Originally Posted by Addict4Sneakers
2001-2002 season
and its more of a testament of them drafting what turned out to be a quality player at 17 rather than what his production was as a rookie.
fact is, portland stockpiled their team with talent through proper management. they just happen to run into the lakers and the spurs
Originally Posted by Addict4Sneakers
2001-2002 season
and its more of a testament of them drafting what turned out to be a quality player at 17 rather than what his production was as a rookie.
fact is, portland stockpiled their team with talent through proper management. they just happen to run into the lakers and the spurs
Hopefully, that's something the mediator can help with. If he thinks progress is being made, the mediator may be able to persuade both sides about not taking a hard line about when a deal need to get done. Although I'm not convinced it will, I'm hoping that the mediator's involvement will at least decrease the level of !@#$ing around that's gone on with this thing up until now.
Hopefully, that's something the mediator can help with. If he thinks progress is being made, the mediator may be able to persuade both sides about not taking a hard line about when a deal need to get done. Although I'm not convinced it will, I'm hoping that the mediator's involvement will at least decrease the level of !@#$ing around that's gone on with this thing up until now.
Just some random ones that I'm sure really pissed off "small market" fans.
Big
Just some random ones that I'm sure really pissed off "small market" fans.
Big
Originally Posted by CP1708
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.
Originally Posted by CP1708
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.
Blazers paid a bum to leave. Fair enough.Originally Posted by PMatic
Just some random ones that I'm sure really pissed off "small market" fans.
Warriors getting Baron Davis for Dale Davis and Speedy Claxton
Blazers paying Steve Francis $30M to go away.
Spurs trading away Luis Scola because they couldn't/didn't want to pay him.
Spurs taking "advantage" of the Bucks and trading for Richard Jefferson (this hasn't quite worked out)
Jazz having to trade Eric Maynor to rid themselves of Matt Harpring's contract
Bobcats dumping Gerald Wallace for Joel Pryzbilla and picks.
Blazers paid a bum to leave. Fair enough.Originally Posted by PMatic
Just some random ones that I'm sure really pissed off "small market" fans.
Warriors getting Baron Davis for Dale Davis and Speedy Claxton
Blazers paying Steve Francis $30M to go away.
Spurs trading away Luis Scola because they couldn't/didn't want to pay him.
Spurs taking "advantage" of the Bucks and trading for Richard Jefferson (this hasn't quite worked out)
Jazz having to trade Eric Maynor to rid themselves of Matt Harpring's contract
Bobcats dumping Gerald Wallace for Joel Pryzbilla and picks.
True about the small market to small market talk, but being the situation in itself isn't good in their fans' eyes.Originally Posted by CP1708
Blazers paid a bum to leave. Fair enough.Originally Posted by PMatic
Just some random ones that I'm sure really pissed off "small market" fans.
Warriors getting Baron Davis for Dale Davis and Speedy Claxton
Blazers paying Steve Francis $30M to go away.
Spurs trading away Luis Scola because they couldn't/didn't want to pay him.
Spurs taking "advantage" of the Bucks and trading for Richard Jefferson (this hasn't quite worked out)
Jazz having to trade Eric Maynor to rid themselves of Matt Harpring's contract
Bobcats dumping Gerald Wallace for Joel Pryzbilla and picks.
Maynor went small market, to small market. How is that a big market issue?
Wallace, small market, to small market. Again, not seein the issue here.
Are the Warriors considered big or small? If they are big, I'll give you that one with Baron, he's a decent enough player.
I guess you could argue that big markets wouldn't have had to trade away anybody, is that going to be the claim now?
The Scola one is very interesting, but I don't know the whole story. A he was drafted a long time ago wasn't he? But he was international star right? Like Ginobili. What kind of demands money wise was he making back then? Couldn't have been too much could it, hell his deal last year is more than reasonable. And why would the Spurs gamble with Ginobili, Parker, the new Duncan 2.0 kid, but not Scola?Based on their track record, that makes me think more along they were less sure about Scola than the others, know what I mean?
True about the small market to small market talk, but being the situation in itself isn't good in their fans' eyes.Originally Posted by CP1708
Blazers paid a bum to leave. Fair enough.Originally Posted by PMatic
Just some random ones that I'm sure really pissed off "small market" fans.
Warriors getting Baron Davis for Dale Davis and Speedy Claxton
Blazers paying Steve Francis $30M to go away.
Spurs trading away Luis Scola because they couldn't/didn't want to pay him.
Spurs taking "advantage" of the Bucks and trading for Richard Jefferson (this hasn't quite worked out)
Jazz having to trade Eric Maynor to rid themselves of Matt Harpring's contract
Bobcats dumping Gerald Wallace for Joel Pryzbilla and picks.
Maynor went small market, to small market. How is that a big market issue?
Wallace, small market, to small market. Again, not seein the issue here.
Are the Warriors considered big or small? If they are big, I'll give you that one with Baron, he's a decent enough player.
I guess you could argue that big markets wouldn't have had to trade away anybody, is that going to be the claim now?
The Scola one is very interesting, but I don't know the whole story. A he was drafted a long time ago wasn't he? But he was international star right? Like Ginobili. What kind of demands money wise was he making back then? Couldn't have been too much could it, hell his deal last year is more than reasonable. And why would the Spurs gamble with Ginobili, Parker, the new Duncan 2.0 kid, but not Scola?Based on their track record, that makes me think more along they were less sure about Scola than the others, know what I mean?
Originally Posted by Jay02
Originally Posted by CP1708
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.
Howdy,
The league is in a bit of a different state currently then it was 7 years ago. 22 teams lost money this year. No way in hell that includes your Lakers. Again shared revenue would help this. At one point we were able to shell out 96 million, cant take risks like that anymore (whether or not it was a good management move is irrelevant). Either way 3/4 of the NBA werent losing money then.
And the bar for the salary decrease, idk I dont have a number. But its clear that I think the players should be making less cause like I said it was stop these stupid big 3's from forming. What I see happening though is the players and owners agreeing on 50/50. I dont know how much the players are getting now but I know its more than half.
Originally Posted by Jay02
Originally Posted by CP1708
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.
Howdy,
The league is in a bit of a different state currently then it was 7 years ago. 22 teams lost money this year. No way in hell that includes your Lakers. Again shared revenue would help this. At one point we were able to shell out 96 million, cant take risks like that anymore (whether or not it was a good management move is irrelevant). Either way 3/4 of the NBA werent losing money then.
And the bar for the salary decrease, idk I dont have a number. But its clear that I think the players should be making less cause like I said it was stop these stupid big 3's from forming. What I see happening though is the players and owners agreeing on 50/50. I dont know how much the players are getting now but I know its more than half.
