The Official NBA Collective Bargaining Thread vol Phased in Hard Cap

[cosmiccanon]

Well it's easy to play hindsight about Gay. To be fair, Gay DECLINED .
W/ that said, Memphis DID F THE GAME UP IN 2010, by giving Gay the max BEFORE FA STARTED. The Grizz offering Gay the max before FA started in Summer 2010, SET THE TONE IN 2010.

From there on, you saw several guys get the max, that are not max players. Those players are Joe Johnson and Amare. If the Grizz didn't offer Gay the max, than I doubt Gay would get 80 million. AT WORST, Gay would have got 75 million(5 million decrease) on the open market. So, the Grizz could have offered a fair deal( no more than a 5 year/65 mil deal is more than fair, and is 15 MIL MORE THAN GAY DECLINED IN 09). If Rudy Gay walks away, than the Grizz have a back-up plan.

That back-up plan, is Andre Iguodola.

Andre Iguodola is FAR CHEAPER( Iggy is owed 46 million over the next 3 years, assuming he accepts his player option in 2014, while Gay is  owed 60 million over the next 4 years).

Aside from that, IGGY plays FAR BETTER DEFENSE and PASSES BETTER than Gay. Iggy is not great at getting his own shot, but can hit open shots and attack the rim. If the Grizz use Iggy as a back up plan to Gay, the dropoff is slim to none, and their team PROBABLY GETS BETTER with Iggy than with Gay.

Keep in mind, in 2010, the 76'ers had their coach fired and was coming off a 55 LOSS SEASON. So from the 76'ers standpoint, their looking TO REBUILD. If a team is looking to rebuild, than obviously they're trying to get rid of the high-paid vets(Iggy, Brand) to make room for new guys. Also, the 76'ers WERE LOOKING TO TRADE Iggy at the deadline in 2010. So Iggy wasn't untouchable in Summer 2010, and could have been attained. 

I'm 100% confident that any package of Hasheem Thabeet + 2 first rounders, 2 first rounders, or 1 first rounder and Thabeet WOULD HAVE GOT Iggy sent to the Grizz in 2010. This was a realistic and fairly easy trade to get done at the time, yet this wasn't a possible. These GM's do not come up with ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS, that's why they simply sign guys NO WHERE WORTH THE MONEY. 

Don't give me the "It's the market" bs, if you are NOT A championship team, signing a second option type player to near max/max money IS RIDICULOUS. Bottom line is, if you're not a championship team, you CAN'T AFFORD cripple your cap space by signing a non-franchise player to near max money/max money. If you can not afford to resign a second option type player and you ARE NOT a championship team, you need to either gut your team or find an alternative to the guy that walks. 

Aside from getting draft picks, these small-market teams need to have a Plan A and a Plan B/C, instead of simply saying "oh f the cap, we're getting this the max". 

Iggy trade rumors http://www.libertyballers.com/2011/2/22/2007479/how-good-is-andre-iguodala

Gay declining the 50 mil http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5346332

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by Jay02


Your right on that, the CBA wont attract players to smaller cities. But with a bigger shared revenue it will give them better financial opportunities like the bigger marketed teams. Along with that if the salary cap is decreased it will stop teams from creating this terrible big 3 trend. They wont be able to fit 3 contracts like the size of Miami's big 3. When stars cant come together like this they are forced to go elsewhere creating more parity. Unless superstars are willing to take enormous pay cuts. 

Hi. 

Can you explain the bold underline to me please?  You just said last page the bucks had 96 million dollars to spend, and nobody would take it.  But you say here that revenue sharing would somehow upen up some doors........explain. 

  
As for the decrease, where do you want the bar set man?  It was mid 50's last year wasn't it?  What do you want it to be at, 50 mil even?  For 12 players per team, in a league that made what, 3 bil last year?  Something like that.  Where is all that left over money going in your wish list? 

It won't be long before I start seeing people say each player gets only 1 million per year, I can see it now. 

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by Jay02


Your right on that, the CBA wont attract players to smaller cities. But with a bigger shared revenue it will give them better financial opportunities like the bigger marketed teams. Along with that if the salary cap is decreased it will stop teams from creating this terrible big 3 trend. They wont be able to fit 3 contracts like the size of Miami's big 3. When stars cant come together like this they are forced to go elsewhere creating more parity. Unless superstars are willing to take enormous pay cuts. 

Hi. 

Can you explain the bold underline to me please?  You just said last page the bucks had 96 million dollars to spend, and nobody would take it.  But you say here that revenue sharing would somehow upen up some doors........explain. 

  
As for the decrease, where do you want the bar set man?  It was mid 50's last year wasn't it?  What do you want it to be at, 50 mil even?  For 12 players per team, in a league that made what, 3 bil last year?  Something like that.  Where is all that left over money going in your wish list? 

It won't be long before I start seeing people say each player gets only 1 million per year, I can see it now. 

