Whats really happening in regards to Samuel Dalembert ?

[Warhawk]

I may not have listened to the same interview you did but I didn't hear anything close to that from what I listened to. What I heard made it sound to me like Daly is probably not going to be back. Maloof mentioned Thorntons name with serious intent to re-sign, he called Daly option 1A but then when talking about the team he going forward he didn't mention Dalembert and instead said something about adding something in free agency.

He said Thornton is #1 priority and Sam is the next priority. If they can't get Sam, then they move on to others. That's what I meant by #1 frontcourt option. Thornton is a guard. I don't know what you heard that makes you think they weren't going to try to get Sam back. They pretty much control if Thornton comes back. They can't assume if Sam will. All they can do is make the offer. And they can't do that until the CBA is done. So he can't assume that Sam will be here at this point. He does know the rest will.

Signing Sam WILL be a FA move if we can do it, as he is currently an UFA.

 

[Superman]

Winner gets Chandler*, but I honestly don't see him leaving Dallas. He would be perfect for this team, but Dally isn't too far off.

Chandler is athletically superior, but Dalembert is better offensively. Six in one hand...

 

[sidney]

I listened to Gavin's interview. Pretty clear what is going on - both sides have interest in a deal but $$ was too far apart to make and extension deal. The uncertainty of the CBA is not helping.

This will just have to play out in FA.

 

[ESP47]

I'm going to be very disappointed if we can't get Dalembert back. He was my favorite player last year and a future of a Cousins/Dalembert tandem could be awesome for our team, especially when Cousins improves. Throw in Hickson as the 3rd big man and we will out rebound everyone in the league.

I wish there was a way to show Dalembert that there isn't a fan in Sacramento that doesn't want him back. The Maloof's need to open up their wallets for this guy. He does all the intangibles that don't always show up in the box score. Give Sammy a good sized contract and we'll have a bunch of young guys locked up at cheaper contracts....once they hit FA and demand bigger contracts, Dalembert will be close to off the books or too old by then.

 

[rainmaker]

You know, this hardline stance the owners are taking has caught me somewhat by surprise. I knew they'd be greedy, but they don't appear to have budged an inch on the drastic changes they want, and are willing to not play games for.

Which brings me to Dally. I really expect Daly to have only a handful of option with the new CBA, and I don't expect Mia to have anything other than a vet minimum type contract to offer. If there's a hard cap, than not more than two years either, because the big 3's combined salary is 56M and 61M in years 3 and four of their contracts, which would most likely be at or above a likely number for a hard cap. 62M was thrown around last week, as was 45M.

How attractive will Mia look post lockout, probably only being able to offer a 2 yr 2-3M contract, while at the same time maybe having to scrape talent off their roster to get under the cap? Out of the teams which can actually offer substancial contracts, we are probably the most attractive for him. NY isn't in a position to spend either, after picking up Chaunceys option. They have 60.6M committed.

 

[upinsmoke]

Trying to be as impartial as I can I honestly think re-signing is the best option for Dally. He can get his pay day and be a major piece of a franchise that is looking to compete.

 

[rainmaker]

Trying to be as impartial as I can I honestly think re-signing is the best option for Dally. He can get his pay day and be a major piece of a franchise that is looking to compete.

Yup. If Daly wants any type of decent money, we might actually end up being his best option, money wise, and maajor piece to our team, allowed to participate on offense, and franchise begining its ascent. The moves Petrie has made must mean something to him.

The other teams which probably will be able to offer a good chunk of money just aren't that attractive. Tor is horrible. NJ with Daly still isn't a playoff team in the east. Indiana? Theres the Clips and Wash, but the Clips need their cap space to go after DA Jordan, or save some of it for Gordon next year, plus they still have Kaman, and Wash needs its cap space for Nick Young, and they already have Mgee.

I don't think any of those teams are better option than Sac. Not at all. The national media, which normally is clueless about the Kings, is convinced Daly will sign for the minimum, to chase a ring. I'm not. Amick reported earlier this week talks broke down between Daly's agent and the Kings about an extension. I'm glad they didn't givne him one, horrible time to do that. But to me his looking for an extension, and reportedly getting mad that talks broke down, means he's looking for money. He wanted an extension, probably a good size one, under the old CBA. That doesn't look like the actions of someone who's ready to sign for the mimimum ad go ring chasing.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

You know, this hardline stance the owners are taking has caught me somewhat by surprise. I knew they'd be greedy, but they don't appear to have budged an inch on the drastic changes they want, and are willing to not play games for.

