330 replies to this topic

[Jadaki]

The league salary cap fluctuates every year based on league revenue. Just because you have XX million to spend on players doesn't mean you have to spend every penny all the time. Way to many teams go "I'm 8 million under the cap, lets sign a guy that should be a 2m a year player to 8m a year" Too many teams overspend on average to mediocre talent. Sometimes not adding to the roster is a better addition overall.You think Joe Johnson is a max player?

[Skeleton Jelly]

Jadaki, on Tuesday, July 12th, 2011, 3:47 PM, said:

Just because you have XX million to spend on players doesn't mean you have to spend every penny all the time.

From Larry Coon:Collectively, the players are guaranteed to receive at least 57% of revenues in salaries & benefits. If it's ever less, the league cuts a check to the Players Association after the season for distribution to the players.

[Jadaki]

That still doesn't mean you overpay players. Look at the team salaries for last year. Lakers and Dallas were pushing 90 million each. Something around 21 of the 30 teams were over the cap and several of them were significantly over. They were paying out more than 57 million per team and I doubt it was close.

[Skeleton Jelly]

Why do you keep talking about the salary cap? This has nothing to do with the cap.Consider this:The salary cap is set at 51% of basketball related income. Remember when I said that teams must pay the players 57% of basketball related income? Chew on that for a bit.As an example, let's say that basketball related income for the year is $3b. That means the salary cap is $1.53b total for all teams. Let's also say that every team is super smart and doesn't overpay players and they come in under the salary cap and only pay the players $1.5b for the year. Congratulations, now you only owe the players an additional $210m. I didn't find the numbers for 2010-2011, but here's what happened in 2009-2010:Basketball related income: $3.643 billion.Designated amount owed: $2.077 billion.Actual salaries paid: $2.114 billion.So, you're right, the owners overpaid. By $37 million. They missed their mark by less than 2%.You mentioned LA and Dallas as way over the cap. Do you think those are the teams that are complaining? Lower the %, lower the luxury tax threshold, make the have's "share" their money with the have not's. Personally, I'm ok with having a handful of elite teams and a bunch of awful teams. I don't want the NFL style of parity.

[SuitedAces21]

they just need to lower the players share of BRI to 51%, lower the total years on max contracts to four and get rid of the MLE. boom. no lockout, SA21 for commish.

[Skeleton Jelly]

SuitedAces21, on Wednesday, July 13th, 2011, 10:06 AM, said:

they just need to lower the players share of BRI to 51%, lower the total years on max contracts to four and get rid of the MLE. boom. no lockout, SA21 for commish.

Unless teams aren't really losing money. If you were a player, would you agree to lower your salary by 6% so the owners can make more money?I'd agree to shorter max contracts and getting rid of the MLE. I'd even agree to a slight rollback on salaries IN THIS ECONOMY. I don't think the players should have to make major concessions however.

[SuitedAces21]

when i first heard that the NBA was losing 370 millon a year i knew that number couldnt be "correct." but the players will cave, and if i can tell the players i kept them above a 50/50 split, i'm happy. and the owners have to lose the MLE to protect themselves and the david khan's of the world. too easy? i actually thought khan sounded pretty intelligent on the BS Report. anyways, the players are going to lose money, just accept it and don't miss games and they lose less actual paychecks. boom, SA21 for King/President.

[Skeleton Jelly]

Salaries were less than 57% last season.So it looks like the owners owe the players some more money.

[staticface]

Latest new that head of coaches is urging for new talks

[FCP Bob]

List of NBA Free AgentsNot much therehttp://hoopshype.com/free_agency.htm

[CaneBrain]

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

FCP Bob, on Saturday, November 26th, 2011, 10:19 AM, said:

List of NBA Free AgentsNot much therehttp://hoopshype.com/free_agency.htm

Yikes. I know the Heat will target a center to use the mid-level on but I'm not sure who. Roll the dice on Greg Oden maybe? Sam Dalembert?

[Dread Aidan]

CaneBrain, on Saturday, November 26th, 2011, 9:52 AM, said:

Yikes. I know the Heat will target a center to use the mid-level on but I'm not sure who. Roll the dice on Greg Oden maybe? Sam Dalembert?

If I was in charge of the Heat, I would definitely go after Oden. Then I would severely limit his minutes for most of the season to coax him into the playoffs. He could be a defensive monster for them; he is (was?) athletic as fuck.