 

[pmatic]

Grizzlies were foolish in negotiations for Rudy Gay. They offered $50M, he wanted $60M. The fall deadline passed but the Grizzlies made it apparent they were going to keep Rudy during the season. Free agency starts and they almost immediately offer Rudy the max ($82M) instead of waiting it out because they were afraid a team would front-load a contract to Rudy.

Edit:
[h1][/h1]

[h1]Five lockout thoughts[/h1]The mid-level is the bedrock of free agency

The knee-jerk analysis of the mid-level salary cap exception, among fans, has been that teams have used it poorly, so who cares if it goes away or gets severely cut? Meanwhile this part of the soft cap has big implications.

A huge chunk of NBA players have no individual ability to negotiate their salaries. Maximum players, minimum players and the rookie-scale guys have incomes that are predetermined. The other players, though, when they reach free agency, can sign deals to play for any team with cap space, for almost any amount. Right?

Kind of.

In fact, the reality of what happens is that of the NBA's 400-or-so players, every year only a tiny handful, as few as 10, sign deals with teams that have cap space. Cap space, as it happens, is simply not the typical way free agents get to test the market. So how do they get competing offers? Normally from teams offering to spend some or all of their mid-level exceptions. Mid-level money is the vast majority of what makes NBA free agency meaningful, and free agency is players' one real way to test their market value.

A severe reduction to the mid-level, then, is a sever reduction in the value of free agency -- which is why this little "system issue" could be a big deal.

Players can't make a better league, but they can make better TV


NBA owners say they are losing money trying to fill arenas by paying NBA salaries, and they have, what, a $20 billion head start -- in public subsidies for stadium construction? There is simply no way for a player-run league to close that gap. Any league they'd start would be, by comparison, $20 billion or so behind, and therefore incredibly unlikely to ever pay them anything like what they can make in the NBA.

That doesn't mean they can't make real money, though, by playing where there are already leagues in place, like overseas. Or, more importantly, they could stay home and do things differently and better than the NBA.

Here's what I'm thinking: Don't compete with the NBA in terms of the ticket-buying public. Compete with them on TV. Sit down with TV producers and figure out the star-driven made-for-TV basketball competition that would haul in huge ratings. My first thought would be to set it up like "Dancing With the Stars." Performances in a big TV studio interspersed with behind-the-scenes footage that lets a general interest audience emotionally invest with the participants. Chris Paul's team vs. LeBron James' team vs. Kobe Bryant's team etc. on and on week after week. With quality production, that thing could be edited down to an hour a week and draw a huge TV audience, which could mean real revenues for players, and a real threat to owners.

It's no NBA season, but it is a way for NBA players to generate top-shelf entertainment revenue.

A mediator's role

Barely 48 hours after talks fell completely apart, the two sides agreed to meet early next week with a federal mediator.

My best guess is that the key value of a mediator in this case will not be in getting the two sides to see eye to eye -- both sides have dropped hints that they have a pretty good idea what the final deal will look like.

What is could do, though, is help the two sides go back their respective camps and say "the federal mediator said this is fair."

In other words, there's a shot this will help David Stern and Billy Hunter in convincing their hardliners to swallow bitter pills.

Owners need players to connect with fans

An interesting measure of the owners' dilemma is to imagine for next time an arena is filled with NBA fans for a real game -- whenever that may be.

It's not hard to imagine that a smart owner would have the urge to take the microphone and welcome everyone, thank them, and maybe do something that will seem a little bit like apologizing the lockout and its many hassles.

But there's a problem with that, which is owners are not generally seen as cool. Fans don't want to hear all this kind of stuff from owners. They might even boo. Most owners just don't have the credibility or charisma to rally a stadium behind them.

For many owners, that's why they bought a team! It makes them cooler.

It also puts them in a position to have other people do that stuff for them. Who speaks for the team in a way that the fans really like? The players. Specifically, the star players.

And that's where it gets tricky. If the owners really stick it to players, is Amare Stoudemire really going to take that microphone on behalf of the Knicks on opening night at Madison Square Garden? Will Dwyane Wade so Micky Arison a solid in Miami? What about Steve Nash in Phoenix, or Kevin Garnett in Boston?

The players need the league for cash. But the owners need the league for fans. And this little opening night dilemma is metaphorical for how owners relate to the fans. They need the players in the middle, and happy enough. That's one reason it might make sense for owners to seek a fair deal, instead of the best deal possible. They don't want players doing the bare minimum to promote the league.

Damage to the NBA brand

A couple days ago on Twitter, David Thorpe asked: "How's it gonna look when NBA players playing overseas get sent home because they are just not worth what they were being paid?"

Since then, DeJuan Blair -- a starter on one of the league's best teams in San Antonio -- was let go by his Russian team.

It's not that Blair didn't play well. His numbers were solid. It's also not that he has a big attitude -- quite the opposite.

