Fair enough. But Glenn did want to understand the rules as they stand now.
Now that things are starting to gel a little...
- Thread starter Spok22
- Start date
Fair enough. But Glenn did want to understand the rules as they stand now.
I have a hard time believing that the league will implement any cap structure that will force teams (notably Lakers, Heat) to discard players they already have under contract. They may make it hard on them (forcing them to fill out the roster with min-level players) but I don't see how they could enforce it otherwise. Imagine the following scenario:
Miami Heat: Sorry, David Stern, but we can't find anybody to trade for Bosh. Nobody has any cap space left because the cap has been reduced so severely. It's not even that we don't want to follow your rules, it's that your rules prohibit any of the other 29 teams from trading for him. His salary is too high.
David Stern: Well, I guess you'll just have to cut him outright.
Chris Bosh: What about my contract? What about my money? I'll sue!
David Stern: OK, the Heat have to cut you, but they also have to pay out your salary.
Miami Heat: And now we're short a player. We'll have to sign someone at the minimum. Hey, there's this really great player out there named Chris Bosh!
David Stern: Sorry, you can't sign him. Otherwise it totally defeats the purpose of our salary cap.
Miami Heat: So we're going to be paying him $20M+ a year not to play basketball for us, and somebody else is going to be paying for him to play for them, too?
Chris Bosh: Double bonus!
Miami Heat: Screw this. We secede.
Anyway, I pretty much guarantee that no teams will be forced to get rid of players they already have under contract. They may not be as able to bring new players in, but they won't be forced to get rid of anybody.
kingsfan101
Starter
Nice
That said, the last CBA allowed teams over the tax to release one player, and they would escape the LT on him. This was a one time opportunity to shed some really bad contract, for no (financial) loss to the player, and these teams gained too.
While there were no major players in the market this way, some useful vets (like Finley) were released. Wonder if something similar this time might happen too.
Kingster
Hall of Famer
I've had the same thing cross my mind, Capt. I'll believe a hard cap that kills Miami when I see it. If it does happen, my respect for the league will go up, but I'm not holding my breath....
I think what is like to happen is an agreement on moving gradually towards a hard(er) cap, which means there will be no cutting of current contracts, but restrictions that become tighter every year until all current contracts expire, and all the contracts are post-CBA. This will probably make it hard for teams with lots of long term pre-CBA contracts to add new players, but they will not be forced to release their players. It might motivate them, though, to trade away players with long term contracts in order to get under the cap. On the other hand, teams will be more hesitant to take on pre-CBA contracts, even if they are quality players, since the implications of taking on these contracts will become worse than they are now.
Section 101
All-Star
It will be interesting to see what they do. In the NFL the contracts werent guaranteed so they could just cut players. Not sure what the NHL did.
The median total team salaries is $66 mil. That could be a number they shoot for a hard cap. They could offer an amnesty deal like they did a few years ago where they can cut a player and not have it count on the cap.
They could also allow teams currently over the potential hard cap to keep their players, but limit any trades to lowering team salary and only allow them to sign players for min contracts to fill out a roster. They could even limit it to non vet players.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Yep, most likely scenario is it gradually phasing in.
Section 101
All-Star
Except the owners want the changes now. Plus this CBA will probably only be for 4-5 years at most with the option to extend. Some contracts go beyond that time frame.
The current contracts are legally binding. They have no way of legally voiding these contracts, and players aren't just going to voluntarily give up money they are contractually entitled to. Imposing an immediate hard cap with those contracts in place would paralize the entire league. The only way they can do it is gradually.
Their FG% may be similar, but I know that you Baja, watch enough games to know that Landry takes a lot more outside shots than JT does. I don't think it's unfair to call out professional NBA big men for missing easy shots around the rim. In JT's case he usually follows it up and tips it in eventually, but you'd still rather have him finish on the initial attempt. If any big man in the NBA consistently blows easy lay ups (I call Tyreke out on this too), they deserve criticism. Fair and simple.
I agree with you though that JT has shown improvement around the basket. He's converted many more shots off the pick and roll with Tyreke and has also shown a decent turnaround jumper. But it isn't good enough, and we need him to be better if we're getting rid of Landry.
The Lakers would have lost without Andrew Bynum, but lots of people on this board still say that Bynum is overrated. Perkins plays a solid role on the Celtics and does his job well. He's good, but IMO if he were on any other team he wouldn't have nearly the same amount of publicity/reputation as a great defender.
Keep in mind that the NHL did in fact manage to negotiate a 24% rollback in all existing contracts as part of the end of the '04-'05 lockout. And while it may not be possible to technically void the contracts, the players don't get paid if the owners lock them out. That's got precedent from back in '98. And there are some serious ramifications of that.