Which brings me to Dally. I really expect Daly to have only a handful of option with the new CBA, and I don't expect Mia to have anything other than a vet minimum type contract to offer. If there's a hard cap, than not more than two years either, because the big 3's combined salary is 56M and 61M in years 3 and four of their contracts, which would most likely be at or above a likely number for a hard cap. 62M was thrown around last week, as was 45M.

How attractive will Mia look post lockout, probably only being able to offer a 2 yr 2-3M contract, while at the same time maybe having to scrape talent off their roster to get under the cap? Out of the teams which can actually offer substancial contracts, we are probably the most attractive for him. NY isn't in a position to spend either, after picking up Chaunceys option. They have 60.6M committed.

45 million is completely unreasonable unless player contracts are renegotiated and cut in half. Bryant and Gasol alone are contracted to make a combined 46 million in 2012/2013. What do they expect the Lakers to do, cut their entire team and surround Kobe with D-leaugers? Are they going to force Maimi to drop one or two of their big three? Force the Knicks to surround Stoudemire and Anthony with D-leaugers? Heck, even small market teams that a hard-cap is supposed to "help" like Memphis and Portland would not be able to exist in their current state. At least half the teams in the NBA would have to gut their rosters to get under a cap of 45 million unless players take HUGE pay cuts. How anyone thinks that's good for the NBA is beyond me.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

How anyone thinks that's good for the NBA is beyond me.

It has worked great for the NHL and their tv contract is a joke.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

It has worked great for the NHL and their tv contract is a joke.

Surely that depends on who you ask.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Surely that depends on who you ask.

League more competitive than it has been in 20 years, small market teams competing and being profitable, teams moving back from the sun belt to Canada (this is a plus), the only thing that has suffered is the TV deal and a protracted NBA lockout could easily remedy that.

 

[bajaden]

Chandler is athletically superior, but Dalembert is better offensively. Six in one hand...

Well, if you going to give credit to Dally for having some game away from the basket, and also having better passing skills, your right. But if your just results oriented, then Chandler gets the nod. Dally averaged 8.1 PPG, and 8.2 RPG, while shooting 47.3% overall from the floor and 73% from the freethrow line. Chandler averaged 10.1 PPG and 9.4 RPG, while shooting 65.4% overall, and 73.2% from the freethrow line. Dally was of course the better shotblocker, averaging close to 2 blocks a game, while Chandler averaged just over 1 block a game. But in my opinion, Chandler is a better man defender as to holding position, and also in playing team defense. I think Chandler is also a little better athlete than Dalembert.

But hey, I'm not picky, I'll take either one. Personally I think Cousins and Chandler would work very well together with Chandler being the recepient of Cousins passes under the basket.

 

[bajaden]

45 million is completely unreasonable unless player contracts are renegotiated and cut in half. Bryant and Gasol alone are contracted to make a combined 46 million in 2012/2013. What do they expect the Lakers to do, cut their entire team and surround Kobe with D-leaugers? Are they going to force Maimi to drop one or two of their big three? Force the Knicks to surround Stoudemire and Anthony with D-leaugers? Heck, even small market teams that a hard-cap is supposed to "help" like Memphis and Portland would not be able to exist in their current state. At least half the teams in the NBA would have to gut their rosters to get under a cap of 45 million unless players take HUGE pay cuts. How anyone thinks that's good for the NBA is beyond me.

I think what you said is exactly what the league wants to happen. Maybe not overnight, but eventually. Their trying to discourage what happened in Miami. The model they're trying to duplicate is the NFL, where there seems to be a surprise contender every year. In other words, parity! A hard cap is a step in that direction, however I agree with you that I think 45 or 46 million is too low. If nothing else I'd start the cap at last years level of around 58 to 59 million, and then have a 3 to 5 year time frame for all teams to get under the cap. I'd also have a very severe fine for all the teams that are still over the cap at the deadline.

