points system is garbage, but the way they they had the old salary cap was useless also. haven't they heard of the Larry Bird Clause in the NBA?

Brisbane should not have to change their line up because Bradshaw was rerated from a 1 to a 9. What if all their players were on multi year contracts? OK he should never have been a 1, and likewise they are not now paying him 9 times as much. Its not fair on us fans who tire of players having to continually rotate into different teams.

It also discourages players from developing their players. What if Bevo at West Sydney developed a bunch of scrubbers into 10s, they would all just have to leave.

The LB clause says basically you can exceed the cap limit if you do not add to your team. the old Celtics team {Bird, Mchale, Parish} challenged the league under restraint of trade, the old salary cap said if you paid players what they were worth, a franchise could not build a dynasty, which hurt their brand.

Neither NBL system has worked well, it needs something new.

Bradshaw would've been a 3, not a 1. And if he'd been on a multi-year deal from that first year, he would not be a 9 this year.

thanks for that Isaac. I was using the Points Ratings listed on the Rosters on www.nblstats.com. That site lists Brisbane with a points total of 64, so yes Bradshaw could have been a 3, even though he just arrived from an NBA camp.

We don't.

Bradshaw didn't play NBA. He'd be a 3, having come from a college program (same with Worthington, Kendall, Crosswhite, Knight, Martin, etc).

I think both caps are required but need a couple of tweaks.

Voldemort gives the points cap a spray in the 'Tiser today:

Far from a perfect 10

Makes some good points, in particular:

"Initially it was introduced to prevent guys bargaining for as much money as possible. In effect, it was to protect incompetent administrations. Why do we need it? If it's so clubs can't stack their teams, how can anyone explain the line-ups Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane have had these past few years?"

But sacked imports such as Mike Chappell (36ers), Martin Muursepp (Tigers), Nick Horvath (Dragons) and Rashad Phillips (Wildcats) also are 10s.

Three of these guys have something in common which is a hint to why their ratings are still at 10 - no team wants them, and have not appealed their auto-rating.

Horvath is naturalised and I'd say that the Dragons will re-rate him if they need to.

"If Schensch wants to play in Adelaide but is rated a 10 and he goes back to Europe, how has that helped our game in any way?"

He's not forced to play in Europe, he's encouraged to play for a weaker team (e.g., Singapore or Wollongong) to introduce parity. Yes, it'd be nice to suit him in Adelaide, but this isn't all the fault of the points system - we have ten points to spend, it would just impact the rest of our recruiting.

Even this:

Davidson/Maher
Import/Burdon
Holmes/whoever
Ballinger/Dodman
Schenscher/Cooper

is under the points cap if you re-sign Burdon and Dodman before free agency (AFAIK) - and the whoever could be a 6. Or a rookie, if Burdon and Dodman must be 3s.

I think the points cap is a good idea, much easier to police than the salary cap, just needs a few tweaks and some guys are rated too high.
The line up Isaac named above looks good to me and does fit under the points cap, so i dont see why we dont just sign Schenscher as a 10 and be done with it, sure it means we cant have quite as much depth off the bench and may need to sign a 1 point back up SF, but thats the whole point of the points cap is to spread the talent around the leage and prevent teams being fully stacked and 10 deep with others having no one, so if anything the points cap is just doing what it was designed to do.
If Schenscher proves not to be worth a 10 get him re-rated in the offseason, i sort of agree with Harmison saying that if he has made a NBA roster he is a 10, as how many players playing NBL have made NBA rosters, the only Aussie i can think of is Anstey who won the MVP and imports like Hodge, other good Aussie Centres like Rogers and even Pepper have had a crack and never quite got there, so the fact Schenscher did means he is probably somewhere between a Rogers and a Anstey talent wise and i think those 2 are both 10's anyway.
I do think some players eg Ng at 8 are rated a bit highly so it could be tweaked a bit, but the basic concept is good IMO.

That group of Isaac's would be great if Hodge (or equivalent if that is possible) is the import. The "whoever" would also need to be pretty good because the bench is thin. That team would not cope very well if one of the first seven is out for any length of time. Other teams (eg Brisbane and Melbourne) have shown they are deep enough to lose a main guy and still win plenty of games. I wouldn't like to rely on Burdon and Dodman needing to play minutes every week (too inconsistent at NBL level).