Not counting unguaranteed money, NBA players are collectively owed $1.5B next year, and a total of $3.3B for all future years. That means that if NBA players allow the season to go into lockout next year (and the owners have already threatened that the lockout would last an entire season) they stand to lose $1.5 billion dollars. If they accept a 25% pay cut across the board and play the season, they lose "only" $830 million dollars. So, unless they believe that they will be in a stronger negotiating position (for future contracts) after a one-year lockout (hint: they won't be) there's actually reasonable incentive to take a salary roll-back. Even a 25% roll-back will cut net losses nearly in half. That doesn't mean a roll-back is going to happen (and I don't actually think one will) but it does show that such a thing is not beyond the pale. It could reasonably happen.
It's hard for me to keep that in mind because I know absolutely nothing about hockey. I wouldn't even be able to name one professional hockey player to save my own life..
Having said that, I'm no expert and I'm not a lawyer, but just intuitively I would think that:
1. I don't remember the details of the '98 lockout, but it seems to me that if there is a lockout due to players' refusal to cut back on their own guaranteed money, then they can't deny the players their salary. Just like if my boss wanted to cut a 3rd of my salary and I refused, he wouldn't be able to just not pay me. If the situation were reversed, meaning the players go on strike due to the league's refusal to better their terms, then I would understand that the owners would not be obligated to pay them their salary.
2. Each player signs his contract individually, which means that there cannot be an across-the-board decision to cut salaries unless every single player voluntarily agrees. If one player refuses to cut his salary, I don't see how anyone can force him to do so.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
The latter is due to American labor law -- the players have a union, the contracts were negotiated under rules agreed to byt he union. If the union agrees to roll them back, back they go.
It should be ntoed however that this successful rollback of NHL contracts (in the face of a union almost as irrational and antagonistic as the MLB's union) took an entire year -- the NHL actually scrapped their entire season. they still haven't gotten back on TV the way they were. It was ridiculous. And nwo the rumblings over there are that the fools inthe union are gearing up for another go at it. Luckily hockey fans are pretty stup...er...I mean fanatical. They'd likely be back even if their favorite player came over to their house and peed in their corn flakes. And since the sport never really seems concerned about a larger footprint, that's enough. I think the NBA is in much more direct competition wiht the other major NOrth American sports, and has been actively trying to establish a global presence for a decade at least. Following in hockey's footsteps would judt be nuts.
Section 101
All-Star
Players get paid on a per game basis. No games = no pay. Doesn't matter the reason.
On this one - if you read the fine print on your contract, in some states "each party can terminate the contract without reason given 30 days notice.". In Delaware, 30 days aren't needed. Just sayin'.
My contract certainly doesn't say that. It depends on the type of job. If you work at McDonalds (no offense to those who actually work there) then yes, they can terminate your contract with 30 days notice, but if you have a contract with a defined duration or an academic job with tenure, they would need a damn good reason to be able to terminate that contract.
That seems strange to me. So if the owners initiate a lockout for no apparent reason, that means they don't have to pay the players?
Section 101
All-Star
Without a CBA, yes.
I've said since last summer that the closest correlation for Dalembert's next contract is probably Brendan Haywood, who signed for six years, $55 million ($9.17 million per). Drew Gooden and Channing Frye are both on five year contracts that pay them about $6 million a year. And that kind of contract is probably why Slim says there's no way a guy like Kendrick Perkins will sign for less than $8 million a year. And it will impact any contract Dalembert agrees to this season, assuming the new CBA isn't radically changed, which it probably will be.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
I don't think the question is whether we want Dalembert back next season or not. At least not to me. The question is, one, does he want to come back? And two, how much money is a realistic amount to resign him. After freeing ourselves of all unnecessary contracts at seasons end, we could have as much as 30 to 33 million dollars to play with, depending on where they set the cap. So lets say its 30 million. Do we want to dedicate 10 million of that to Dalembert? And if so, for how long?
Here's my question to you Bricky. Just how much would you be willing to pay him? And for how long? We all know what his value is to the team. Personally I'm having a hard time putting a price tag on that value. Were at a point where we don't want to make a major mistake, and we certainly want to add to the team. Dalembert isn't an addition. He's status quo. And you certainly want to maintain that. But you don't want to hinder future additions by overpaying either.
Demarcus Cousins
G-League
I say sign dally for 3 years and let's see what whiteside can bring us. If whiteside is legit then we trade dallys contract, and since it's only 3 years he'll have good trade value.
Yup, you took a league that wasn't terribly popular and was becoming unviable financially, basically redressed the way they paid their players, and set them on a path to modest growth over the next decade or so. The fact that hockey fans are insanely loyal and will find a way to watch their sport whether it's on ESPN or not helps dramatically, but the NHL couldn't have continued the way it was going, and wouldn't have been on ESPN eventually anyways. Now at least the league has a future.
The NBA already has a future. Some uncertainty exists primarily due to the way players are paid and the way teams can manipulate the salary cap, but I think the players' association recognizes where changes are necessary (most recent example is Brendan Haywood being paid $160k per block this season).
