# What Should Change About the D-League?



## luther (Nov 2, 2007)

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 (Mar 9, 2005)

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


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

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 (Mar 9, 2005)

^ Good idea.


----------



## luther (Nov 2, 2007)

Pimped Out said:


> 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 (Mar 9, 2005)

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


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

luther said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2007)

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 (Dec 10, 2002)

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 (May 21, 2004)

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.


----------



## Rids (Dec 5, 2006)

I doubt that D League teams in New Zealand, Australia or Europe would be well received. They have their national leagues right now whose top teams are mid level NBA so why would they want a lower level coming to town? 

One additional aspect for the poll would be more control over the coaching. Something that would come when the league grows to a 1:1 ratio but would be a big bonus to the league right now.


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

^ Could you elaborate on the coaching angle? Being that coaching is the most important part of the D League's purpose (i.e. to develop players) that could be the key.


----------



## luther (Nov 2, 2007)

Rids said:


> I doubt that D League teams in New Zealand, Australia or Europe would be well received. They have their national leagues right now whose top teams are mid level NBA so why would they want a lower level coming to town?
> 
> One additional aspect for the poll would be more control over the coaching. Something that would come when the league grows to a 1:1 ratio but would be a big bonus to the league right now.


I don't think the opinion that the best teams of N. Zealand, Australia or Europe (particularly the former two) "are mid level NBA" is very widely held. Consensus is probably that a few of the elite European teams might be able to sort of compete in the NBA, although they'd be among the worst teams, probably without question.


----------



## Rids (Dec 5, 2006)

Luther I think the world wide talent gap is much smaller than you think. Given the aspect of differences in rules and style of play from league to league I really don't see the top European team being anything below mid level NBA. Watch the European Championships with basketball goggles. It definitely isn't the NBA, fewer dunks, less flash but they go deeper in their benches and shoot better than many NBA clubs do. They play a better team game than most NBA clubs do. It's a different style but not a worse level of play especially the teams that qualify for the EC.

Krstic> Here's the trouble with the D-League coaching: you have players from 2 or 3 teams sent to you. You aren't building on a skill set to move up you're trying to showcase players to get the chance to move up. D-Leaguers have more talent generally than CBA players however the CBA teams have a better team system than most D-League teams. Having the 1 parent club to 1 minor club where the parent club gets to pick the coaches and generally has more control you'll see the players being better prepared for moving up to the NBA level. Those players will be able to just be inserted into a role and already know the plays, style, general game plan of the big club. Sure not everything will be completely different but the learning curve will be shorter.


----------



## luther (Nov 2, 2007)

Rids said:


> Luther I think the world wide talent gap is much smaller than you think. Given the aspect of differences in rules and style of play from league to league I really don't see the top European team being anything below mid level NBA. Watch the European Championships with basketball goggles. It definitely isn't the NBA, fewer dunks, less flash but they go deeper in their benches and shoot better than many NBA clubs do. They play a better team game than most NBA clubs do. It's a different style but not a worse level of play especially the teams that qualify for the EC.


It's weird being on this side of the argument for once; usually I am the one defending international play.

The thing is, the European Championships is a national team competition, so it's not the same thing. If we're talking that way, then we'd be comparing those teams to one of Jason Kidd, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony and Dwight Howard (with Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Allen Iverson, Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Carlos Boozer...). In other words, no competition whatsoever in terms of talent level.

If you mean teams that qualify for the Euroleague championship rounds, like the Final 16 or something, then yes, you're working with club teams, so it's close to a true competition. But many of those teams feature Americans who would be borderline NBA players--and have been proven as such. The same goes for many of the international players. Not all, mind you, bt many.

Yes, it is a different game, and that does come into play. But if you picked up any one Euroleague team and dropped it in the NBA--and CSKA Moscow would be the best, probably--it would be bad. No Australian or New Zealand team would even be close to second-worst. They would get demolished.


----------



## Rids (Dec 5, 2006)

Euroleague! My mistake on the name. Reasons for players playing outside the NBA do not always relate to their on court talent. Situation, timing and circumstance play into that as well. Toss in an agent or agency that thinks they know best for you and you could be anywhere.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

I don't like the idea of expanding the D-League. More teams means lowering the standard. And those guys are already crap. I'd suggest a 3 to 1 NBA to D-League team ratio.