Revenue sharing is the other big item that needs to be resolved. And the problem is different than the NFL. In the NFL, all teams are under national contracts signed by the league. And all the teams share the revenues equally. In the NBA, not so. While the league does have contracts that are shared equally, each team has its own individual local contract. And for those big market teams, thats where a large amount of their revenue comes from. I'm not quite sure how willing the Lakers are, to share their 120 million dollars a year in tv revenues. But somehow, that needs to be resolved, if the league is going to have anything resembling parity.

I know that people can point to the Knicks as having all the advantages in the world, and that they still wern't very good for the last 10 or so years. That may be true, but they didn't lose any money during those years either, because of their tv revenues. When a team like the Kings or any small market team is in a similar situation, they start to lose money, and if the owner doesn't have deep pockets, it ususally results in a change of venue, or a change of ownership.

Anyway, hopefully an agreement that makes both sides happy will come sooner than later. Otherwise we're going to bore the hell out of each other around here.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

we're not resigning sammy. the major front court player we're going for is dwight howard!

 

[ParniValjak]

we're not resigning sammy. the major front court player we're going for is dwight howard!

Yeah and pigs will fly!

The only team that I fear in the free agency is Toronto who are looking for a player like Dalembert and have enough cap room to offer him a big contract.

Unless Dally is happy to go and play for a contender for vet minimum, he will either re-sign with us, or with another team that has cap space to sign him and even then, he better think about his demands because there are more coveted free agents on the market than him. I am sure these teams with the cap room will have the likes of Chandler and Nene higher on their FA rankings.

And there is strong suggestion that owners want to scrap the sign and trade deals in the new CBA.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I think what you said is exactly what the league wants to happen. Maybe not overnight, but eventually. Their trying to discourage what happened in Miami. The model they're trying to duplicate is the NFL, where there seems to be a surprise contender every year. In other words, parity! A hard cap is a step in that direction, however I agree with you that I think 45 or 46 million is too low. If nothing else I'd start the cap at last years level of around 58 to 59 million, and then have a 3 to 5 year time frame for all teams to get under the cap. I'd also have a very severe fine for all the teams that are still over the cap at the deadline.

Revenue sharing is the other big item that needs to be resolved. And the problem is different than the NFL. In the NFL, all teams are under national contracts signed by the league. And all the teams share the revenues equally. In the NBA, not so. While the league does have contracts that are shared equally, each team has its own individual local contract. And for those big market teams, thats where a large amount of their revenue comes from. I'm not quite sure how willing the Lakers are, to share their 120 million dollars a year in tv revenues. But somehow, that needs to be resolved, if the league is going to have anything resembling parity.

I know that people can point to the Knicks as having all the advantages in the world, and that they still wern't very good for the last 10 or so years. That may be true, but they didn't lose any money during those years either, because of their tv revenues. When a team like the Kings or any small market team is in a similar situation, they start to lose money, and if the owner doesn't have deep pockets, it ususally results in a change of venue, or a change of ownership.

Anyway, hopefully an agreement that makes both sides happy will come sooner than later. Otherwise we're going to bore the hell out of each other around here.

I really hope it doesn't go that direction. That would kill the NBA for me. Great teams like the Showtime Lakers, Jordan Bulls, Bird Celtics, and even Vlade/Webber Kings could never exist under such a strict system. I don't understand why anyone would want parity to that degree. Sure you may get a new mediocre team winning a title every year but there's no excitement or drama in that. There's something great about an underdog knocking off a super team. It means way more than what amounts to a coin toss where anyone could win it any year. Like they say, the quality of the win is determined by the quality of the opponent. I'd rather watch the Celtics and Lakers duke it out every year than see a bunch of boring one star teams like the Iverson 76ers, Garnett Timberwolves, Bosh Raptors, etc. every year.

 

[Warhawk]

I really hope it doesn't go that direction. That would kill the NBA for me. Great teams like the Showtime Lakers, Jordan Bulls, Bird Celtics, and even Vlade/Webber Kings could never exist under such a strict system. I don't understand why anyone would want parity to that degree. Sure you may get a new mediocre team winning a title every year but there's no excitement or drama in that. There's something great about an underdog knocking off a super team. It means way more than what amounts to a coin toss where anyone could win it any year. Like they say, the quality of the win is determined by the quality of the opponent. I'd rather watch the Celtics and Lakers duke it out every year than see a bunch of boring one star teams like the Iverson 76ers, Garnett Timberwolves, Bosh Raptors, etc. every year.

