot of foreign teams try to limit import players. So you can only work with leagues that don't have that limit. Lets say Iceland wants to be apart of the NBA so they allow more than 2 imports. So now KR Reykjavik becomes the affliate to Auckland.
The Heat are only allowed to call up from their affliate teams which makes it more like a true farm system.
On top of all that it allows the NBA to test markets for starting NBA franchises overseas. Plus it promotes american (NBA) pro rules overseas. Its a great way to screw fiba. Hopefully it also leads to international play rule changes.

View Poll Results: Change this about the D-League:

Thread Tools Display Modes

Thread Tools

Display Modes