Do you understand that signing Dally for three years might require a $30 million contract? If so, do you still think we should retain him at that price?
bajaden
Hall of Famer
Ha ha! Yeah, I can see that conversation happening. Look, I'm just posting what I read, and some of it comes from fairly realible sources. Now how all that will play out is anyone's guess. I mean a hard cap is a hard cap. If you go to a hard cap, but allow all the top teams to still remain over it, then what have you accomplished?
I know its been suggested that they allow every team in the league to dump one salary off their roster. Not sure how that would stand up in court either. When the smoke clears it may be that all they'll do, is do away with the Bird rules and all the exceptions. Which in fact, would make it a hard cap.
There's been talk of contraction. Just exactly how do you do that, and what happens to the players on the teams that get contracted. If you were to install a hard cap in conjunction with contraction, where do those players go for work with just about all the teams over the cap. Would a team like the Kings thats under the cap have to accept the current contract of said player? Or would the team be able to renegotiate a new contract?
Obviously there are a lot of things that need to be worked out, and I doubt either side will get everything they want. As it stands the players are happy with status quo. The owners want to turn everything upside down, and apparently have been waiting patiently for this day to arrive. From everything I've read, the owners have their heels firmly dug into the ground. It could be a very long offseason.
I do like your scenario of the conversation though..
bajaden
Hall of Famer
No problem with the criticism. All I want people to do, is also notice when a player, not just Thompson, but any player, makes improvement in his game. Players tend to get reputations. And in most cases those rep's are made in their first few years in the league. whether its not being able to handle the ball, or not being a good outside shooter to missing shots around the basket. But in a lot of those cases, the players work on their games and improve in those areas. Despite that, fans still criticize them for the exact same things, based purely on that original reputation.
Is Thompson a great player? No! Is he as good as I originally thought he could be? No! Some of that I attribute to him, and some of that I attribute to being on a coaching merry go round. But it is what it is, and at worse, he's a nice blue collar guy that rebounds and plays defense, and on certain nights will get you 15 to 20 pt's.. If he continues to work on his game, and he's the type of guy that will, he'll become more consistent. To be honest, being traded to another team might be the best thing for JT. I don't want to see him go, but if its advantagous for him and the Kings, I'm fine with it.
Its worth noting that when the NHL lockout was over teams were forced to dump their star players and the league was literally turned on its head. The teams at the top went into cap hell and dumped stars, the Edmonton Oilers who's glory days had been long forgotten and were now perrenial cellar dwellars were able to makes some savvy moves and reach the finals that year.
I actually disagree with much of what Brick had to say except his conclusion that it would be a disastrous result for the NBA and its fans. Hockey has chased away a lot of longtime fans. The fact that the commissioner was Stern's right hand man in the 80s is not lost on many long time hockey fans who hate the direction the NHL took in the 90s and beyond and during the lockout many were actually hoping the lockout would destroy the NHL and a new league would form from its ashes. I'm a longtime Bruins fan who has just about given up trying to find the games on tv post lockout - I'm actually having more luck finding my college team on some of the newer sports channels (yes, I do know they are on Vs. in between WEC and the Rodeo).
I actually disagree with much of what Brick had to say except his conclusion that it would be a disastrous result for the NBA and its fans. Hockey has chased away a lot of longtime fans. The fact that the commissioner was Stern's right hand man in the 80s is not lost on many long time hockey fans who hate the direction the NHL took in the 90s and beyond and during the lockout many were actually hoping the lockout would destroy the NHL and a new league would form from its ashes. I'm a longtime Bruins fan who has just about given up trying to find the games on tv post lockout - I'm actually having more luck finding my college team on some of the newer sports channels (yes, I do know they are on Vs. in between WEC and the Rodeo).
bajaden
Hall of Famer
Were not talkiing about Andrew Bynum. Were talking about Perkins. The lakers would have lost without Kobe too. And the Celtics would have lost without Allen. We could play that game alll day long. All I'm saying is that when Perkins went down, the Celtics had no one that could match up with the front line of the Lakers. And whether you want to acknowledge it or not, Perkins was the huge difference maker in that series when it came to defending the Lakers front line. Without him, they were in trouble. They almost won the whole thing despite it. I think Perkins is an excellent defender. And I think he's a better all around defender than Bynum.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
You beat me to it. Everyone has to remember that what ever the outcome, both sides will have to be in agreement. Which means that if the owners are going to cut the salaries, the the players will have to sign on before the new CBA is in place. Its very hard to go into court an say your contract is being voided, or not being lived up to, after your union of which your apart has agreed to it. This isn't the owners being allowed to simply dictate to the players. Whatever the outcome, both parties have to sign on the dotted line.
FaStRmAn
Starter
I say keep Dalembert and get rid of Landry. Landry is undersized and will always be a defensive liability. I think the Kings could do better at pf in free agency. I think Dalembert has brought the Kings a SOUL. He has given the Kings an identity and the players are starting to rally around Sam and have started playing good basketball! They need to add a couple of pieces in free agency. They need more firepower in the backcourt. And they need a reliable sf. Hopefully the Kings will be able to attract the talent next free agent season
Similar threads