Not me. I'd much rather see new faces and teams battling for the top spot. That is one reason I watched a lot of the PO this year. Wanted to see Memphis, OKC, Dallas, etc. If I never see the Lakers and Heat in the PO again it will be too soon. Same team year after year is BORING, unless it is the Kings, of course! Excitement and drama? You think the Lakers are all that and a bag of chips? Their own crowds don't show up until halftime.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Not me. I'd much rather see new faces and teams battling for the top spot. That is one reason I watched a lot of the PO this year. Wanted to see Memphis, OKC, Dallas, etc. If I never see the Lakers and Heat in the PO again it will be too soon. Same team year after year is BORING, unless it is the Kings, of course! Excitement and drama? You think the Lakers are all that and a bag of chips? Their own crowds don't show up until halftime.

I hate the Lakers but that doesn't mean I want to see half the teams in the NBA neutered just so the Lakers can be taken down a few notches too. That's cutting off your nose to spite your face. i care more about the quality of basketball than I do the name on the jerseys. I'd rather see two heavy weights duke it out than see a couple of lame teams in the finals just for the sake of having someone new there.

 

[Warhawk]

I hate the Lakers but that doesn't mean I want to see half the teams in the NBA neutered just so the Lakers can be taken down a few notches too. That's cutting off your nose to spite your face. i care more about the quality of basketball than I do the name on the jerseys. I'd rather see two heavy weights duke it out than see a couple of lame teams in the finals just for the sake of having someone new there.

You keep insisting the teams would be "lame" - all they would be is paid less and have a little more parity. It's not like you'd be watching D-leaguers.

I am using the Lakers as an example of a team that is always in the PO. I would much rather see some variety than reruns. How damn boring is it to see the same teams winning over and over. What's the point in having other teams if they don't ever get a shot at winning? I'd much rather see the Kings in the mix again than the Lakers, Heat, and Celtics. I WANT teams like Sac, Memphis, Houston, Portland, OKC, and others competing every year. I want games agains the Clippers to matter for once. I want the Warriors and Sac to meet in the PO. I don't want a Groundhog Day playoffs. Who the he** gets excited about that???

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

You keep insisting the teams would be "lame" - all they would be is paid less and have a little more parity. It's not like you'd be watching D-leaguers.

I am using the Lakers as an example of a team that is always in the PO. I would much rather see some variety than reruns. How damn boring is it to see the same teams winning over and over. What's the point in having other teams if they don't ever get a shot at winning? I'd much rather see the Kings in the mix again than the Lakers, Heat, and Celtics. I WANT teams like Sac, Memphis, Houston, Portland, OKC, and others competing every year. I want games agains the Clippers to matter for once. I want the Warriors and Sac to meet in the PO. I don't want a Groundhog Day playoffs. Who the he** gets excited about that???

It will be lame relatively speaking. A 2015 Kings team of Cousins and Evans surrounded by average players is lame compared to one with Evans and Cousins surrounded with other great talent. That's what we'll get under a "parity" system. Teams will be able to afford one, maybe two stars if they're lucky but will not be able to afford to surround them with a great supporting cast.

You mention wanting teams like Sac, Memphis, Houston, Portland, OKC, and others competing every year. Well, this year saw three of those five in the playoffs. They’re doing just fine under the current system and so will Sac in due time. A hard cap will actually kill most of those teams you mentioned in a few years. No way OKC or Memphis could keep their current rosters long term under a hard cap. In fact, Memphis would have to cut players just to get under it.

Basically it sounds like you want all 30 teams to have an “equal” shot at the playoffs every year. That’s just not realistic though. I wonder if this type of thinking isn’t a manifestation of indoctrination via the “self esteem” movement and the “everyone is a winner” nonsense that has infiltrated our school systems over the last few decades. I’m not directing that at you personally, just something I wonder about in general.

