Improving Parity in the NBA

In the aftermath of "The Decision" and Melo forcing his way to NY, I was thinking there has to be a better way for smaller market teams to remain competitive against the big city teams. So here are a few ideas I think that would increase parity and improve the overall enjoyment of the NBA.

1. In the next CBA, introduce a hard cap and eliminate max salaries.

I understand why the "Bird Rule" was created. Teams that draft good players should be able to keep them. But what seems to be happening now is that with max salaries in place, all teams with cap space all are offering the same contract.
Elite players are all being offered max deals. So there is no difference in the contract length and amount being offered from teams like Milwaukee and NY. So how can a team like the Bucks compete for a star free agent when they can only offer the same exact deal as New York or Miami?
Getting rid of max contracts would allow a smaller market team to offer more $$$ or a longer deal if they have more cap space than say a NY or LA.

2. Free Agent Compensation

If you install a hard cap then you dont need sign & trade or extend & trade deals anymore. So what happens if you lose your star player in free agency? Well much like the NFL or MLB, your team would be awarded compensation.

For example, if Deron Williams leaves Utah and they dont sign another big name player in his place, Utah would receive a pick at the end of the first round. If the Rox lose a player like Scola as a free agent and strike out in free agency, then they would receive a pick at the end of the 2nd round. Of course this isnt a replacement for the star that left but its something to help ease the loss.

3. Ability to cut players

Now you are probably thinking that teams can cut players already. But since players have guaranteed contracts, its rare that anyone gets cut during the season. With the current CBA expiring, players will fight to keep guaranteed contracts as part of a new CBA deal. Even if players win this battle, teams shouldn't have to suffer for years if a player loses his desire after signing a big contract.
For example, a player signs a 4 yr/40 million dollar contract and after 2 years, he averages more hamburgers eaten per game than rebounds. Why should the team be forced to keep him? If you allow the team to cut him and gain a % of his contract to use as cap space, teams would think about cutting a useless player and not keep him until he becomes an expiring contract.

4. Relax the Ted Stepien Rule

I understand why it is in place. You dont want some crazy GM giving away future 1st round picks. But what if you are now allowed to trade no more than 2 1st round picks in a 3 year period?
For example, if N.O. wants to trade Chris Paul because they know he wont re-sign, they can trade him to another team for a 1st round pick in 2011 & 2012. N.O. could receive 2 immediate picks to help rebuild, and the team that traded for him wouldn't be allowed to trade its 2013 pick. It could then proceed to trade its 2014 and 2015 picks if they desired.

5. Contraction

I think this would be the best idea but would be the least likely to happen. The league already owns N.O. so they could shutter than team and buy out a team like Memphis, Minnesota or Toronto. Getting rid of 2 teams would remove 30 scrubs from the NBA and make everyone work harder to stay in the league. Just imagine the disperal draft that would include Chris Paul, Kevin Love or Marc Gasol! Again, unlikely to happen.


Its a long read but I wanted to see what other people think of these ideas or share other thoughts...

 

In the business world, bad companies go out of business. So teams that stink for extended periods of time should be contracted.

 

I'm not sure Lebron and Bosh went to Miami because Pat Riley is a legend, but he did a good job of selling his blueprint to them. But under the current CBA, 1 star would never sign with a small market team like Memphis or Indiana, let alone 3.