The problem appears to have been simply that they could get similar production for less from any number of other players. He was good, but the amount they paid him, in that league, is reserved for greatness.

Thorpe has long maintained that the very best NBA players are in a class by themselves. No other league in the world has players like Dwyane Wade and LeBron James. But after those top stars, whether that's 30 or 40 players, he says it's very hard to tell anyone apart. The non-star NBA players, he says, are interchangeable with professionals all over the globe, which he sees in his own gym every summer, where, for instance, Italian Serie A starters hang comfortably with NBA rotation players.

Meanwhile, consider soccer's English Premiership, which includes some of the most valuable global sports franchises like Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool. Strictly because that league, and those teams, are seen as the best in the world, they are well-positioned to become not just England's favorite teams, but the world's favorite teams. They don't just play London, they play New York and Tokyo, too -- and when they get there they find fans wearing their players' jerseys and chanting their team chants.

Those teams pay like crazy for the most expensive talent in the world, and that talent gives them a shot at developing lucrative global audiences.

The NBA has a similar opportunity. Will sports fans in China, India and Brazil insist on NBA basketball on their televisions? Will they buy expensive official NBA merchandise?

If they are convinced it's far and away the best basketball league in the world they will. But the perception that the NBA is in a class by itself ... it's damaged just a little in Russia today when Blair is sent packing. And it's entirely possible that we'll see more of the same in other countries, which could hurt the NBA's ability to present itself as head-and-shoulders above the rest of the globe.
Link

 

[pmatic]

Grizzlies were foolish in negotiations for Rudy Gay. They offered $50M, he wanted $60M. The fall deadline passed but the Grizzlies made it apparent they were going to keep Rudy during the season. Free agency starts and they almost immediately offer Rudy the max ($82M) instead of waiting it out because they were afraid a team would front-load a contract to Rudy.

Edit:
[h1][/h1]

[h1]Five lockout thoughts[/h1]The mid-level is the bedrock of free agency

The knee-jerk analysis of the mid-level salary cap exception, among fans, has been that teams have used it poorly, so who cares if it goes away or gets severely cut? Meanwhile this part of the soft cap has big implications.

A huge chunk of NBA players have no individual ability to negotiate their salaries. Maximum players, minimum players and the rookie-scale guys have incomes that are predetermined. The other players, though, when they reach free agency, can sign deals to play for any team with cap space, for almost any amount. Right?

Kind of.

In fact, the reality of what happens is that of the NBA's 400-or-so players, every year only a tiny handful, as few as 10, sign deals with teams that have cap space. Cap space, as it happens, is simply not the typical way free agents get to test the market. So how do they get competing offers? Normally from teams offering to spend some or all of their mid-level exceptions. Mid-level money is the vast majority of what makes NBA free agency meaningful, and free agency is players' one real way to test their market value.

A severe reduction to the mid-level, then, is a sever reduction in the value of free agency -- which is why this little "system issue" could be a big deal.

Players can't make a better league, but they can make better TV


NBA owners say they are losing money trying to fill arenas by paying NBA salaries, and they have, what, a $20 billion head start -- in public subsidies for stadium construction? There is simply no way for a player-run league to close that gap. Any league they'd start would be, by comparison, $20 billion or so behind, and therefore incredibly unlikely to ever pay them anything like what they can make in the NBA.

That doesn't mean they can't make real money, though, by playing where there are already leagues in place, like overseas. Or, more importantly, they could stay home and do things differently and better than the NBA.

Here's what I'm thinking: Don't compete with the NBA in terms of the ticket-buying public. Compete with them on TV. Sit down with TV producers and figure out the star-driven made-for-TV basketball competition that would haul in huge ratings. My first thought would be to set it up like "Dancing With the Stars." Performances in a big TV studio interspersed with behind-the-scenes footage that lets a general interest audience emotionally invest with the participants. Chris Paul's team vs. LeBron James' team vs. Kobe Bryant's team etc. on and on week after week. With quality production, that thing could be edited down to an hour a week and draw a huge TV audience, which could mean real revenues for players, and a real threat to owners.

It's no NBA season, but it is a way for NBA players to generate top-shelf entertainment revenue.

A mediator's role

Barely 48 hours after talks fell completely apart, the two sides agreed to meet early next week with a federal mediator.

My best guess is that the key value of a mediator in this case will not be in getting the two sides to see eye to eye -- both sides have dropped hints that they have a pretty good idea what the final deal will look like.

What is could do, though, is help the two sides go back their respective camps and say "the federal mediator said this is fair."

In other words, there's a shot this will help David Stern and Billy Hunter in convincing their hardliners to swallow bitter pills.

Owners need players to connect with fans

An interesting measure of the owners' dilemma is to imagine for next time an arena is filled with NBA fans for a real game -- whenever that may be.

It's not hard to imagine that a smart owner would have the urge to take the microphone and welcome everyone, thank them, and maybe do something that will seem a little bit like apologizing the lockout and its many hassles.