Real life just doesn’t work like that. In order for there to be winners, there has to be losers. Not everyone can have an equal shot at winning. Sometimes the competition is just better so you lose.

I’d rather a system where teams are allowed to dominate because odds are one day my team will have it’s time at the top, too. Our Kings came within a rigged game 6, a choked game 7 and a Webber knee injury of being a mini dynasty and they did all that by exploiting the current luxury tax/soft cap system.

I think guaranteed contracts are a far bigger problem than a soft cap. Allow teams to terminate contacts of players who stop producing and it wouldn’t take five years to do a rebuild like it currently does.

 

[Double-K]

It will be lame relatively speaking. A 2015 Kings team of Cousins and Evans surrounded by average players is lame compared to one with Evans and Cousins surrounded with other great talent. That's what we'll get under a "parity" system. Teams will be able to afford one, maybe two stars if they're lucky but will not be able to afford to surround them with a great supporting cast.

You mention wanting teams like Sac, Memphis, Houston, Portland, OKC, and others competing every year. Well, this year saw three of those five in the playoffs. They’re doing just fine under the current system and so will Sac in due time. A hard cap will actually kill most of those teams you mentioned in a few years. No way OKC or Memphis could keep their current rosters long term under a hard cap. In fact, Memphis would have to cut players just to get under it.

Basically it sounds like you want all 30 teams to have an “equal” shot at the playoffs every year. That’s just not realistic though. I wonder if this type of thinking isn’t a manifestation of indoctrination via the “self esteem” movement and the “everyone is a winner” nonsense that has infiltrated our school systems over the last few decades. I’m not directing that at you personally, just something I wonder about in general.

Real life just doesn’t work like that. In order for there to be winners, there has to be losers. Not everyone can have an equal shot at winning. Sometimes the competition is just better so you lose.

I’d rather a system where teams are allowed to dominate because odds are one day my team will have it’s time at the top, too. Our Kings came within a rigged game 6, a choked game 7 and a Webber knee injury of being a mini dynasty and they did all that by exploiting the current luxury tax/soft cap system.

I think guaranteed contracts are a far bigger problem than a soft cap. Allow teams to terminate contacts of players who stop producing and it wouldn’t take five years to do a rebuild like it currently does.

I tend to agree with Warhawk here. We are talking about a situation where every team has a chance to compete due to teams having closer level of talents. You are saying that under a hard cap no team can keep their roster, which IMO can be fixed by adjusting the ceiling of maximum contract so superstars will make less money from contract and maybe more of a sharing from team's earning or maybe prize money for winning? (I don't know how it currently works on that regard) So it'd encourage superstars to stay with a team that builds its roster around him instead of trying to join force and create their own "dream team". I don't think it'll decrease team's quality. And it'll make a real difference when a superstar who really wants to win (ala LeBron), really cut their paycheck (to something equal to a 2nd tier player's salary) to join force with another superstar.

Also on a side note, championship should be won by the best TEAM anyway, and not the best group of superstars who don't work well together. With every team keeping their superstars and build a complimenting roster around him (look at Mavs for reference) it should gives the best chance to win.

 

[ParniValjak]

It will be lame relatively speaking. A 2015 Kings team of Cousins and Evans surrounded by average players is lame compared to one with Evans and Cousins surrounded with other great talent. That's what we'll get under a "parity" system. Teams will be able to afford one, maybe two stars if they're lucky but will not be able to afford to surround them with a great supporting cast.

You mention wanting teams like Sac, Memphis, Houston, Portland, OKC, and others competing every year. Well, this year saw three of those five in the playoffs. They’re doing just fine under the current system and so will Sac in due time. A hard cap will actually kill most of those teams you mentioned in a few years. No way OKC or Memphis could keep their current rosters long term under a hard cap. In fact, Memphis would have to cut players just to get under it.

Basically it sounds like you want all 30 teams to have an “equal” shot at the playoffs every year. That’s just not realistic though. I wonder if this type of thinking isn’t a manifestation of indoctrination via the “self esteem” movement and the “everyone is a winner” nonsense that has infiltrated our school systems over the last few decades. I’m not directing that at you personally, just something I wonder about in general.

Real life just doesn’t work like that. In order for there to be winners, there has to be losers. Not everyone can have an equal shot at winning. Sometimes the competition is just better so you lose.

