What's new

Durant's decision has all but assured a long-term lockout

I guarantee there will be a long lockout. Owners should demand a hard cap. No max contracts. And franchise tags. Players won't accept that. I wouldn't be shocked to see a year before the lockout would end.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
A hard cap means less money for players. No max contracts means less money for 90%+ of the players. The only thing that makes sense is a franchise tag. That's the only thing they could hope to negotiate. And since they should give up a significant share of BRI, I think it should be on the table. It is literally the only measure that could be taken. A hard cap does nothing to keep a player from taking less money, and no max contracts makes the league even more about the owners most able and willing to spend (a decided, locked in logistical advantage for the major markets [who have finally been losing ground on their power]).

A hard cap + no max contract might work, but they'd have to basically scrap everything from every previous CBA and start from scratch. THAT would be a long lockout. Furthermore, it would make maintaining continuity almost impossible, and that door swings this way too. And I can't see the players union going for it.
 
I guarantee there will be a long lockout. Owners should demand a hard cap. No max contracts. And franchise tags. Players won't accept that. I wouldn't be shocked to see a year before the lockout would end.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
I just don't see an NFL style cap.
Especially with the new money coming in.
 
A hard cap means less money for players. No max contracts means less money for 90%+ of the players. The only thing that makes sense is a franchise tag. That's the only thing they could hope to negotiate. And since they should give up a significant share of BRI, I think it should be on the table. It is literally the only measure that could be taken. A hard cap does nothing to keep a player from taking less money, and no max contracts only makes the league about the owners most willing to spend.
Max contracts are the reason the NBA is a mess. Then you have rich teams spending millions over the cap. Small teams can't afford to overspend. The NBA is not a league for any team to win a championship. I'm actually ok with losing a season if it changes things.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
Hard to side with anything the owners claim after watching the absurd dollars being given to mid-tier players. As long as people keep filling the stands and buying merchandise, nothing will change.
 
KD will opt out next year and get his 4 year max deal. Dubs will have the space cause cap is jumping considerably again
 
I just don't see an NFL style cap.
Especially with the new money coming in.
It'll have to happen if small teams will ever have a chance to win a championship. Okc, Utah. Denver. Minnesota will never win one asis.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
Max contracts are the reason the NBA is a mess. Then you have rich teams spending millions over the cap. Small teams can't afford to overspend. The NBA is not a league for any team to win a championship. I'm actually ok with losing a season if it changes things.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Max contracts benefit small market teams disproportionately. The Jazz could never hope to acquire a superstar without the provision. Never.
 
A hard cap means less money for players.
No it doesn't. Players' share of revenue is unrelated to salary cap structure.

I agree on max contracts though -- there's no way the players will agree to do away with them.

Owners are making too much money to lock the players out. If they refuse to negotiate given their HUGE gains under the current CBA, the players will take them to court.
 
Max contracts benefit small market teams disproportionately. The Jazz could never hope to acquire a superstar without the provision. Never.

It does not matter anyways because no superstar is ever going to sign with the Jazz anyways.

The NBA needs to find a way to bring more parity to the league, for it has by far the least parity out of all the major sporting leagues. I think that is the only way the Jazz ever have a chance.
 
Max contracts benefit small market teams disproportionately. The Jazz could never hope to acquire a seismic, transformational player without the provision.
Hardly. They allow multiple stars to play together while all getting paid. Install a hard cap and teams would have to be smart with who they sign and for how much. It works in the nfl cause if you pay the wrong player you don't win. In the NBA you can now have 3 or 4 max players.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
Hardly. They allow multiple stars to play together while all getting paid. Install a hard cap and teams would have to be smart with who they sign and for how much. It works in the nfl cause if you pay the wrong player you don't win. In the NBA you can now have 3 or 4 max players.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
And in the NFL, you have almost no multi-year guaranteed contracts. The players union would dissolve the league before giving those up.

Again, they'd have to redo the CBA from scratch to do what your proposing. That would assuredly lose a season, maybe worse. The players have the bargaining power this time.
 
And in the NFL, you have almost no multi-year guaranteed contracts. The players union would dissolve the league before giving those up.

Again, they'd have to redo the CBA from scratch to do what your proposing. That would assuredly lose a season, maybe worse.
That's my point. If the league ever hopes to have parody this will have to happen. I personally know a bunch of people who don't watch the NBA cause they say it's fixed for large market teams. Look at the NFL. If you have quality coaching and a smart front office you win. There is no such thing as a rich team. Every team plays by the same rules and numbers.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top