fishmike wrote:

WindsorPl wrote:

fishmike wrote:so Wade, Bosh and Melo took less money then right? Because their contracts only went 5 years right? Cause they are all not playing next year while Melo is. Oh wait... what kind of cars do they drive? The speed limit?

Nice try, it is not about what players took in the past, or what they may take in the future, like anybody knows. The argument is what is the maximum offers teams can give out under the CBA. Home team can offer about 29.4 MIL more in guaranteed money over the life of the max contract, simple.
This was repeated enough for reasonable people to understand it. For those who don't, they just refuse to understand it.

oh.. I understand it perfectly. It has little to no bearing on our situation.

Home teams can offer a longer contract, and therefore a large amount of guarenteed money at the time the contract is signed.

True

Players are walking away from $30mm by not signing with the home team

False

You (and Briggs)

seems resolute in this notion that a max player needs to take $30mm less to come here or leave their team and that is

FALSE

The arguement ISNT that hometeams can offer more in guarenteed money. Everyone agrees to that. The arguement is that players are walking away from $30mm which is FALSE.

the difference in money over 5 year of a max contract between 10.5% raises and 8% raises is less than $5mm.

THATS what a player is walking away from to come here.

THATS what Bosh, James, Wade or any other FA will LOSE in NBA SALARY if they leave their team to sign with the Knicks.

They will NOT LOSE $30mm.

They only thing you can quantify is if they got hurt and didnt play again they would lose that last year. Even that is a weak arguement because a) its very rare and b) a player can opt out after 3 years for a longer extension.

Ok, so the home team can offer 29.4 Mil more in guaranteed money. Now, everybody agrees with that (I hope). But the players would not be walking away from it? What happens to that extra money that is available to them if they go else where?
Your argument is that they don't take it but can make it up somewhere, because they can be extended. True but the players have to make a decision to refuse 29.4 Mil of guaranteed money on the table with the hopes of potentially making it up sometimes in the future.

You negated some of your argument by this excellent qualifier, which I agree with

They only thing you can quantify is if they got hurt and didnt play again they would lose that last year

Here is where I disagree with Briggs, I am hoping that Lebron still signs with the Knicks despite the hurdles. I still hope Walsh knows something we don't.

EwingsGlass wrote:

TMS wrote:

Each of James, Wade and Bosh took 5 years instead of 6 last time they signed contracts.

didn't that have to do with the fact that the CBA was set to expire in 2011 so they all wanted to have opt outs in time to sign new contracts under the current CBA?

It had more to do with the fact that 4+ year max players are entitled to 25% of the cap and 7+ year players are entitled to 30% of the cap. I note again that 10+ year players are entitled to 30% of the cap.

He meant 35% for ten year vets.

WindsorPl wrote:

fishmike wrote:

WindsorPl wrote:

fishmike wrote:so Wade, Bosh and Melo took less money then right? Because their contracts only went 5 years right? Cause they are all not playing next year while Melo is. Oh wait... what kind of cars do they drive? The speed limit?

Nice try, it is not about what players took in the past, or what they may take in the future, like anybody knows. The argument is what is the maximum offers teams can give out under the CBA. Home team can offer about 29.4 MIL more in guaranteed money over the life of the max contract, simple.
This was repeated enough for reasonable people to understand it. For those who don't, they just refuse to understand it.

oh.. I understand it perfectly. It has little to no bearing on our situation.

Home teams can offer a longer contract, and therefore a large amount of guarenteed money at the time the contract is signed.

True

Players are walking away from $30mm by not signing with the home team

False

You (and Briggs)

seems resolute in this notion that a max player needs to take $30mm less to come here or leave their team and that is

FALSE

The arguement ISNT that hometeams can offer more in guarenteed money. Everyone agrees to that. The arguement is that players are walking away from $30mm which is FALSE.

the difference in money over 5 year of a max contract between 10.5% raises and 8% raises is less than $5mm.

THATS what a player is walking away from to come here.

THATS what Bosh, James, Wade or any other FA will LOSE in NBA SALARY if they leave their team to sign with the Knicks.

