Yahoo rumor: Wolves shopping Jefferson

[bajaden]

Does that mean you can't sign your own FA to a contract higher than any other team (Isn't it 10% higher?)?

Of course I have no idea what the final deal will be, but if they end up with a hard cap, that would mean you couldn't go over it to resign one of your own players as you can now with the bird exception. If the cap is, lets say 54 mil and your right at the cap, and you have a player making 12 mil whose contract expires, then the most you could offer him would be the 12 mil he was already making. If there was another team that had 14 mil available under the cap they could then beat your offer.

I know that sounds simplistic, but a hard cap is a hard cap. I have trouble believing that the players will go along with it. If they start putting in clauses to help a team retain its players, then once again its not a hard cap.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Of course I have no idea what the final deal will be, but if they end up with a hard cap, that would mean you couldn't go over it to resign one of your own players as you can now with the bird exception. If the cap is, lets say 54 mil and your right at the cap, and you have a player making 12 mil whose contract expires, then the most you could offer him would be the 12 mil he was already making. If there was another team that had 14 mil available under the cap they could then beat your offer.

I know that sounds simplistic, but a hard cap is a hard cap. I have trouble believing that the players will go along with it. If they start putting in clauses to help a team retain its players, then once again its not a hard cap.

It would take skillful management but the two aren't mutually exclusive. But for the hard cap to work realistically they'd have to move to an NFL structure with no guaranteed contacts and that would never get through the union.

 

[ParniValjak]

Of course I have no idea what the final deal will be, but if they end up with a hard cap, that would mean you couldn't go over it to resign one of your own players as you can now with the bird exception. If the cap is, lets say 54 mil and your right at the cap, and you have a player making 12 mil whose contract expires, then the most you could offer him would be the 12 mil he was already making. If there was another team that had 14 mil available under the cap they could then beat your offer.

I know that sounds simplistic, but a hard cap is a hard cap. I have trouble believing that the players will go along with it. If they start putting in clauses to help a team retain its players, then once again its not a hard cap.

That would be one of the worst things to happen for a small market team. The stars would always go to a big market team once they become FA even for less money because the endorsment money they would make there would make up the difference and still leave them with a massive chunk to play with.

Hard cap will kill off the small market teams.

 

[hammystyle]

That would be one of the worst things to happen for a small market team. The stars would always go to a big market team once they become FA even for less money because the endorsment money they would make there would make up the difference and still leave them with a massive chunk to play with.

Hard cap will kill off the small market teams.

I'm not sure how true this is. A hard cap virtually ensures that there will only be room to pay one or two stars per team. For example, if the hard cap is at 54, how are the Lakers going to get Lebron once they pay Kobe 20 and Pau 16?

Of course, when the Lakers DO have cap space they (and the Knicks, Heat, Bulls) will be the desired destination, but its a bullet they can only really fire once.

Part of the reason I don't think it helps big market teams is I doubt they are the ones pushing for it. My guess is its the small-market teams who are pushing for it. They could control their own spending and restrict themselves to a hard cap right now if they wanted to, but that's puts them at a competitive disadvantage against the teams willing to spend.

Either way, I don't think the hard cap is likely. My guess is the major change will be shorter guaranteed contracts. Like three years. Players won't like it but it will help the fan experience in two major ways:
1) Obviously teams won't be hemmed in by killer contracts and their will be easier paths to rebuild.
2) It will keep players better motivated not only to play well, but to be a better teammates and citizen. There wasn't anything financial that kept Zach Randolph from being an overweight jerk when he was in year two of an $85M contract. I'm sure some of the progress he's made this year is due to age and maturity, but I've got a sneaky suspicion some of it his starting his contract push for 2011.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

I'm not sure how true this is. A hard cap virtually ensures that there will only be room to pay one or two stars per team. For example, if the hard cap is at 54, how are the Lakers going to get Lebron once they pay Kobe 20 and Pau 16?