The limit for players shouldn't be <2 years, but rather the entirety of their rookie contract. The general rule for a bust is someone who doesn't contribute to their team once their rookie contract is up, so this D-League rule should coincide with that.

What do you by the retaining roster part?


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

^ I like the idea of expanding the limit for players to the length of a rookie contract.


----------



## luther (Nov 2, 2007)

Rids said:


> for players playing outside the NBA do not always relate to their on court talent. Situation, timing and circumstance play into that as well. Toss in an agent or agency that thinks they know best for you and you could be anywhere.


I agree with that, but it doesn't change my opinion (which I believe is the overwhelmingly held one): very few, if any, Euroleague teams could even avoid being embarrassed on a consistent basis in the NBA, much less be middle-of-the-pack (as you had suggested).


----------



## luther (Nov 2, 2007)

Chan said:


> I don't like the idea of expanding the D-League. More teams means lowering the standard. And those guys are already crap. I'd suggest a 3 to 1 NBA to D-League team ratio.


My opinion on that would depend on what the point of the D-League is. If it's a place to let NBA teams implement their systems and develop young talent, then there almost has to be a 1:1 ratio, just to ensure that the players are being used in the manner that the NBA team wants them used. Obviously, it lowers the standard of talent overall (although I think we're going to see a continued decline of other domestic minor leagues until D-League has crushed them all, which will add talent), but the goal of the D-League isn't to put the best quality of play possible out there.

Great idea re extending the amount of time guys can be sent down, by the way. (The base length of the rookie deal is two years anyway, though. But there are the series of one-year team options afterward. I am sure the union would fight against any guy let go by his initial team after two years being sent down by his second team, though.)


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

^What's the point of a 1:1 NBA to D-League team ratio? At most a team is probably going to have two or three young guys sent down to develop. What happens to the other 9+ players?

D-League needs to be a valued market to crush all the other minor leagues out there. Somehow, get this off NBATV and get it some more coverage. I was serious when I said Gerald Green could be the guy to bring the D-League into the limelight. He'd undoubtedly get the ball every time, being by far the most athletic player on the court.

You're right on the part about Euroleague teams struggling against NBA teams. They usually have a crap NBA team play a Euro powerhouse before the preseason starts. The year they won the #1 pick, the Raptors had a very close loss against Maccabi Tel Aviv. Then Tel Aviv's superstar, Anthony Parker, joins the Raptors a season later. Now I highly doubt they can compete against a .500 NBA team, or even a .300 team.

I didn't know the base rookie contract was only 2 years. Seems like players take around 3 to develop and make a name for themselves.


----------



## luther (Nov 2, 2007)

^ Keep in mind those NBA v Euroleague games are also preseason games. The NBA teams are never--repeat NEVER--playing those games in the same way they would a regular season game. They're using deeper benches and resting the big names far more.

You ask what the other 9 guys on a D-League roster would do if it were a 1:1 ratio. Think of it in the same way you do Major League Baseball. Those major league teams have MULTIPLE minor league affiliates. Nobody says the quality of play is anywhere near MLB. Nobody worries about how those teams are, quality-wise. Nobody wonders what those dozens of guys who are unlikely to ever make it will do (well, maybe somebody wonders...like them and their families). 

If it were 1:1, the other 9 wouldn't just be typical vagabonds, as they are now. The ideal situation would be to expand on the Lakers and Spurs model of not just being affiliated with a D-League team, but owning it entirely. Ideally, assuming the rules eventually were organized for it, teams could simply sign and develop an entire roster of additional talent. Clearly, most of those 10-12 guys wouldn't ever be "legit" NBA players. But the NBA teams would be in a much better position having 25-27 (depending on this theoretical D-League roster...I'd prefer they drop down to 10 to ensure playing time and attention on their prospects, not to mention keep from watering down TOO much). If the NBA teams wanted to put the money into it and were able to get some kind of sponsorships, they may be able to fund it better than at the moment and keep more guys from going overseas, where they have gone to chase the money up till now. Perhaps, say, $75k and the knowledge you're not just on a D-league team, but THE SPURS' D-league team, running the SPURS system, with the SPURS coaching staff overseeing things, would be enough to keep you from going to Italy for $200k. Or perhaps not.

Mainly, I just think having multiple teams share a D-League team makes no sense from the NBA teams' point of view. They have no control over how their players are used, or whether their competitors' players get more minutes, more attention, used in the role they'd prefer for their own guys, etc. And what matters most to those NBA teams is the development of their own players, not league quality, not profits, not any of that.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Having 25 guys in the entire organization would impact the NBA teams, and I don't think any franchise cares about the D-League enough to sign that many players. That's way out the left field.