But there's a problem with that, which is owners are not generally seen as cool. Fans don't want to hear all this kind of stuff from owners. They might even boo. Most owners just don't have the credibility or charisma to rally a stadium behind them.

For many owners, that's why they bought a team! It makes them cooler.

It also puts them in a position to have other people do that stuff for them. Who speaks for the team in a way that the fans really like? The players. Specifically, the star players.

And that's where it gets tricky. If the owners really stick it to players, is Amare Stoudemire really going to take that microphone on behalf of the Knicks on opening night at Madison Square Garden? Will Dwyane Wade so Micky Arison a solid in Miami? What about Steve Nash in Phoenix, or Kevin Garnett in Boston?

The players need the league for cash. But the owners need the league for fans. And this little opening night dilemma is metaphorical for how owners relate to the fans. They need the players in the middle, and happy enough. That's one reason it might make sense for owners to seek a fair deal, instead of the best deal possible. They don't want players doing the bare minimum to promote the league.

Damage to the NBA brand

A couple days ago on Twitter, David Thorpe asked: "How's it gonna look when NBA players playing overseas get sent home because they are just not worth what they were being paid?"

Since then, DeJuan Blair -- a starter on one of the league's best teams in San Antonio -- was let go by his Russian team.

It's not that Blair didn't play well. His numbers were solid. It's also not that he has a big attitude -- quite the opposite.

The problem appears to have been simply that they could get similar production for less from any number of other players. He was good, but the amount they paid him, in that league, is reserved for greatness.

Thorpe has long maintained that the very best NBA players are in a class by themselves. No other league in the world has players like Dwyane Wade and LeBron James. But after those top stars, whether that's 30 or 40 players, he says it's very hard to tell anyone apart. The non-star NBA players, he says, are interchangeable with professionals all over the globe, which he sees in his own gym every summer, where, for instance, Italian Serie A starters hang comfortably with NBA rotation players.

Meanwhile, consider soccer's English Premiership, which includes some of the most valuable global sports franchises like Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool. Strictly because that league, and those teams, are seen as the best in the world, they are well-positioned to become not just England's favorite teams, but the world's favorite teams. They don't just play London, they play New York and Tokyo, too -- and when they get there they find fans wearing their players' jerseys and chanting their team chants.

Those teams pay like crazy for the most expensive talent in the world, and that talent gives them a shot at developing lucrative global audiences.

The NBA has a similar opportunity. Will sports fans in China, India and Brazil insist on NBA basketball on their televisions? Will they buy expensive official NBA merchandise?

If they are convinced it's far and away the best basketball league in the world they will. But the perception that the NBA is in a class by itself ... it's damaged just a little in Russia today when Blair is sent packing. And it's entirely possible that we'll see more of the same in other countries, which could hurt the NBA's ability to present itself as head-and-shoulders above the rest of the globe.
Link

 

[CP1708]

I want to see all this movement people have been complaining about.  Let's list it all out right here, show me all these horribly unfair moves/deals that have "ruined" the game. 


Lakers, trade for Kareem in the early 70's, sign Shaq in 96, trade for Pau in 08
Celtics,
Knicks, Spree and Houstin in late 90's, Stat and Melo in 10
Clippers, Ron Harper count?
T-Wolves,
Nets, Trade for Kidd early 2000's, trade for D-Will in 10
Grizz, Zach Randolph????
Pacers, Ron Artest mid 90's, J Oneal late 90's. 
Bucks
Bulls, Boozer in 10
Heat, Zo and Hardaway were how old?  If still young, they go here, Bron and Bosh in 10
Suns, Trade for Barkley in 93, traded for McDyess, sign Nash in 05.  (he barely counts, but had 5+ good years with Suns)
Magic, sign Hill, TMac, and Lewis, several weird trades
Warriors
Kings, Webber, Bibby, not sure if I count Artest here
Blazers, Cliff Robinson, Sheed, Damon Stoudemire, B Grant,
Sonics/Thunder, trade for Ray Allen
Jazz, Hornacek? 
Pistons, Stackhouse, Sheed?
Denver, I don't know if I count AI, K-Mart counts
Mavs, Terry, Caron Butler I guess
Hawks, traded for Sheed, then flipped him, Joe Johnson
Rockets, Artest
Spurs
Hornets, I don't feel bad at all, they broke up the Zo-LJ duo, then broke up Glen Rice-LJ duo.  Cry me a river, they led in attendance for a few years with them guys
Bobcats,
Cavs,
76ers,
Raptors,
Wizards, Webber,


These are all the moves off the top of my head, fill me in on the others, show me the massive amounts of movement each year that is big guys, in their primes, that go from team to team unfairly, KG and Ray Allen in Boston don't count, they were already old, and have not yet given the Celts a good solid 5 years. 