I’d rather a system where teams are allowed to dominate because odds are one day my team will have it’s time at the top, too. Our Kings came within a rigged game 6, a choked game 7 and a Webber knee injury of being a mini dynasty and they did all that by exploiting the current luxury tax/soft cap system.

I think guaranteed contracts are a far bigger problem than a soft cap. Allow teams to terminate contacts of players who stop producing and it wouldn’t take five years to do a rebuild like it currently does.

You are assuming that the salaries will remain the same but the cap will be smaller hard cap...just not going to happen.

If they do introduce a hard cap, then you can bet your bottom dollar that the maximum player salary will be reduced significantly. If for example the hard cap is set at 60 million, you can just about guarantee that the maximum player salary will be set to something like 12 million. You sign 2 players like that and that some 25 million out of the 60 million cap. Those are just example figure but the maximum salary allowable for a player will be set to certain percentage of the cap.. maybe 20% or so.

Australian football league has a fixed salary cap and its working pretty well. Big player stick with the club that drafted them in most cases and the teams in general have good changes of competing every year. Granted its very cyclic in terms of who are contenders and who are not but that's mainly due to teams becoming old and needing to bottom out and rebuild through the draft which can take 5 odd years because you need to field 22 players each round and have a squad of 40 to pick from. But it is a system that allows teams to have their time to contend provided that they are managed correctly along the way.

The league is very much frowning upon what happened last summer with James, Bosh and Wade and they will do everything in their power to prevent that from happening down the track. Owners would not be too thrilled about it either and will hold out until the very end to get what they want. The players will give in at the end because they are the party that has most to lose.

Despite these guys being multi-millionaires, a lot of them are living from pay check to pay check and blowing their money left right and center. I suspect the season will be cancelled but the players will agree to majority of what the owners are asking for. Quite simply there is no where else in the world where they can earn as much money as in the NBA.

 

[Warhawk]

It will be lame relatively speaking. A 2015 Kings team of Cousins and Evans surrounded by average players is lame compared to one with Evans and Cousins surrounded with other great talent. That's what we'll get under a "parity" system. Teams will be able to afford one, maybe two stars if they're lucky but will not be able to afford to surround them with a great supporting cast.

You mention wanting teams like Sac, Memphis, Houston, Portland, OKC, and others competing every year. Well, this year saw three of those five in the playoffs. They’re doing just fine under the current system and so will Sac in due time. A hard cap will actually kill most of those teams you mentioned in a few years. No way OKC or Memphis could keep their current rosters long term under a hard cap. In fact, Memphis would have to cut players just to get under it.

Basically it sounds like you want all 30 teams to have an “equal” shot at the playoffs every year. That’s just not realistic though. I wonder if this type of thinking isn’t a manifestation of indoctrination via the “self esteem” movement and the “everyone is a winner” nonsense that has infiltrated our school systems over the last few decades. I’m not directing that at you personally, just something I wonder about in general.

Real life just doesn’t work like that. In order for there to be winners, there has to be losers. Not everyone can have an equal shot at winning. Sometimes the competition is just better so you lose.

I’d rather a system where teams are allowed to dominate because odds are one day my team will have it’s time at the top, too. Our Kings came within a rigged game 6, a choked game 7 and a Webber knee injury of being a mini dynasty and they did all that by exploiting the current luxury tax/soft cap system.

I think guaranteed contracts are a far bigger problem than a soft cap. Allow teams to terminate contacts of players who stop producing and it wouldn’t take five years to do a rebuild like it currently does.

It has nothing to do with "self-esteem" or any of that crap, it has to do with right now only a select few teams can win it all. And small markets, by their nature, can't typically generate the income required to challenge those few teams or draw the big name free-agents to their smaller cities. Which is great if you are LA, NY, or Miami. But sucks if you are Sacramento! And frankly, Sacramento is the one I care about.

I don't want all 30 teams to have an equal shot at the playoffs, I want a system where the small market teams are more competitive and the LA/Miami type teams aren't just guaranteed playoff berths each year by the nature of them being LA/Miami. I want teams on an equal footing in competition/getting and retaining players, not playoff outcome.

