I will chime in to say that I do not feel this way. I'm frustrated, but nowhere near angry enough to turn away from the NBA. I don't think a completely lost season would change that, either.
Same here.
I will chime in to say that I do not feel this way. I'm frustrated, but nowhere near angry enough to turn away from the NBA. I don't think a completely lost season would change that, either.
I don't remember the exact details but I think Bosh is the only one that ultimately left any money on the table. LBJ eventually forced the Cavs to do the sign and trade so he got a max contract. One of the things a hard cap would do is make it impossible to even carry a full roster if you signed those guys and had to sign everyone else to minimum deals. Now if you coupled that with the ability to franchise say 3 players and take a fixed cap hit but pay them anything you want - AND made those rights 100% non-transferable - players would actually have to choose between getting paid and playing on a super team for peanuts. Somehow I think that if those guys really did take a serious pay cut - like say they were playing for 5 million each, then some may have even respected what they did. But as it was they all got raises from their previous deals.I can see why that's a primary concern, a hard-cap wouldn't have prevented prevented the Miami big 3 from coming together, though. Those three set a precedent of taking less money to play where you want. I just don't see what can be done to stop that from happening short of eliminating free agency.
or you could impose a harder cap but remove max contract levels. Would LeBron really turn down $35 million to stay in Cleveland? No way you can build a super team unless the superstars are really willing to turn down major money.
I don't remember the exact details but I think Bosh is the only one that ultimately left any money on the table. LBJ eventually forced the Cavs to do the sign and trade so he got a max contract. One of the things a hard cap would do is make it impossible to even carry a full roster if you signed those guys and had to sign everyone else to minimum deals. Now if you coupled that with the ability to franchise say 3 players and take a fixed cap hit but pay them anything you want - AND made those rights 100% non-transferable - players would actually have to choose between getting paid and playing on a super team for peanuts. Somehow I think that if those guys really did take a serious pay cut - like say they were playing for 5 million each, then some may have even respected what they did. But as it was they all got raises from their previous deals.
I will chime in to say that I do not feel this way. I'm frustrated, but nowhere near angry enough to turn away from the NBA. I don't think a completely lost season would change that, either.
or you could impose a harder cap but remove max contract levels. Would LeBron really turn down $35 million to stay in Cleveland? No way you can build a super team unless the superstars are really willing to turn down major money.
OMG, how can they feed their children??Not quite. The sign and trade deals didn't add any money to the player's base contracts. It just added a year to the entire deal plus they could now get 10.5% raises as opposed to just 8.5 had they not signed outright. But still, they all had to take base year's of $14.5 million even with the sign and trade when the max was worth $16.8 million.
Whether any on them took a serious pay cut is clouded by the fact that Florida has no state income tax. It is an advantage to Florida and Texas teams and used to be one to Washinton, too.I don't remember the exact details but I think Bosh is the only one that ultimately left any money on the table. LBJ eventually forced the Cavs to do the sign and trade so he got a max contract. One of the things a hard cap would do is make it impossible to even carry a full roster if you signed those guys and had to sign everyone else to minimum deals. Now if you coupled that with the ability to franchise say 3 players and take a fixed cap hit but pay them anything you want - AND made those rights 100% non-transferable - players would actually have to choose between getting paid and playing on a super team for peanuts. Somehow I think that if those guys really did take a serious pay cut - like say they were playing for 5 million each, then some may have even respected what they did. But as it was they all got raises from their previous deals.
Whether any on them took a serious pay cut is clouded by the fact that Florida has no state income tax. It is an advantage to Florida and Texas teams and used to be one to Washinton, too.
Right and I've also suggested tailoring the cap to compensate for that and everyone thought I was taking crazy pills. It really isn't that hard to just base cap hit on take home pay is it?Whether any on them took a serious pay cut is clouded by the fact that Florida has no state income tax. It is an advantage to Florida and Texas teams and used to be one to Washinton, too.
I didn't really didn't think Garnett would go his entire career being a complete prick. My wife ran into him at a MN restaurant. He was a complete D1*^. After he left the staff apologized to her for him and said that he had a very bad rep around town. Good to see he's doing his best to screw up this NBA season.
Right and I've also suggested tailoring the cap to compensate for that and everyone thought I was taking crazy pills. It really isn't that hard to just base cap hit on take home pay is it?
They actually already do something like that for Canada, why not for the other states?
They wouldn't have to, they would just have the option. Canada its already being done. Something tells me NY and LA would actually gladly take the ability to spend more. They'd only have to do it for guys worth the max anyways.I thought about that also but the problem is that owners in New York and Canada would have to pay a ton more than owners in Florida and Texas. The Raptors, Knicks and Nets would put up a fight on that one.
Apparently there will be an announcement around 4 pm from the mediator. Stay tuned!
Edit - sounds like they will continue meeting tomorrow at 2 pm after the NBA BOG meeting. At least they are still talking.....
16 hours yesterday, 8.5 hours today...at least they seem to be serious about this. I'm hoping we'll see basketball in December!
OMG, how can they feed their children??
Point is the money left on the table was nowhere steep enough to incentivize staying in the market that cultivated them. For it to work the difference has to be on the magnitude of 50%.
Canadian teams can pay a 20% signing bonus.What are they doing different in Canada? I thought they took in Canadian dollars from the fans, but their cap and everything was set in US dollars like every other team.
This was a big problem a few years ago, when they we're pulling in .75 and playing out $1 ... but because the US dollar is getting pounded that's no much of an issue right now.
Is that not right?
They are losing money not playing... Losing more money not playing than the concessions they are looking for in the deal.. It is only for this year that they are losing money, and they are looking beyond this year, but each game that is cancelled hurts them in regards to the deal vs not playing.. If they lose the whole year they basically just gave the owners what they wanted. The owners can give them a sweet deal and still come out ahead being that the players lost a whole year of pay.
Canadian teams can pay a 20% signing bonus.