Everybody seems to think I am wrong on salaries and that's fine as I think salaries are absurd. I won't start an argument about that. But I don't think you can cram a 1/3 cut in salary down a player's throat when he is in his prime and maybe you shouldn't. Would you take a 1/3 cut in salary? People say the new CBA will end up with less salaries which is what we all hope. How do you know what the new CBA is?
My reasoning has been based on Dally's contract. He is in his prime and making $12 mil (gasp!) a year. If he is normal, he is playing the best basketball he will ever play and be at that level for a few years. He is physically still skilled yet has the experience of a veteran which we have learned this year has value. (Remember all the close losses?) The same could be said of Kirilenko. (Does he still have the beautiful wife? That's a bonus to some of us) At this level of salary it is not the amount that counts but ego - who's got the biggest? Or it's about a ring.
It seems obvious that players are making too much. Witness a little PG #10 who used to play here. He gives up his whole salary to try to get a ring. That means he's made too much and needs no more.
If the CBA asks for a 1/3 cut in salary, hell will freeze over before the league plays another game. Even if it is just at the top end. If I am wrong, I will have regained a great deal of faith in humanity.
My guess is that the new CBA will accomplish at least two things: lower over all salary so teams don't go broke and bring parity among the players. Is Thornton really worth $750,000? Teams have gotten around the CBA by getting 4 to 6 high salary guys and the rest near minimum wage. In fact, that's what I am saying the Kings should do now that I think about it.
I can be 100% wrong but would like to hear how people think the new CBA will be. Or maybe there needs to be another thread.