Of course, when the Lakers DO have cap space they (and the Knicks, Heat, Bulls) will be the desired destination, but its a bullet they can only really fire once.

Part of the reason I don't think it helps big market teams is I doubt they are the ones pushing for it. My guess is its the small-market teams who are pushing for it. They could control their own spending and restrict themselves to a hard cap right now if they wanted to, but that's puts them at a competitive disadvantage against the teams willing to spend.

Either way, I don't think the hard cap is likely. My guess is the major change will be shorter guaranteed contracts. Like three years. Players won't like it but it will help the fan experience in two major ways:
1) Obviously teams won't be hemmed in by killer contracts and their will be easier paths to rebuild.
2) It will keep players better motivated not only to play well, but to be a better teammates and citizen. There wasn't anything financial that kept Zach Randolph from being an overweight jerk when he was in year two of an $85M contract. I'm sure some of the progress he's made this year is due to age and maturity, but I've got a sneaky suspicion some of it his starting his contract push for 2011.

I agree. I have a hard time seeing the players accepting a hard cap, but there will be changes. I think a system closer to football makes a lot of sense. Keeps teams from killing themselves and ruining their fan base with bad contracts. And at the end of the day, small market teams are probably more concerned with their ability to profit by putting a watchable team on the court and giving their fans hope over caring that bigger market teams can spend a bit more cash.

 

[Kingster]

Of course I have no idea what the final deal will be, but if they end up with a hard cap, that would mean you couldn't go over it to resign one of your own players as you can now with the bird exception. If the cap is, lets say 54 mil and your right at the cap, and you have a player making 12 mil whose contract expires, then the most you could offer him would be the 12 mil he was already making. If there was another team that had 14 mil available under the cap they could then beat your offer.

I know that sounds simplistic, but a hard cap is a hard cap. I have trouble believing that the players will go along with it. If they start putting in clauses to help a team retain its players, then once again its not a hard cap.

Not having the bird exception would really hurt the small market teams like the Kings. I hope it doesn't happen.

 

[Kingster]

I'm not sure how true this is. A hard cap virtually ensures that there will only be room to pay one or two stars per team. For example, if the hard cap is at 54, how are the Lakers going to get Lebron once they pay Kobe 20 and Pau 16?

Of course, when the Lakers DO have cap space they (and the Knicks, Heat, Bulls) will be the desired destination, but its a bullet they can only really fire once.

To me, your analysis doesn't agree with your conclusion. The large market teams will get the superstars because not only can a player get the max contract, but he also the endorsements, which can be considerable. How many superstars are there? Maybe five? So if you can only fire it once, who cares? You now have a superstar. Smaller market teams would be left with the crumbs. Guys like Tyreke, who may drafted by a smaller market team, would be picked off by the larger markets. Better hope that this doesn't go through.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Not having the bird exception would really hurt the small market teams like the Kings. I hope it doesn't happen.

The flip side of that coin is the hard cap. With a hard cap, large market teams don't have any more money to spend than small market teams, so their ability to draw stars to play on their team is diminished - and their ability to get a bunch of stars together is really hurt.

With a hard cap, if you can develop through the draft and consistently make prudent financial decisions about your salary 2-3 years down the road, it's not impossible for a small-market team to hold on to a star - in fact with a little bit of player loyalty it might be easier, because the ability for a large-market team to assemble a super-squad to tempt the star away is almost nil.

 

[ParniValjak]

The flip side of that coin is the hard cap. With a hard cap, large market teams don't have any more money to spend than small market teams, so their ability to draw stars to play on their team is diminished - and their ability to get a bunch of stars together is really hurt.

With a hard cap, if you can develop through the draft and consistently make prudent financial decisions about your salary 2-3 years down the road, it's not impossible for a small-market team to hold on to a star - in fact with a little bit of player loyalty it might be easier, because the ability for a large-market team to assemble a super-squad to tempt the star away is almost nil.

But this is assuming that those star players would walk away from millions and millions of dollars in endorsement deals.