Any possible suggestions for the "whoever"?

Amongst this players like Sutton will also find it hard as he is rated a 3.

Why would a team take a punt in Sutton at 3 points rather than taking another rookie at 1 point.

Really only gives guys 2 years to prove themselves otherwise they could be churned up despite showing some promise.

Imagne if the same happened for Rogers or Ninnis when they were languishing on the bench for long periods of time.

Both went on to play for Australia yet under this system they could have been scrapped to the ABA forever.

Correct - developing (Worthington, Kendall, Crosswhite, Barlow, Corletto, Gibson, Williamson) and retaining players (along with grabbing key players and holding them while they were valuable - e.g., DMac) were keys for those teams.

The "whoever", depending on points available, could be Williamson (rated down) or Dench (at a stretch, if Ninnis thought he could get something out of him?), or someone returning from college?

Caps Suck!!

A couple of times i have seen "parity" and "equality" used as reason to have them...what those words should be are "consistency and mediocrity".

Caps and draft's are the sort of things that prevent us from seeing the best, from seeing teams full of quality players..rather than teams with one great player and the rest of reasonable players.

yes we see a league of much equality and close games (pretty important when more than half the teams make the finals..what a joke) but close games do not neccessarily mean great games.

Join in the chorus..."Ban the Caps!"

:)

It depends on whether or not you still support the team. I have a 36ers cap, and a Crocs hat. I support the 36ers, however I find sometimes the Crocs hat offers more sun protection so I wear that instead.

Equality comes into it, but usually depends on my personal favourite at the time. ( I believe this is what Chuck bases his decisions on as well.)

NBA seem to do fairly well out of having a salary cap as well as a draft.

I think most teams will end up being 7 deep, in the same situation as us in the end, even the tigers may not end up being as deep as they no longer have D-mac, who was cheap points wise for what he bought to the table, so they would be lucky to find a PG to replace him at his level for the low points he was on, and will prob have to spend a bit more or even get a import to replace him which would reduce there depth slightly.
I cant see Brisbane or Sydney putting together 10 deep rosters again this season, so only maybe Melboure and maybe Cairns will have more than a main 7 or 8 man rotation with a couple of rookies. Im pretty syure that was the purpose of the points cap, limiting teams so they are not able to put 10 deep rosters and hog all the talent from the other teams.
I think teams like Perth and Adelaide if we can get the roster suggested above by Isaac will be among the next best, and i think the Kings will bounce back ok keeping 6 players plus 2 imports and the Dragons will surely gain some good recruits and be around the mark with BG coaching.
I like the idea of the 36ers having a main 7 man rotation and giving 2 or 3 young guys a shot and developing them for the future, most fans shouldnt be too upset to see this as everyone used to bag phil for not having or playing any young guys.

Fair point Isaac, I am not fully informed about the NBA cap..except that as i understand it..it is VERY flexible i think the term used is "soft cap".

Either way, the NBA is the top...there is no concern about the best in the world wanting to play there, so the cap is viable. its a different story in the NBL, there is no real reason to come here ahead of europe or "minor" leagues in the US.If at the very least we cant offer big money...then the best avialable will not come.

A quote i found in regard to the salary cap..."the salary cap was instituted in an attempt to level the playing field among all of the NBA's teams"

that says it all..."a level playing field".. not... "to provide the best basketball"..

DB5..there is NEVER a good enough reason to wear a crocs cap :)

I think the NBl needs the Pts Cap as it the only way it won't disapear up its own Clacka.

I think the more regional teams that can fit in the better, as there would be more national interest in it, but to do that you have to share the talent arround, its pointless soem teams going 12 deep and others 7.

Probably need to fix the structure rather than the Pts Cap.

Spending more won't fix the problem , just bring the demise sooner.

I think Schenscher hasn't played for a year and had surgery = 9 points.
NBL cap, make it 70 points.

Take away the parity and half the time you'll be watching your team run its starters for 25 minutes before letting the scrubs deal with their scrubs for extended garbage time. I'd rather see close, exciting games.

The points cap isn't forcing places overseas, bigger budgets in Europe are attracting them. And attracting who? Andersen (who'd otherwise me in the NBA), Nielsen, Ryan, Kickert and Markovic? Which of those is being kept out by a points cap? None, IMO.