Maybe non-guaranteed contracts or max contract limitations would be a different way of skinning the same beast, but the current system just isn't working. And I don't see the Lakers giving up any significant portion of their TV revenue to help out the small-market teams, either.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

You are assuming that the salaries will remain the same but the cap will be smaller hard cap...just not going to happen.

If they do introduce a hard cap, then you can bet your bottom dollar that the maximum player salary will be reduced significantly. If for example the hard cap is set at 60 million, you can just about guarantee that the maximum player salary will be set to something like 12 million. You sign 2 players like that and that some 25 million out of the 60 million cap. Those are just example figure but the maximum salary allowable for a player will be set to certain percentage of the cap.. maybe 20% or so.

Australian football league has a fixed salary cap and its working pretty well. Big player stick with the club that drafted them in most cases and the teams in general have good changes of competing every year. Granted its very cyclic in terms of who are contenders and who are not but that's mainly due to teams becoming old and needing to bottom out and rebuild through the draft which can take 5 odd years because you need to field 22 players each round and have a squad of 40 to pick from. But it is a system that allows teams to have their time to contend provided that they are managed correctly along the way.

The league is very much frowning upon what happened last summer with James, Bosh and Wade and they will do everything in their power to prevent that from happening down the track. Owners would not be too thrilled about it either and will hold out until the very end to get what they want. The players will give in at the end because they are the party that has most to lose.

Despite these guys being multi-millionaires, a lot of them are living from pay check to pay check and blowing their money left right and center. I suspect the season will be cancelled but the players will agree to majority of what the owners are asking for. Quite simply there is no where else in the world where they can earn as much money as in the NBA.

You're assuming that contracts will be limited to a large enough degree that teams can retain all their good players long term. If the goal is to foster parity, then the cap and contract limits will likely deliberately be set at an amount that will prevent teams from signing too many good players.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

It has nothing to do with "self-esteem" or any of that crap, it has to do with right now only a select few teams can win it all. And small markets, by their nature, can't typically generate the income required to challenge those few teams or draw the big name free-agents to their smaller cities. Which is great if you are LA, NY, or Miami. But sucks if you are Sacramento! And frankly, Sacramento is the one I care about.

I don't want all 30 teams to have an equal shot at the playoffs, I want a system where the small market teams are more competitive and the LA/Miami type teams aren't just guaranteed playoff berths each year by the nature of them being LA/Miami. I want teams on an equal footing in competition/getting and retaining players, not playoff outcome.

Maybe non-guaranteed contracts or max contract limitations would be a different way of skinning the same beast, but the current system just isn't working. And I don't see the Lakers giving up any significant portion of their TV revenue to help out the small-market teams, either.

All I care about is the Kings, too. I simply don't agree that instituting a hard cap is what will help them. I think it will hurt them. Especially in about three years when it comes time to start resigning all the nice young talent they have.

 

[Warhawk]

All I care about is the Kings, too. I simply don't agree that instituting a hard cap is what will help them. I think it will hurt them. Especially in about three years when it comes time to start resigning all the nice young talent they have.

As opposed to all the other teams that will not have young talent they want to re-sign? You keep actilng like the Kings are the only ones drafting players they would like to keep.

 

[bajaden]

Yeah and pigs will fly!

The only team that I fear in the free agency is Toronto who are looking for a player like Dalembert and have enough cap room to offer him a big contract.

Unless Dally is happy to go and play for a contender for vet minimum, he will either re-sign with us, or with another team that has cap space to sign him and even then, he better think about his demands because there are more coveted free agents on the market than him. I am sure these teams with the cap room will have the likes of Chandler and Nene higher on their FA rankings.

And there is strong suggestion that owners want to scrap the sign and trade deals in the new CBA.

They actually have a pigs can fly training camp down here in Ensenada. I've personally seen a couple of them get an inch or two off the ground. None have been able to dribble the ball while doing it though. Tiny steps, tiny steps...