Turning the D-League into the MLB minor league won't make it any more attractive than it is right now. But we have different ideas. You want it to be a true developmental league - I want it to be a B league with high quality but non NBA caliber players, with many of the best players having a shot of making the NBA. That would sell more, and be more attractive to the public.

I'd take $200k in a Euro powerhouse over $75k while being a Spurs candidate, and I'm sure most people will too. Unless you're the prime SA D-League candidate to make the Spurs, that is. Imagine if you weren't the top 3 players to make the NBA, and making it seems unlikely. Why would you want less money?

Making it a true developmental league will lower the league's quality and lower public interest. It would not be a good investment. If I was a NBA owner I'm not paying for a whole new coaching staff and 9 scrubs so I can develop 2 or 3 prospects, who mostly likely aren't going to amount to more than role players. History tells us that if you spend time in the D-League, you're not going to be much more than a role player.


----------



## luther (Nov 2, 2007)

Chan said:


> If I was a NBA owner I'm not paying for a whole new coaching staff and 9 scrubs so I can develop 2 or 3 prospects, who mostly likely aren't going to amount to more than role players. History tells us that if you spend time in the D-League, you're not going to be much more than a role player.


San Antonio and the LA Lakers, and possibly the Knicks next year, if reports are true, disagree with you about whether it's worth it. They wholly own D-League teams, and thus pay for it all. 

But you're right, we have different opinions of what it should be. I think if it's going to be affiliated, it should be wholly affiliated, not the half-assed way it is now. The CBA 10 years ago was already a very good domestic "B" league at a time when there were other leagues (USBL, IBA, IBL), but none that were really competitive for second place. The NBA wanted an affiliated minor league. I'm just of the opinion that if you want to do that, then REALLY do that. 

As for the league profits, well, I don't see the D-League ever being all that profitable.

And as for the money individual players make (I omitted that from the quote above), there are plenty of guys in the D-League and CBA right now who make that very decision all the time. They stay in the U.S. and accept a lot less cash rather than go to Europe and be too far away for that 10-day contract. If there were more guys more directly associated with NBA teams, the odds of them getting even 10-day call-ups would go way up. And you need to keep in mind, a single 10-day contract is worth something like $18-24k. For guys in the American minors, that's a lot of money.


----------



## Rids (Dec 5, 2006)

Chan said:


> Making it a true developmental league will lower the league's quality and lower public interest. It would not be a good investment. If I was a NBA owner I'm not paying for a whole new coaching staff and 9 scrubs so I can develop 2 or 3 prospects, who mostly likely aren't going to amount to more than role players. History tells us that if you spend time in the D-League, you're not going to be much more than a role player.


History tells us? Isn't the D-League only 3 years old? It was set up as a development league hence the National Basketball Association Developement League name. If NBA teams don't want to invest in building their players then that's ok don't make them but then leave them to set up their own placement deals. Teams would see the advantage of having players ready to step into their locker room ready to go. 

You only need 21-25 players to stock both a NBA team and a D-League team, you think that isn't doable? You don't need the 5 or 6 person coaching staff for the D-League club like you do for the NBA team. I'm sure you could get by with a head coach and an assistant. If the two teams aren't too far apart you could have an NBA assistant be a session coach with the D-League team from time to time.


----------



## Rids (Dec 5, 2006)

Ok the D-League has only been known as the D-League the past 3 years but has 8 years of history with the NBDL included.


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

I think the key issue has been touched upon. It lies in what the ultimate purpose of the D League is. Obviously, if it's there to get new players up to speed on NBA-style offense/defense so that they can be called up by the NBA team and contribute, then that's one thing. But if it really is there to improve basic fundamentals for players who could then develop into NBA-quality players, then it should be treated in accordance with that.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

The league will go to 30. Why are so many so impatient? You can't just plop 16 more teams down. The Cavs are working on getting a new D-League team in Youngstown, OH (fall back Erie, PA). The Mavs are also working on getting a team in Frisco, TX. Right now there are 14 teams, if the Cavs can get their situation right before Spring and with new teams coming to Cedar Rapids, IA (relocated Arkansas RimRockers) and Reno, NV (relocated Fort Worth Flyers), that would leave one more expansion team that Dan Reed spoke about and 18 teams in the D-League next year.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

luther said:


> San Antonio and the LA Lakers, and possibly the Knicks next year, if reports are true, disagree with you about whether it's worth it. They wholly own D-League teams, and thus pay for it all.
> 
> But you're right, we have different opinions of what it should be. I think if it's going to be affiliated, it should be wholly affiliated, not the half-assed way it is now. The CBA 10 years ago was already a very good domestic "B" league at a time when there were other leagues (USBL, IBA, IBL), but none that were really competitive for second place. The NBA wanted an affiliated minor league. I'm just of the opinion that if you want to do that, then REALLY do that.
> 
> ...


