Dazz
Years ago

Should teams be allowed TWO marquee players?

One of the perenial struggles of the NBL is to somehow bridge the gap between the cashed up clubs, and those that aren't. And unfortunately what we are seeing with TSV and WOL is that even the $1M cap isn't sustainable.

Personally, I would love to see the best Aussie players (outside those in the NBA) playing at home for competitive money, but the reality is that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

So what I am talking about here is the possibility of having a reduced salary and points cap for local players. (Say 50 points and maybe ~$600k.) The points system should be further tweaked to encourage retention of ex-DPs, and this should allow clubs to build a solid core of local players.
Then allow "open slather" on hired-gun imports.
(But keep the existing proviso that if you exceed the $1M mark, you pay a 25% levy, but then redistribute that levy as a subsidy to teams paying less than the average.

This would allow the flush clubs to bring in the bigger name players, whilst allowing other teams to look for bargains in the ranks of those who missed the NBA and are yet to land a Euro deal.

My thinking is that if you hold all clubs to a similar sustainable local core, the difference between imports will not make an extreme difference. Whilst at the same time improving the entertainment value of the league.

I would argue that Cairns imports this season were probably not top dollar, yet took them all the way to the GF. Whilst the best import in the league didn't even make the finals!

There's also a much bigger potential field to choose from with imports.

Topic #36714 | Report this topic

Anonymous
Years ago

would be great to have more marquee players but i don't think that taking away money from other players to land a big fish for your team is the right way to go about it. for a prfessional league to almost cut its budget in half and then spend that money somewhere else is probably going to cause angst amongst the team. i know if it were me and someone was cutting my wage to give to someone else i would not appreciate it. cutting the budget like this would probably mean most of the players would have to get a second job also. if you have ten players on your roster and ave it out thats $60 grand per player. if i'm reading the proposal correctly.

Reply #521109 | Report this post

Isaac
Years ago

I think paul has suggested having imports outside the cap before?

One issue with that strategy is that cheaper wildcard imports are a key opportunity for a club. It can be a better strategy to lock in top Australian talent and then enter a lottery with your import. Blaze had Goulding, Gibson, Worthington and Petrie (from memory) and then spent $65k each on Deleon and Hudson. I don't really rate Deleon as a team player, but that's a good price for a guy who can score, and the rest are fringe Boomers.

It'd be worth exploring something similar though and think about how it might play out. It could be one of a few things tried that gives top clubs free reign to recruit strongly (and build crowds), but without necessarily dominating poorer clubs.

- adjusted cap along the lines of $x cap for 8 players and then soft cap for last two
- effective luxury tax (even if funds are spent by the NBL on behalf of weaker clubs rather than gifted to them)
- soft points cap
- removal of loyalty discounts to some extent (I think they work against less successful clubs)
- reduction in minimum salary ($40k 10th man has far less impact than $60k 8th man)
- consider limit on pre-season so players are less reliant only on NBL salary and can comfortably play off-seasons elsewhere?

Reply #521117 | Report this post

Dazz
Years ago

Yeah, I'm not suggesting necessarily CUTTING the funds for Aussie players. I'm suggesting setting the local cap at a sustainable level. Eg what can teams like TSV/ WOL/ CNS afford to pay their locals. Whether that is $600k or $800k.

Then the poorer teams take a punt on some cheap imports, eg guys like Wilbekin who missed the NBA draft and are looking to make a name so they can land a Euro deal. Whilst the flush teams can splurge on proven, big-name, ex Euro or ex NBA types. It gives those poor teams a decent chance at a great season (like Cairns) if they land the right imports, and even if not they would still be half decent with their local core, and simply roll the dice on imports next year.
It would mean that their imports would probably only be here for a year, but should make their locals more stable, and anyway I feel that would be an acceptable compromise for their lack of funds.

Too many people want some kind of socialist league (like the AFL) but that is NEVER going to happen. As I said, the problem is that you can never bridge the financial gap between Perth and TSV. So WHAT is the best way to close the on-court gap, whilst still allowing Perth to exploit their financial edge?

And again, I'm not talking about giving Perth more of an advantage. I'm talking about making the salary spend more AFFORDABLE for the poorer teams.

Reply #521158 | Report this post

Anonymous
Years ago

Can't see the NBLPA going for it.

Reply #521160 | Report this post

You need to be a registered user to post from this location. Register here.

Close ads

Little Streaks - The fun and interactive good-habits app designed especially for kids.

Serio: Tourism photography and videography

Advertise on Hoops to a very focused, local and sports-keen audience. Email for rates and options.

Hoops

Should teams be allowed TWO marquee players?

Recent Posts