If you know any moves I am missing, please let me know and I will edit this list.  Go as far back as you want, just show me the names so I can see the unfairness going on in the NBA. 

 

[CP1708]

I want to see all this movement people have been complaining about.  Let's list it all out right here, show me all these horribly unfair moves/deals that have "ruined" the game. 


Lakers, trade for Kareem in the early 70's, sign Shaq in 96, trade for Pau in 08
Celtics,
Knicks, Spree and Houstin in late 90's, Stat and Melo in 10
Clippers, Ron Harper count?
T-Wolves,
Nets, Trade for Kidd early 2000's, trade for D-Will in 10
Grizz, Zach Randolph????
Pacers, Ron Artest mid 90's, J Oneal late 90's. 
Bucks
Bulls, Boozer in 10
Heat, Zo and Hardaway were how old?  If still young, they go here, Bron and Bosh in 10
Suns, Trade for Barkley in 93, traded for McDyess, sign Nash in 05.  (he barely counts, but had 5+ good years with Suns)
Magic, sign Hill, TMac, and Lewis, several weird trades
Warriors
Kings, Webber, Bibby, not sure if I count Artest here
Blazers, Cliff Robinson, Sheed, Damon Stoudemire, B Grant,
Sonics/Thunder, trade for Ray Allen
Jazz, Hornacek? 
Pistons, Stackhouse, Sheed?
Denver, I don't know if I count AI, K-Mart counts
Mavs, Terry, Caron Butler I guess
Hawks, traded for Sheed, then flipped him, Joe Johnson
Rockets, Artest
Spurs
Hornets, I don't feel bad at all, they broke up the Zo-LJ duo, then broke up Glen Rice-LJ duo.  Cry me a river, they led in attendance for a few years with them guys
Bobcats,
Cavs,
76ers,
Raptors,
Wizards, Webber,


These are all the moves off the top of my head, fill me in on the others, show me the massive amounts of movement each year that is big guys, in their primes, that go from team to team unfairly, KG and Ray Allen in Boston don't count, they were already old, and have not yet given the Celts a good solid 5 years. 

If you know any moves I am missing, please let me know and I will edit this list.  Go as far back as you want, just show me the names so I can see the unfairness going on in the NBA. 

 

[Kimchi Papi]

CosmicCanon wrote:

---

Well it's easy to play hindsight about Gay. To be fair, Gay DECLINED .
W/ that said, Memphis DID F THE GAME UP IN 2010, by giving Gay the max BEFORE FA STARTED. The Grizz offering Gay the max before FA started in Summer 2010, SET THE TONE IN 2010.

From there on, you saw several guys get the max, that are not max players. Those players are Joe Johnson and Amare. If the Grizz didn't offer Gay the max, than I doubt Gay would get 80 million. AT WORST, Gay would have got 75 million(5 million decrease) on the open market. So, the Grizz could have offered a fair deal( no more than a 5 year/65 mil deal is more than fair, and is 15 MIL MORE THAN GAY DECLINED IN 09). If Rudy Gay walks away, than the Grizz have a back-up plan.

That back-up plan, is Andre Iguodola.

Andre Iguodola is FAR CHEAPER( Iggy is owed 46 million over the next 3 years, assuming he accepts his player option in 2014, while Gay is  owed 60 million over the next 4 years).

Aside from that, IGGY plays FAR BETTER DEFENSE and PASSES BETTER than Gay. Iggy is not great at getting his own shot, but can hit open shots and attack the rim. If the Grizz use Iggy as a back up plan to Gay, the dropoff is slim to none, and their team PROBABLY GETS BETTER with Iggy than with Gay.

Keep in mind, in 2010, the 76'ers had their coach fired and was coming off a 55 LOSS SEASON. So from the 76'ers standpoint, their looking TO REBUILD. If a team is looking to rebuild, than obviously they're trying to get rid of the high-paid vets(Iggy, Brand) to make room for new guys. Also, the 76'ers WERE LOOKING TO TRADE Iggy at the deadline in 2010. So Iggy wasn't untouchable in Summer 2010, and could have been attained. 

I'm 100% confident that any package of Hasheem Thabeet + 2 first rounders, 2 first rounders, or 1 first rounder and Thabeet WOULD HAVE GOT Iggy sent to the Grizz in 2010. This was a realistic and fairly easy trade to get done at the time, yet this wasn't a possible. These GM's do not come up with ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS, that's why they simply sign guys NO WHERE WORTH THE MONEY. 

Don't give me the "It's the market" bs, if you are NOT A championship team, signing a second option type player to near max/max money IS RIDICULOUS. Bottom line is, if you're not a championship team, you CAN'T AFFORD cripple your cap space by signing a non-franchise player to near max money/max money. If you can not afford to resign a second option type player and you ARE NOT a championship team, you need to either gut your team or find an alternative to the guy that walks. 

Aside from getting draft picks, these small-market teams need to have a Plan A and a Plan B/C, instead of simply saying "oh f the cap, we're getting this the max". 