They will NOT LOSE $30mm.

They only thing you can quantify is if they got hurt and didnt play again they would lose that last year. Even that is a weak arguement because a) its very rare and b) a player can opt out after 3 years for a longer extension.

Ok, so the home team can offer 29.4 Mil more in guaranteed money. Now, everybody agrees with that (I hope). But the players would not be walking away from it? What happens to that extra money that is available to them if they go else where?
Your argument is that they don't take it but can make it up somewhere, because they can be extended. True but the players have to make a decision to refuse 29.4 Mil of guaranteed money on the table with the hopes of potentially making it up sometimes in the future.

You negated some of your argument by this excellent qualifier, which I agree with

They only thing you can quantify is if they got hurt and didnt play again they would lose that last year

Rare or not, opt out or not it is a possiblilty and it does cross their mind and in the balance is that 6th year.

Here is where I disagree with Briggs, I am hoping that Lebron still signs with the Knicks despite the hurdles. I still hope Walsh knows something we don't.

I think this is correct. My last part is just ot point out that Bosh, Wade and James specifically chose not to take guaranteed money in the past. It is not unreasonable to think they might do it again.

jimimou wrote:YOU GUYS ARE GONNA GIVE YOURSELVES HEART ATTACKS ARGUING OVER THIS SHIT. when is enough is enough and let's see how the chips fall?

For a Knick fan like me, all I have is hopes and aspirations at this point. Our statistical liklihood of a playoff run is looking pretty meager. I am forced to take comfort in the minor victories in the business side of basketball, because our boys just aren't getting it done on the court.

I read posts that want to keep the loyalty to the same players on the court that aren't getting it done, and continually blast the management with could have, would have, should have arguments presumably validated by rear-view 20/20 criticisms. It is clear that Briggs doesn't agree with Walsh and D'antoni's re-building plan. Without saying people aren't entitled to their opinions, I draw the line at making false statements in order to dampen the excitement I and other people have. So, I use facts (as opposed to half-completed math) to disprove a set of points to see if we can eliminate the shoddy arguments.

My math (above) and understanding of the CBA is not incorrect. And Briggs may be right that we don't get any of the big three. The human choice element will be the number one factor in free agent determination of their next contract. But, each player choosing to stay put is emphatically not pre-determined by the extra contract year on a Larry Bird Max Contract. They could choose the guaranteed money, but even that isn't a certainty.

franco12 wrote:I'm not trying to be a smart azz - but can someone point out some examples- more than one- of players that left money to go elsewhere?

There are examples of players who would not be signed by their own team who were involved in S+T. The CBA was much different went Shaq left to LA--other than that--there is little evidence of great players moving to take less--usually they have taken less to stay. Not for nothing--but Grant Hill and Jason Kidd could be playing in NY for the great MDA--they arent

That was a good point--where is the evidence of players offered more and leaving for less? I cant think of one

fishmike wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

franco12 wrote:I'm not trying to be a smart azz - but can someone point out some examples- more than one- of players that left money to go elsewhere?

There are examples of players who would not be signed by their own team who were involved in S+T. The CBA was much different went Shaq left to LA--other than that--there is little evidence of great players moving to take less--usually they have taken less to stay. Not for nothing--but Grant Hill and Jason Kidd could be playing in NY for the great MDA--they arent

That was a good point--where is the evidence of players offered more and leaving for less? I cant think of one

older players do it all the time. ALL the time. Didnt Malone and Payton take the min to try and get a ring with the Lakers?

and again... while the players would sign a contract for less Guarenteed money, they would only be EARNING $5mm over the 5 years less. I'm sorry but that doesnt matter. Not to them, not to me. Its about 5% less.

If I could work in a city or place I wanted to for 5% less I would move to take more.

This arguement is old. There are things we know Lebron wants and is driven by that you can get in NY that you cant get in Cle. Thats the bottom line. Shaq wanted to go to LA. Lebron has a lot of NY ties and isnt shy about them.

So why would they join the Lakers, Boston, or Orlando who are already a "team".