[FCP Bob]

Dread Aidan, on Monday, November 28th, 2011, 11:47 AM, said:

If I was in charge of the Heat, I would definitely go after Oden. Then I would severely limit his minutes for most of the season to coax him into the playoffs. He could be a defensive monster for them; he is (was?) athletic as fuck.

I've read that the Heat's number one target at center is going to be Dalembert

[CaneBrain]

FCP Bob, on Monday, November 28th, 2011, 11:54 AM, said:

I've read that the Heat's number one target at center is going to be Dalembert

That has been the general consensus since mid-season last year from the DDL/Heat Index crowd. Pat Riley usually has a trick or two up his sleeve though.

[Dread Aidan]

Heat will probably have to cut Miller to have a shot at Dalembert.I guess it's not "cut" him, but rather "amnesty" him. That's not a verb. One interesting aspect of this amnesty clause (basically you can cut a player and it goes off your books for salary cap purposes even though you still pay him) is that it is good for the duration of the CBA. You only get to use it once, but you don't have to use it this off-season.

[BillyPilgrim]

Dread Aidan, on Monday, November 28th, 2011, 1:23 PM, said:

One interesting aspect of this amnesty clause (basically you can cut a player and it goes off your books for salary cap purposes even though you still pay him) is that it is good for the duration of the CBA. You only get to use it once, but you don't have to use it this off-season.

yes but doesnt it have to be used on a contract already in existence? so effectively you only have three or four years.

[Dread Aidan]

BillyPilgrim, on Monday, November 28th, 2011, 11:29 AM, said:

yes but doesnt it have to be used on a contract already in existence? so effectively you only have three or four years.

Yeah, but still...Some players are vastly overpaid, but still contribute something on the court. A contending team might be willing to eat that salary now (since they still have to pay it regardless) if they think he helps them win. It's not like there are a lot of hot free agents this off-season. Why not wait until next off-season when some real players are available, so you can open up some space for them?Another interesting wrinkle, is that if an amnesty player signs with another team, he still gets paid by his old team. So a $20m player signs for $5m, he gets $5 from his new team and $15 from his old team. If there are good players getting amnestied, they are going to be much more willing to sign with a contender at a steeply discounted price since they're getting their money anyway.

[BillyPilgrim]

Dread Aidan, on Monday, November 28th, 2011, 1:37 PM, said:

Yeah, but still...Some players are vastly overpaid, but still contribute something on the court. A contending team might be willing to eat that salary now (since they still have to pay it regardless) if they think he helps them win. It's not like there are a lot of hot free agents this off-season. Why not wait until next off-season when some real players are available, so you can open up some space for them?Another interesting wrinkle, is that if an amnesty player signs with another team, he still gets paid by his old team. So a $20m player signs for $5m, he gets $5 from his new team and $15 from his old team. If there are good players getting amnestied, they are going to be much more willing to sign with a contender at a steeply discounted price since they're getting their money anyway.

true and true. but i'm sure a few GM's will muck it up somehow. the one i keep seeing is baron davis being amnestied by the cavs and heading out west to the lakers. makes sense i guess, they need another old has been guard who cant play defense.

[BillyPilgrim]

just read a hollinger article (on espn insider so i wont link it) about how unlikely it is that CP3 goes to the knicks. basically the knicks have no assets for a sign and trade, as the hornets wont accept chauncey's expiring and any of the knicks players, and if CP3 were to opt out of his current deal next summer and sign with new york as a free agent, based on a projecteed cap of 58 million, the knicks would only be able to offer around 11 million per year to CP3. whereas by staying with the hornets he would be at 16 or 17. a difference, over the life of the deal, of about 40 million in guarenteed money. which effectively eliminates the knicks from the CP3 sweepstakes. which sucks because i want to see him there. but if he isnt going to knicks, where will he go? because he just cannot want to stay in new orleans. so he will force a trade this year or next summer. the lakers are always an option for any superstar. i've heard the oklahoma city talk, but i dont trade russel westbrook for paul straight up, russ is to young and too good to risk paul's knees. maybe the clippers could make a strong move. that would be great for everyone.

[CaneBrain]

Clippers are on the record that they want Dwight Howard not CP3. Chris Paul is not going to the Knicks and you can blame the Heat and the new labor agreement. Unless, he decides to take way less money (not out of the realm of possibility unless he spends like Antoine Walker).