I think the D-League could be marketable somewhat. I'm thinking of D-League caliber stars right now - Gerald Green, Dajuan Wagner, etc. Actually the draft age restriction denied HS kids to come out and bust and end up in the D-League.

And I don't really think having a full blown minor league system is worth it. Look at those MVPs - Ansu Sesay, Matt Carroll, Randy Livingston. Matt Carroll (or Jamario Moon) could be the greatest D-League call up ever. Quite simply, if I was an owner, Jamario Moon isn't worth having to pay a an entire D-League team.


----------



## luther (Nov 2, 2007)

Chan said:


> Quite simply, if I was an owner, Jamario Moon isn't worth having to pay a an entire D-League team.


And quite simply, that's where Jerry Buss, RC Buford and reportedly a few other owners (in the near future) differ from you. 

I think everyone has established his position on the matter. Not a lot more to be said.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

How much does it cost to run a D-League team? Coaches, players, personnel, facilities, etc.


----------



## luther (Nov 2, 2007)

Chan said:


> How much does it cost to run a D-League team? Coaches, players, personnel, facilities, etc.


I am trying to dig into this. According to a recent LA Times story by Jonathan Abrams, salaries top out at $26,000. I believe they have 10 per team, so you're looking at about $260,000 in player salaries. I'd guess head coaches make a similar amount.

I was an intern for a minor league basketball team in St. Paul, Minn., in the mid-90s in college (the St. Paul SLAM!, and yes, they had the cheesy all-caps and exclamation point...) and as for personnel, they only had a coaching staff (head coach, two assistants), receptionist, media relations person...I think that was it for paid staff. After that it was a couple of interns. The head coach and the owner teamed to act as a GM. While their team sites indicate more extensive staffs in the D-League, I'd still guess they're making pretty extensive use of unpaid staff.


----------



## luther (Nov 2, 2007)

According to team owner Jay Fiedler (yes, that Jay Fielder, former NFL QB) as quoted in a late 2007 story in the Lexington Herald-Leader, the Eastern Kentucky Miners CBA team has an annual budget of about $750,000, with about $150,000 of that going to pay their 10 players' salaries. Based on that, you'd have to assume a D-League team is closer to $1 million a year.

However, that would be pretty much pocket change compared to an NBA annual budget, where salaries alone are almost all well above the $56 (or so) million cap.


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

^ For NBA players sent down in-season, aren't their salaries the NBA ones too? Not that it would make a huge difference (the $1 million seems right) but that would seem to imply that more teams could be formed and maintained easily enough.

Heheheh, Jay Fiedler - everybody's favorite Dumbo-eared Jewish QB


----------



## luther (Nov 2, 2007)

Krstic All Star said:


> ^ For NBA players sent down in-season, aren't their salaries the NBA ones too?


Yes; those players are on top of the 10 already on the D-League team rosters. So now, a team may get up to 12 guys, with two having their NBA salaries paid by the NBA teams. So they don't add to the cost of the D-League teams, aside from the cheap hotel rooms and per diems.


----------



## shookem (Nov 1, 2005)

A lot of great points brought up.

I say take a good, hard look at what the AHL has done. It's the second best hockey league in the world and serves as a coach/other job factory for the NHL.


----------



## narrator (Feb 11, 2006)

All of those are good suggestions. I'd really love to see the rosters stay the same from year to year (except for call-ups, of course). I'd also like to see one D-League team for each NBA team or, failing that, one D-League team for every 2 geographically close NBA teams.

But, in the end, I voted for being able to send players down more than twice per year. I think that would be the best for the player, the NBA team and the D-League team because it would benefit all three. The player gets valuable experience, the NBA team has permanent cover in case of injury and is developing its asset, and the D-League gets more and better players.


----------

