I'm not sure you know what a hard cap is, but if the Blazers couldn't have offered Wes that contract, the Jazz SURE AS HELL couldn't have matched it. They couldn't have done anything.
Lockout!!!
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
I'm not sure you know what a hard cap is, but if the Blazers couldn't have offered Wes that contract, the Jazz SURE AS HELL couldn't have matched it. They couldn't have done anything.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Owkai. Mee two.
How do you know he didn't misspell "poor noob" wrong?
shadler
Well-Known Member
How so? You don't even know how it would have been set up on a hard cap to do anything. Every player would have to take a 20% or more taken out of their pay and who knows how how things would be set up to free some players.
It's really, REALLY easy how I know. A HARD cap is a cap that a team cannot go over. Period. Regardless of where the cap is, the Jazz had more salary committed than the Blazers did last offseason. Therefore, the Blazers had more money to offer Wes than the Jazz could've afforded.
A hard cap makes it harder for small-market teams to stay good. People are worried about getting Lebron-ed in the last CBA? It would be monumentally worse if the home-team can't offer their own player more money than some big market team, and in the situation with the Heat, not only did Lebron and Bosh take less money to go there, their home teams wouldn't have even BEEN ABLE to offer as much money as the Heat in a hard-cap system.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
There is talk about the existing contracts being grandfathered in or somehow not fully counting against the hard cap; if they were, then the hard cap (i.e. Miami) would make it impossible for some teams to even fill out their roster. But all new contracts would be.
One way to do it is to count all existing contracts as a maximum of 25% of the hard cap; contracts worth less than 25% of the hard cap would be counted at face value. But neither Derek Fisher nor the owners have hired me for my opinion; if they had, then the lockout would be over already, and the season would be in process toward starting
.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Good points, IGS. Any conversion probably favors Miami and teams who are tight against the cap. Right now, Miami can only offer league minimum contracts to players or use their exceptions since the "Big 3" take up all their cap space. I'd hate to see a new CBA result in them being able to go out and get another all-star caliber player. Utah has some major salary coming off soon (AK now, then Memo, with Harris in 2 years). I just hope the new CBA makes it easier to retain your own FA's. And I think that will be teh case. Most owners don't want a repeat of what happened with Lebron & Anthony, nor the scenarioo that was playing out with Deron and CP3.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
I was thinking that a "conversion" (which I interpret to mean that the existing salaries (at least the big-ticket ones) don't (fully) count against the new cap) was only benefitting the overpaying teams in order to allow them to continue with existing contracts. If the player revenue percentage were to be hacked immediately, I'd imagine that some teams wouldn't be able to even fill their rosters under a hard cap because of the high-priced contracts that they have.
When the players were offering to take 54% revenue percentage, I was thinking that the owners should consider phasing in the percentage (e.g., starting with 56%, then 55%, then 54%, then 53%, then staying at 52%) for the very reason that the existing contracts would take time to expire. But if the players recently capitulated to accept 52% or 53% anyway, then the owners are definitely the ones who are holding this up, at their peril and at the peril of the NBA overall. Relatively speaking, a 52% share is plenty fair--and at a 5% drop from the previous players' share, should be plenty profitable for the owners.
David Stern (or a capable third party such as me
) should be able to get this deal done in the next few weeks. Even if there are a few rogue owners, the rest of the owners should negotiate or pressure the holdouts into consensus and move onto getting the season rolling.With the recent shift of events, I predict that they will start playing by New Year's Day.
Last edited:
DutchJazzer
Banned
There is talk about the existing contracts being grandfathered in or somehow not fully counting against the hard cap; if they were, then the hard cap (i.e. Miami) would make it impossible for some teams to even fill out their roster. But all new contracts would be.
One way to do it is to count all existing contracts as a maximum of 25% of the hard cap; contracts worth less than 25% of the hard cap would be counted at face value. But neither Derek Fisher nor the owners have hired me for my opinion; if they had, then the lockout would be over already, and the season would be in process toward starting
full of yourself?
AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
I don't know how legitimate this article is, but apparently Kobe is willing to hand out loans to low-salary players to help them make it through the lockout.
https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/215638/Kobe_Could_Offer_Loans_To_Fellow_Players
Is he for real? How long does Kobe think he can support 1/3 of the league with NBA player's lifestyles? Obviously, he's looking out for future big-earners in the NBA, and he doesn't want the little guy to be "forced" to cave into the NBA's CBA demands because they're broke. But this seems like such a short-sighted fix that I can't imagine it would do much at all.
https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/215638/Kobe_Could_Offer_Loans_To_Fellow_Players
Is he for real? How long does Kobe think he can support 1/3 of the league with NBA player's lifestyles? Obviously, he's looking out for future big-earners in the NBA, and he doesn't want the little guy to be "forced" to cave into the NBA's CBA demands because they're broke. But this seems like such a short-sighted fix that I can't imagine it would do much at all.
Good for Kobe. Important parts in are red: "...he and others are prepared to loan money if necessary." So it's not like he is trying to prop up 1/3 of the league all by himself. He's not by himself, and presumably the "if necessary" part will be a much smaller fraction of the league.