Iggy trade rumors httphttp://www.libertyballers.com/2011/2/22/2007479/how-good-is-andre-iguodala://www.libertyballers.com/2011/2/22/2007479/how-good-is-andre-iguodala

Gay declining the 50 mil httphttp://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5346332://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5346332



The article from ESPN.com you posted was dated 7/2/10. The article I'm referring to when he was looking for a 5 year deal for $50 mil is here. It's dated 11/1/9. He & his agent were originally looking for a 5 year $50 mil deal in 09 but the Grizzlies declined it & then offered it again the following year to which he declined.

I agree that Gay isn't a max deal guy. About 70% of the players that have max deals of near max deals aren't worth that which is why I think there are too many teams making horrible decisions & then scratch their heads trying to figure out why their losing money. The only guys that should get max deals (or near max deals) are players that bring fans to the games. NBA fans are not coming to arenas to pay top dollar to see players like Gay, Joe Johnson, Iggy, Deron Williams, & players like. With the economy the way it is (which isn't gonna get any better any time soon), the NBA & it's teams will continue to see revenue streams shrink....

 

[Kimchi Papi]

CosmicCanon wrote:

---

Well it's easy to play hindsight about Gay. To be fair, Gay DECLINED .
W/ that said, Memphis DID F THE GAME UP IN 2010, by giving Gay the max BEFORE FA STARTED. The Grizz offering Gay the max before FA started in Summer 2010, SET THE TONE IN 2010.

From there on, you saw several guys get the max, that are not max players. Those players are Joe Johnson and Amare. If the Grizz didn't offer Gay the max, than I doubt Gay would get 80 million. AT WORST, Gay would have got 75 million(5 million decrease) on the open market. So, the Grizz could have offered a fair deal( no more than a 5 year/65 mil deal is more than fair, and is 15 MIL MORE THAN GAY DECLINED IN 09). If Rudy Gay walks away, than the Grizz have a back-up plan.

That back-up plan, is Andre Iguodola.

Andre Iguodola is FAR CHEAPER( Iggy is owed 46 million over the next 3 years, assuming he accepts his player option in 2014, while Gay is  owed 60 million over the next 4 years).

Aside from that, IGGY plays FAR BETTER DEFENSE and PASSES BETTER than Gay. Iggy is not great at getting his own shot, but can hit open shots and attack the rim. If the Grizz use Iggy as a back up plan to Gay, the dropoff is slim to none, and their team PROBABLY GETS BETTER with Iggy than with Gay.

Keep in mind, in 2010, the 76'ers had their coach fired and was coming off a 55 LOSS SEASON. So from the 76'ers standpoint, their looking TO REBUILD. If a team is looking to rebuild, than obviously they're trying to get rid of the high-paid vets(Iggy, Brand) to make room for new guys. Also, the 76'ers WERE LOOKING TO TRADE Iggy at the deadline in 2010. So Iggy wasn't untouchable in Summer 2010, and could have been attained. 

I'm 100% confident that any package of Hasheem Thabeet + 2 first rounders, 2 first rounders, or 1 first rounder and Thabeet WOULD HAVE GOT Iggy sent to the Grizz in 2010. This was a realistic and fairly easy trade to get done at the time, yet this wasn't a possible. These GM's do not come up with ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS, that's why they simply sign guys NO WHERE WORTH THE MONEY. 

Don't give me the "It's the market" bs, if you are NOT A championship team, signing a second option type player to near max/max money IS RIDICULOUS. Bottom line is, if you're not a championship team, you CAN'T AFFORD cripple your cap space by signing a non-franchise player to near max money/max money. If you can not afford to resign a second option type player and you ARE NOT a championship team, you need to either gut your team or find an alternative to the guy that walks. 

Aside from getting draft picks, these small-market teams need to have a Plan A and a Plan B/C, instead of simply saying "oh f the cap, we're getting this the max". 

Iggy trade rumors httphttp://www.libertyballers.com/2011/2/22/2007479/how-good-is-andre-iguodala://www.libertyballers.com/2011/2/22/2007479/how-good-is-andre-iguodala

Gay declining the 50 mil httphttp://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5346332://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5346332



The article from ESPN.com you posted was dated 7/2/10. The article I'm referring to when he was looking for a 5 year deal for $50 mil is here. It's dated 11/1/9. He & his agent were originally looking for a 5 year $50 mil deal in 09 but the Grizzlies declined it & then offered it again the following year to which he declined.

I agree that Gay isn't a max deal guy. About 70% of the players that have max deals of near max deals aren't worth that which is why I think there are too many teams making horrible decisions & then scratch their heads trying to figure out why their losing money. The only guys that should get max deals (or near max deals) are players that bring fans to the games. NBA fans are not coming to arenas to pay top dollar to see players like Gay, Joe Johnson, Iggy, Deron Williams, & players like. With the economy the way it is (which isn't gonna get any better any time soon), the NBA & it's teams will continue to see revenue streams shrink....

