Deciphering CBA Proposals

[IamQuailman]

Lots of Proposals out there floating around post trade deadline, and with that the league looks to be in for a nice little shake-up (not necessarily in a bad way either). Let this little article be a guide to help you get a big picture view of what is being discussed (on the forum and on Skype).

TRAINING CAMP INSURANCE REFORM (InnerCare):
Initially proposed with the idea of minimizing the inputting for Wig as well as accounting/verifying, Inner proposed a TC Insurance Reform which eventually morphed into 3 FREE TCs. There has been much debate about this, and some alternatives emerged:

-2 vs 3 Free TC Inusrances
-Paying for TCs beyond Free Insurances
-Insuring all Rookie Contract Players while on their Contract, coupled with changes to Rookie Contract Training (more on that later)
-Recently proposed (and subsequently ignored) TC Restoration
-Remaining the same

With the dust somewhat settling, I'm predicting we land at 3 Free TC Insurances per team. It seems that this is the most well-received of the takes on insurance reform. Thread: viewtopic.php?f=37&t=4991

THE GOOD: Every team will have a chance to protect 3 of their top under 27 (or is it 27 and under?) players, as well as pocket the historically-spent TC insurance money for tax or player training purposes.
THE BAD: Only real downside is that teams with more than 3 young players (rebuilding teams) are forced to make a tough decision or two.
VERDICT: Insurance reform is much needed in the league, and with this change many teams can protect players while not "wasting" points.

ROOKIE CONTRACT TRAINING REFORM:
Wig posted this bad boy up last night, and it's a pretty interesting idea. RCTs are relatively new to the league, but proved to be a bit confusing in terms of calculating how many points those players were eligible to receive. The basic just is that every rookie will receive 25 "USE OR LOSE" points to be used during the offseason following the rookie year. These points can be used to buy upgrades in current ratings. Rules would follow paid training band requirements and pricing. Additional Caveats:

- If approved, vote to allow 25 points to be used on multiple foul rating trainings
- if approved, vote to allow points to be used on athleticism
- if approved, vote to allow points to be used on potentials
- If rejected, leave as is or remove RCT as a whole

Initial responses to this looked overwhelmingly in favor, with GMs mostly against the athleticism and potentials uses. Thread: viewtopic.php?f=37&t=5907

THE GOOD: Raw rookies coming out of college can get a nice little boost in current ratings, something that they would be getting through RCT over the course of 3-4 seasons without feeling pressure to play underdeveloped players to meet minutes requirements. On top of all that, it's simple AF.
THE BAD: Nothing really.
VERDICT: Not really decided if this will be voted on yet, but with the relatively warm reception this could be up for vote as soon as this post-season.

FINANCE REFORM:
This one is a doozy. Thread: viewtopic.php?f=37&t=5906 There's also been a lot of discussion on this as well (forum and Skype) So let's start with the ORIGINAL proposal. There were 3 parts in the original proposal:

- MLE @ 8.5% of Salary Cap (available to teams who qualify)
- Year-to-year Salary Increases from 10% (non-Bird) and 12.5% (Bird) to 5% (NB) and 7.5% (B)
- Adjusting Lux Tax Apron to 120% of Salary Cap

As many have mentioned in thread, MLE and Lux Tax Apron would go hand in hand if up for vote, while the salary increases could be voted separately. People have commented on this, and reviews are slightly mixed, depending on the piece of the proposal. Overall, no one has expressed any concern with implementing an MLE. Year to year increases has also been received positively, although some suggestions came through that the salary increases should be tied to a set cap % increase (more on that in a bit).

Lastly, the lux tax apron... oh the lux tax apron. This is where most of the debate has come from. Garbageman and myself both spoke out that a drastic change is a bit much and that an incremental change over seasons would be a better idea. Darth, on the other hand, felt that the increase SHOULD be done in one fell swoop, although the actual percentage would be up for discussion. But overall consensus was that the current lux tax threshold IS in fact too hard and does need to be kicked out. Balls took this a step further suggesting that maybe, in addition to the lux tax threshold getting set to the MLE amount, a couple other things could be considered:

- set a consistent 10% for annual cap increases
- remove 4 (and even 3) year repeater tax, as those end up crippling teams

Lots of discussion took place on this last piece, and that discussion was based on competitiveness in the league. Would removing some of the harshness of the lux tax increase competitiveness and make teams less interested in rebuilding? Some think it will do just that, allowing teams to retain players longer without having to blow it up after a 2-4 year window. Others have explained that they think that this could actually allow more dynasties in the league and inhibit league parity that we have experienced in the last decade and a half of this league's history.

THE GOOD: Much needed financial reform that could lessen tax burdens on teams. Additionally, salary increases being lowered could lessen the upward pressure of long term post-rookie contracts for big name players.
THE BAD: Difficult to find a sweetspot on the lux tax threshold percentage.
VERDICT: Ultimately once we have a better idea of where we would like the amended threshold to be, this proposition will be ready to vote on.

WAIVER CLAIM/FREE-FOR-ALL FREE AGENCY REFORM:
Essentially both post-TC free for all free agency and in-season free agency signings of players waived must be cleared through waivers (via PM) sent to The Negotiator. This would replace our current waiver process... so long Cheeks and Flemming! Please see thread for specific details on waiver priority: viewtopic.php?f=37&t=5901

THE GOOD: Prevents Loco from signing on at 8:00:00pm and signing every cut player that is worth a damn! Jokes aside, it creates a fair waiver system that the league has been needing for a long time.
THE BAD: Somewhat intensive of the commissioner in determining waiver priority. Perhaps a new league responsibility could arise out of this.
VERDICT: Interesting idea that this league could definitely benefit from. This could go up for vote this season, but I would personally prioritize this after the above proposals.

RULES FOR CHANGING TEAMS:
Essentially a proposal to establish rules that allow GMs to change teams (via vacant team or GM Swap). Requirements would need to be met for a team to qualify for this change of scenery. Thread: viewtopic.php?f=37&t=5912

THE GOOD: I guess for those looking to jump ship for whatever reason (boredom, change of scenery, scared of competition, tired of the self-made shitshow, etc).
THE BAD: Bad for continuity. I don't see this happening often, but the possibility of abandoning one team with nothing to jump to a greener pasture is a bad look.
VERDICT: I think this could go to vote, but I do not think it will pass.

[IamQuailman]

welp, guess no one needed deciphering lol

[RPF]

Thank you Douglas clap-clap-clapclapclap

[digiskunk]

I loved reading this. 15/10!!!

[Darth Vegito]

LOVED LOVED LOVED LOVED LOVED READING THIS. 20/10!!! I NOMINATE FOR ARTICLE OF THE YEAR!!!!!!! OMG THIS WAS AMAZING!

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

[TheSyndicate]

I don’t care

[TheSyndicate]

I don’t care

I don’t know what this was supposed to mean #drunkallday

[ballsohard]

5 Points