Trade talk getting you down? Let's fix the NBA labor/salary structure instead!

This idea actually originated in one of those whimsical pieces beloved by all Dreamshake readers, but after seeing some details of the owners Collective Bargaining Agreement proposal, it actually looks rather sane.  No, I don't think we're going to be seeing The Malcontent All-Stars, as much as I think everyone, and I mean everyone, would enjoy them.  

There's a germ of an idea in there that I think provides a better, or at least more palatable solution than the NBA's suggested "cramdown" of big contracts.  Here's what I propose:

Once in a three year period an NBA team may choose to extend payment on a players contract for ten years, with the remainder of the money owed on the contract divided into ten equal yearly payments.  

That is, total deal money remaining, with options assumed to be exercised by both parties, divided by ten.  For example, Player X has $23 million and one year remaining.  Team Y chooses to extend him.  Now he gets $2.3 million per year for the next ten years, plus interest yearly, at prime +1% or something like that.  In another example Player A is owed 40 million over 4 years.  If extended, he gets $4 million a year for 10 years.

The time to do this move is the week before the summer Free Agent period.  When a team chooses to extend a deal the player is immediately dropped from the roster, and no longer counts against the salary cap.  The player becomes a free agent and is eligible to sign with any team but the one who extended his deal.  He gets whatever money he is owed from the extension of his contract plus whatever money he signs for.  

No player may be extended twice in his career, and the player may not play for the team that extended him in that same season.  No player may be extended by a team he was traded to in the same season, or in the same season he signs a new contract.

This, to me, is a much better way to deal with deadly contracts.  The player still gets all his money, plus interest.  The team gets immediate relief, and the player can actually end up making much more money if he signs another lucrative deal.  The bad contract doesn't cripple a team, but neither can the team simply escape it.  If you make a terrible deal, like certain ones in DC or NY, well, extending 5 years out to 10 is nice, but still hurts, as it should.  The fact that the salary drops off the cap, though, makes it attractive.

I honestly think this is pretty reasonable.  Your take?

PS - I know this doesn't really account for the time value of money - it IS a haircut, but not a total "You'll take 40% less and like it!"  haircut.