 

[Kimchi Papi]

CosmicCanon wrote:

---

Well it's easy to play hindsight about Gay. To be fair, Gay DECLINED .
W/ that said, Memphis DID F THE GAME UP IN 2010, by giving Gay the max BEFORE FA STARTED. The Grizz offering Gay the max before FA started in Summer 2010, SET THE TONE IN 2010.

From there on, you saw several guys get the max, that are not max players. Those players are Joe Johnson and Amare. If the Grizz didn't offer Gay the max, than I doubt Gay would get 80 million. AT WORST, Gay would have got 75 million(5 million decrease) on the open market. So, the Grizz could have offered a fair deal( no more than a 5 year/65 mil deal is more than fair, and is 15 MIL MORE THAN GAY DECLINED IN 09). If Rudy Gay walks away, than the Grizz have a back-up plan.

That back-up plan, is Andre Iguodola.

Andre Iguodola is FAR CHEAPER( Iggy is owed 46 million over the next 3 years, assuming he accepts his player option in 2014, while Gay is  owed 60 million over the next 4 years).

Aside from that, IGGY plays FAR BETTER DEFENSE and PASSES BETTER than Gay. Iggy is not great at getting his own shot, but can hit open shots and attack the rim. If the Grizz use Iggy as a back up plan to Gay, the dropoff is slim to none, and their team PROBABLY GETS BETTER with Iggy than with Gay.

Keep in mind, in 2010, the 76'ers had their coach fired and was coming off a 55 LOSS SEASON. So from the 76'ers standpoint, their looking TO REBUILD. If a team is looking to rebuild, than obviously they're trying to get rid of the high-paid vets(Iggy, Brand) to make room for new guys. Also, the 76'ers WERE LOOKING TO TRADE Iggy at the deadline in 2010. So Iggy wasn't untouchable in Summer 2010, and could have been attained. 

I'm 100% confident that any package of Hasheem Thabeet + 2 first rounders, 2 first rounders, or 1 first rounder and Thabeet WOULD HAVE GOT Iggy sent to the Grizz in 2010. This was a realistic and fairly easy trade to get done at the time, yet this wasn't a possible. These GM's do not come up with ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS, that's why they simply sign guys NO WHERE WORTH THE MONEY. 

Don't give me the "It's the market" bs, if you are NOT A championship team, signing a second option type player to near max/max money IS RIDICULOUS. Bottom line is, if you're not a championship team, you CAN'T AFFORD cripple your cap space by signing a non-franchise player to near max money/max money. If you can not afford to resign a second option type player and you ARE NOT a championship team, you need to either gut your team or find an alternative to the guy that walks. 

Aside from getting draft picks, these small-market teams need to have a Plan A and a Plan B/C, instead of simply saying "oh f the cap, we're getting this the max". 

Iggy trade rumors httphttp://www.libertyballers.com/2011/2/22/2007479/how-good-is-andre-iguodala://www.libertyballers.com/2011/2/22/2007479/how-good-is-andre-iguodala

Gay declining the 50 mil httphttp://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5346332://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5346332



The article from ESPN.com you posted was dated 7/2/10. The article I'm referring to when he was looking for a 5 year deal for $50 mil is here. It's dated 11/1/9. He & his agent were originally looking for a 5 year $50 mil deal in 09 but the Grizzlies declined it & then offered it again the following year to which he declined.

I agree that Gay isn't a max deal guy. About 70% of the players that have max deals of near max deals aren't worth that which is why I think there are too many teams making horrible decisions & then scratch their heads trying to figure out why their losing money. The only guys that should get max deals (or near max deals) are players that bring fans to the games. NBA fans are not coming to arenas to pay top dollar to see players like Gay, Joe Johnson, Iggy, Deron Williams, & players like. With the economy the way it is (which isn't gonna get any better any time soon), the NBA & it's teams will continue to see revenue streams shrink....

 

[statis22]

At one point Dallas had Dirk, Nash, Finley, Antoine Walker, & Jamison all on the same team in their primes. You will never see a small market get a coup like that.

And on the flip some have mentioned Toronto but they have made pretty good drafts only to see guys walk out the door.

Camby left
Stoudamire left
McGrady left
Carter left
Bosh left

all when they were building the foundations of their team. All players aren't wired the same but being in a big market does help.

 

[statis22]

At one point Dallas had Dirk, Nash, Finley, Antoine Walker, & Jamison all on the same team in their primes. You will never see a small market get a coup like that.

And on the flip some have mentioned Toronto but they have made pretty good drafts only to see guys walk out the door.

Camby left
Stoudamire left
McGrady left
Carter left
Bosh left

all when they were building the foundations of their team. All players aren't wired the same but being in a big market does help.