Lets say player X is drafted by a small market team and by the time his rookie contract is up, he is a genuine superstar in the game.

If he stays with his current team he can get a max contract of $15million per season for 3 years. His current endorsements income is say $20 million per year.

New York comes after this kid and offers him $12million per season over 3 years (overall $9million less for the duration of the contract than his current team is offering him) but his endirsements income would kick from $20 million per year in small market to a $30 million per year in large market.

Small market income 3 years at $15 million per season ($45 million) and 3 year $20 million per season in edorsments ($60 million) = $105 million for 3 years in total.

Big Market income 3 years at $12 million ($36 million) and 3 year $30 million per season in endorsments ($90 million) = $126 million for 3 years in total.

Thats $21 million difference over 3 years. Do you see many stars walking away from that considering that their basketball income will be decreased with the proposed CBA?

 

[pdxKingsFan]

With a hard cap the NBA would have to pay stricter attention about endorsement deals. They could factor in some kind of allowance for smaller markets the way the NBA allows Canadian teams to pay a bonus to offset the high Canadian taxes.

In any event, the NFL has been very competitive with its version of the hard cap, arguably they have achieved more parity than any other pro league in the States.

 

[Bricklayer]

The flip side of that coin is the hard cap. With a hard cap, large market teams don't have any more money to spend than small market teams, so their ability to draw stars to play on their team is diminished - and their ability to get a bunch of stars together is really hurt.

But that argument is really almost strawman given that udner the current system the big market teams have NOT consistently dominated anything. Slapping down a soft cap to limit FA purchases has meant that most of them when they do spend extra money have either spent it ontheir own people, or on taking other team's bad contracts. The Lakers are really the only big marekt team that's had major success over a prolonged period in the last decade. Dallas if you want to count them. But marketsize hasn't done anythign for NEw York,,,New Jersey did have some 50 win teams and now have a 4 win team. Atlanta has sucked. Golden State has never done anythig. The Clippers are of course run by an idiot. Houston has struggled to get out of round 1, Chicago has been mediocre at best ever since Jordan left. Meanwhile San Antonio kept winning titles. Orlando is a new power. So is Cleveland. We were darlings for a while. There's just no apparent correlation. So its hard to make the argument that it needs fixing. Especially draconian lockout/lost season type of fixing.

 

[Bricklayer]

With a hard cap the NBA would have to pay stricter attention about endorsement deals. They could factor in some kind of allowance for smaller markets the way the NBA allows Canadian teams to pay a bonus to offset the high Canadian taxes.

In any event, the NFL has been very competitive with its version of the hard cap, arguably they have achieved more parity than any other pro league in the States.

I hear this NFl parity argument and I always wonder why it doesn't square wiht the reality of the Patrtiots/Colts/Steelers etc. dominating every year.

 

[hammystyle]

To me, your analysis doesn't agree with your conclusion. The large market teams will get the superstars because not only can a player get the max contract, but he also the endorsements, which can be considerable. How many superstars are there? Maybe five? So if you can only fire it once, who cares? You now have a superstar. Smaller market teams would be left with the crumbs. Guys like Tyreke, who may drafted by a smaller market team, would be picked off by the larger markets. Better hope that this doesn't go through.

You're right in that it was a poor choice of words on my part. How about I reword it this way, I think a huge part of the desiraility of the large markets is that due to their popularity they can spend more money to attract better players and win championships. Being the best is what gets you the endorsements, not merely being in LA. The Suns had to make financial decisions over talent decisions that teams like the Celtics and Lakers don't have to worry about. Even a team as smartly managed as the Spurs has had to make small financial moves like giving away Luis Scola that potentially cost them a title. So you take away the spending advantage with a hard cap and I think loyalty and who's got the best GM/Owner/Coach will be at least as important as playing in LA or NY.

LA would still have an advantage, I'm just not sure its any more than they'd have now. Perhaps it would even go down. BTW - Here's a link to the top marketing earners in the league. There's no real grouping of players located in major markets.