 

[bajaden]

I really hope it doesn't go that direction. That would kill the NBA for me. Great teams like the Showtime Lakers, Jordan Bulls, Bird Celtics, and even Vlade/Webber Kings could never exist under such a strict system. I don't understand why anyone would want parity to that degree. Sure you may get a new mediocre team winning a title every year but there's no excitement or drama in that. There's something great about an underdog knocking off a super team. It means way more than what amounts to a coin toss where anyone could win it any year. Like they say, the quality of the win is determined by the quality of the opponent. I'd rather watch the Celtics and Lakers duke it out every year than see a bunch of boring one star teams like the Iverson 76ers, Garnett Timberwolves, Bosh Raptors, etc. every year.

Really? Do you mean that you'd rather watch the Lakers in the championships than the Kings? Because thats the prespective you have to have to really believe that. The last time I can remember that a true underdog won the championship was the 1974/75 Warrior team. No one expected them to make the playoffs, much less win the championship. Thats 36 years ago. So your underdog scenario doesn't happen too often under the current system. One of the reasons the championships were so watched this year. is because a semi-percieved underdog in Dallas, was going up against a self-built team made up of 6 million dollar(bionic) men. From a Texan's point of view, and probably a national point of view, it was truely a white hat vrs black hat match up.

To a large degree, I think the Lakers vrs the Celtics, has gotten just a little boring. Eating the same meal every night kills enthusiasm and expectation. At the beginning of every baseball season, I can make you a list of just about every team that will be in the playoffs. Hows that for excitement? In football, I can't. Not anymore! You can still have a competitive team every year in football. Maybe even something close to a dynasty. But it takes intelligence and good planning, and not just having more money than anyone else. In othere words, for the most part, everyone is playing by the same rules.

There are huge finanical inequities in the NBA. I seriously doubt that they can completely level the playing field, but it is possible they can create an invironment where every team can remain solvent, and depending on management, competitive.

To root for the Lakers, Knicks, Boston, etc. to be in the finals every year, is to root against your own team. And to make your own team the exception, would be extremely self-serving. Dare I use the word selfish?

Under Stern, the NBA went away from promoting teams in favor of promoting stars. That system works well, as long as the stars are equally despersed around the league. But when they all landing in the same locations. And those locations happen to be the big cities with the big money, the system breaks down.

There's an old saying, and its true. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Right now there are a lot of weak links in the NBA. You can fix the system, or replace the link. I don't think most fans in sacramento would vote for the latter.

 

[rainmaker]

I hate, absolutely hate watching the same teams every year compete for a ring. Let's be honest, a team like Sac always has, and always will be at a disadvantage until things change. Due to a soft cap, and the ability for the giants to spend to no end, and eventhough I like dal and waht they've done, the western conference for all intent and purpose has 6 playoff spots we have a chance at every year. I say that, because Dal and LA have effectively bought 2 playoff spots, for well over the last decade. So, there are really only 6 spots for the rest of the teams to fight over.

Of course if there's a hard cap the max salaries will be reduced. We have an advantage because any extension of our young guys, Reke/Cousins/Thornton/Jimmer/Hickson will be done under new rules, and limited salaries. The idea we wont be able to extend Reke/Cousins to near max contracts(whatever the new max would be),or not be able to resign some of the other talented guys, is not one I believe. The new system will dictate market value for different types of supports players, from 3rd and 4th options down to bench players. Teams will naturally offer less, given overpaying for an average player can hurt you even more going forward.

Personally, I'm rooting for teams like LAL and MIA to get broken up. I'd love it. One of the few good things which would come out of a yearlong lockout, IMO, would be Lebron still won't have a ring on his 28th bday.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I think guaranteed contracts are a far bigger problem than a soft cap. Allow teams to terminate contacts of players who stop producing and it wouldn’t take five years to do a rebuild like it currently does.

You do this without a hard cap and you guarantee that it is the Lakers vs. Knicks in the finals 3 out of every 5 years as they would just sign their whole roster to max deals and cut them when the time comes. Plus when contracts aren't guaranteed one way you'd likely start seeing camp hold outs, etc. That kind of junk works in the NFL with 50 odd players on the roster where you can keep 3 or 4 stars around forever and deal with shuffling out the rest of the team annually and hope that 75% of the fans never notice because the sexy players get retained.

Teams deserve to be punished for making lousy personnel decisions. I think allowing one cut every 3 years or something is reasonable but that's it. I also suspect the union would accept a 40mil hard cap before they ever accepted non-guaranteed money.