 

[statis22]

At one point Dallas had Dirk, Nash, Finley, Antoine Walker, & Jamison all on the same team in their primes. You will never see a small market get a coup like that.

And on the flip some have mentioned Toronto but they have made pretty good drafts only to see guys walk out the door.

Camby left
Stoudamire left
McGrady left
Carter left
Bosh left

all when they were building the foundations of their team. All players aren't wired the same but being in a big market does help.

 

[doitallpaul]

Have a new 'fantasy draft' where all the teams can draft a team from the start, no contraction and lets see how everything ends up.

Normal Size Cap and Equal revenue sharing for all teams from all network deals.

sounds like college football.

 

[doitallpaul]

Have a new 'fantasy draft' where all the teams can draft a team from the start, no contraction and lets see how everything ends up.

Normal Size Cap and Equal revenue sharing for all teams from all network deals.

sounds like college football.

 

[doitallpaul]

Have a new 'fantasy draft' where all the teams can draft a team from the start, no contraction and lets see how everything ends up.

Normal Size Cap and Equal revenue sharing for all teams from all network deals.

sounds like college football.

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by Statis22

At one point Dallas had Dirk, Nash, Finley, Antoine Walker, & Jamison all on the same team in their primes. You will never see a small market get a coup like that.

And on the flip some have mentioned Toronto but they have made pretty good drafts only to see guys walk out the door.

Camby left
Stoudamire left
McGrady left
Carter left
Bosh left

all when they were building the foundations of their team. All players aren't wired the same but being in a big market does help.

I'll never see a small market get 5 gunners that don't play D? Maybe, but I'd say Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Green and Ibaka was pretty darn close. (But with some D) Gay, Zach, Marc, Mayo, and PG whose name I'm forgetting.....I mean, really? Toronto is a Canada/US thing I'm assuming, but as Osh himself says, they ain't even small market. What else ya got? BTW, Suns with Nash, Joe, Amare, Matrix count? That don't match Dallas either?

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by Statis22

At one point Dallas had Dirk, Nash, Finley, Antoine Walker, & Jamison all on the same team in their primes. You will never see a small market get a coup like that.

And on the flip some have mentioned Toronto but they have made pretty good drafts only to see guys walk out the door.

Camby left
Stoudamire left
McGrady left
Carter left
Bosh left

all when they were building the foundations of their team. All players aren't wired the same but being in a big market does help.

I'll never see a small market get 5 gunners that don't play D? Maybe, but I'd say Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Green and Ibaka was pretty darn close. (But with some D) Gay, Zach, Marc, Mayo, and PG whose name I'm forgetting.....I mean, really? Toronto is a Canada/US thing I'm assuming, but as Osh himself says, they ain't even small market. What else ya got? BTW, Suns with Nash, Joe, Amare, Matrix count? That don't match Dallas either?

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by Statis22

At one point Dallas had Dirk, Nash, Finley, Antoine Walker, & Jamison all on the same team in their primes. You will never see a small market get a coup like that.

And on the flip some have mentioned Toronto but they have made pretty good drafts only to see guys walk out the door.

Camby left
Stoudamire left
McGrady left
Carter left
Bosh left

all when they were building the foundations of their team. All players aren't wired the same but being in a big market does help.

I'll never see a small market get 5 gunners that don't play D? Maybe, but I'd say Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Green and Ibaka was pretty darn close. (But with some D) Gay, Zach, Marc, Mayo, and PG whose name I'm forgetting.....I mean, really? Toronto is a Canada/US thing I'm assuming, but as Osh himself says, they ain't even small market. What else ya got? BTW, Suns with Nash, Joe, Amare, Matrix count? That don't match Dallas either?

 

[duba169]

People for the last time, toronto is not a small market

Not. Small. Market.

 

[duba169]

People for the last time, toronto is not a small market

Not. Small. Market.

 

[duba169]

People for the last time, toronto is not a small market

Not. Small. Market.

 

[CP1708]

Did Minny have KG, Marbury, Guggs, and Zserbiak (SP) on the same team? Or was that the KG, Spree, Cassell, Zserb team? Sac, Webber, Bibby, Peja, Hedo, B-Jax, with Vlade and Christie as throw ins........nope, we'll never see a coup like Dallas, nooooo. Reggie, Artest, JO, S-Jax, eh, not close really.

 

[CP1708]

Did Minny have KG, Marbury, Guggs, and Zserbiak (SP) on the same team? Or was that the KG, Spree, Cassell, Zserb team? Sac, Webber, Bibby, Peja, Hedo, B-Jax, with Vlade and Christie as throw ins........nope, we'll never see a coup like Dallas, nooooo. Reggie, Artest, JO, S-Jax, eh, not close really.

 

[everysingletime]

Originally Posted by DubA169

People for the last time, toronto is not a small market

Not. Small. Market.

Ehh idk.  How's basketball's popularity over there? 

The way I see it, it'd be like a Rugby team based in NYC.  That'd be a small market team.