The main this is like I said before, I just don't think the hard cap is going to happen. If it did happen, meaning Bird rights were taken away, there would be some different form of protection put into place like the NFL has with its hard cap.

 

[hammystyle]

I hear this NFl parity argument and I always wonder why it doesn't square wiht the reality of the Patrtiots/Colts/Steelers etc. dominating every year.

They don't dominate every year, they're just consistently in position to make Super Bowl runs because they are the most smartly run teams who have franchise QB's. Any team could get turned around to that point within 2-3 years if they have the right people in place, regardless of where they pick in the draft. In the NBA you have to get a little lucky in lotto balls and the year you get them.

So I'd say that its the fairest sport even if there's really not much more parity. NBA is pretty close, and I don't really think a hard cap would help much. Not even sure if shorter guaranteed contracts will help the fairness, but I do think it will help the fan experience. There will be much more for quick turnarounds. Baseball fails in all regards. Completely unfair playing field and if you're down, there's virtually no hope for a quick turnaround. They make it very hard to be a fan no matter how much I love Tim Lincecum.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I hear this NFl parity argument and I always wonder why it doesn't square wiht the reality of the Patrtiots/Colts/Steelers etc. dominating every year.

The NFC has been wide open and won 2 of the last 3 SuperBowls. In the last 3 years the Giants and Cardinals came from out of nowhere, the Saints have been building something nice for a few years but they could disintegrate in free agency or become the next dynasty. Nobody knows. Seattle, Chicago and Carolina all came and went in a hurry. Tampa Bay imploded after they won, the Rams went from laughingstocks to greatest show on turf and potential dynasty and back in about 5 years.

In the AFC New England had been dominant through shrewd cap management, putting team before superstar, dumping 1st round picks for multiple lower round picks, often cutting or trading their superstars, at this point Tom Brady and Kevin Faulk are the only constants. They also haven't won a SB in 5 years, missed the playoffs a year ago and lost for the first time at home in the playoffs this past season. The Colts have one of the best QBs of the last 20 or 30 years and utilize a defensive scheme which enables them to stockpile talent that wouldn't fit on many other teams, yet they still only have one SuperBowl to show for it (and they play in one of the weakest divisions in the NFL). The Steelers missed the playoffs at least 3 times this past decade, they won two SBs but I wouldn't consider them dominant at all and their wins came in years that the Pats and Colts were notably down.

The best run teams can be competitive every year and to a certain extent the parity is overstated, but its still the most wide open of all the major sporting leagues. The one and done nature of the playoffs also helps though.

 

[Emma]

I hear this NFl parity argument and I always wonder why it doesn't square wiht the reality of the Patrtiots/Colts/Steelers etc. dominating every year.

I believe that the culprit enabling each of those cases is stability.

 

[DocHolliday]

It was noted in an article yesterday from Sam Amick that Minnesota has discussed the addition of Martin, and they came to the conclusion that he was not meant to be with Minnesota. The trade for Jefferson is a dead issue.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

But this is assuming that those star players would walk away from millions and millions of dollars in endorsement deals.

...

Thats $21 million difference over 3 years. Do you see many stars walking away from that considering that their basketball income will be decreased with the proposed CBA?

I certainly understand the endorsement deal argument, but you're assuming a $10M difference in the value of endorsements from large markets vs. small. That's a pretty big difference. But reports are that LeBron, at least, does NOT have a large-market kicker in his biggest national contract. Does a market-size endorsement effect of that magnitude actually exist, or are you just guessing at numbers?

 

[Capt. Factorial]

But that argument is really almost strawman given that under the current system the big market teams have NOT consistently dominated anything. ... There's just no apparent correlation. So its hard to make the argument that it needs fixing. Especially draconian lockout/lost season type of fixing.

I agree that league parity is not a particularly strong argument for a hard cap, or a lockout-level disagreement between owners and players. So yeah, it's kind of a strawman.

I think that the actual issue that's forcing the owners towards a hard cap is the owners' own inability to rein in their own spending. They throw money around like it grows on trees during boom times, then when the bust times hit, they're committed to a bunch of salaries they can hardly afford to pay before they've even assembled a full team. I think the owners realize that they need a system in place to prevent themselves from sinking the league by overspending (especially future overspending) and that's why they'll push hard for changes (like a hard cap, and a reduction of BRI percentage going to players) that players won't like - and that's where any impending lockout will come from.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Yeah, I don't really understand the "fairness" argument against the NBA's current system. As far as I can tell, the teams that have succeeded are those that have drafted well (or been extremely lucky in the draft), made smart trades, and not shot themselves in the foot with albatross free agent signings. I've always thought the NBA's CBA was a happy medium between the NFL's too strict hard cap and the MLB's too loose spending system. I could be down for limiting the length of max contracts, but I think the whole idea of "Bird Rights" has worked quite well.

 

[LPKingsFan]

I agree that league parity is not a particularly strong argument for a hard cap, or a lockout-level disagreement between owners and players. So yeah, it's kind of a strawman.

I think that the actual issue that's forcing the owners towards a hard cap is the owners' own inability to rein in their own spending. They throw money around like it grows on trees during boom times, then when the bust times hit, they're committed to a bunch of salaries they can hardly afford to pay before they've even assembled a full team. I think the owners realize that they need a system in place to prevent themselves from sinking the league by overspending (especially future overspending) and that's why they'll push hard for changes (like a hard cap, and a reduction of BRI percentage going to players) that players won't like - and that's where any impending lockout will come from.

Then why should the players (and fans, if competitiveness suffers) pay for incompetent managing?

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Then why should the players (and fans, if competitiveness suffers) pay for incompetent managing?

Nobody wants incompetent owners to spend the league into folding. That's not good for anybody involved. And I think that's the real scare.

I do think that some form of hard cap will help prevent that. I do prefer schemes where player salaries are indexed to league revenue rather than absolute, because I think that would act as a buffer to shield the league during economic busts while rewarding the players during economic booms.

But whatever the scheme, nobody wants the NBA to go bankrupt because teams keep giving 6-year max contracts to guys like, say Rashard Lewis. The current CBA doesn't effectively stop the owners from being collectively stupid, though, and the danger of bankruptcy exists. It should be fixed somehow. Would players really be "paying" for the owners' follies, or is it just that they're overpaid - unsustainably - now?

 

[sidney]

There was a blurb in the Bee again on Saturday about Minny maybe being interested in Kevin, but again wiht the provison it was not clear if they would trade Love or Jefferson to get him.

But looking at their salaries, they've got a number of healthy sized enders stacked up. What about instead of Jefferson:

Kevin Martin $10.8mil

for

Mark Blount $8.0mil (ender)
Aleksander Pavlovic $1.5mil (ender)
2010 #1

(they have others enders as well that could work)

Minny has played better of late, and getting Kevin might let them continue that, but they still aren't winning 30 games this season. So if they want to hold onto their "core" guys as Kahn keeps saying -- Jefferson, Love, Flynn and Rubio -- maybe they are willing to move that pikc to pick up a major piece, especially since there really is nobody like Kevin in the high lottery (high scoring/shooting SG) and a shooter is exactly what they need.

So instead of one of these pure salary dump deals, or taking back shaky assets, leaves us with 2 #1s in the Top 10 this summer in a draft top heavy with bigs and two real interesting guards (Wall and Turner). And subtly as well puts us in good position if the owners decide to trash the league in 2011 -- we liquidate our biggest contract, and have more than half our roster at that point on rookie deals. As they come up for renewal, it would be under the new CBA's rules.

Going back to this idea...

Just read here (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=sheridan_chris&page=TradeAssets-100210) that Minny also has 2 other first round picks this year - Charlotte's and Utah's. Obviously rather have the top 5 pick if we could get it, but getting those 2 later picks instead with expirings would also be a nice prize for Martin too given Petie's drafting strength.

Currently those picks are 15ish and 20-25ish.