BRIGGS wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:The salary cap went up only 24mm from 70 to 94

Last year our pay roll was 75
Carmelo Anthony 22,875,000
Robin Lopez 28 $13,000,000
Arron Afflalo $8,000,000 Cap Space $8,000,000
Jose Calderon $7,402,812 9
Derrick Williams $4,900,000
top 5 guys were 54mm allowing us to pay over 20mm to the last 9 guys

This years unit
Carmelo 25000000
Rose 21000000
Noah 18000000
Lee 12500000
KP 4300000
---------------------
80mm allowing us to spend 14mm on the remaining 9 guys of which 5mm is already guaranteed.

It just wont workout correctly for teams or the league--this wont work. If you make a mistake paying a guy 18-24mm you are in real trouble because the talent you could once acquire for 2-5mm is not there any more the cap did not go high enough to support the middle and lower players which are necessary

What they will need to do is cut down the % of a cap per slot so salary slides more balanced. Say capping the top 5 slots at 65%

This post serves as an example of the lack of desire (not ability) for some fans to understand NBA economics.

There are probably a dozens ways to illustrate the flaw in the logic here.

I'll go with this one:

Let's for example say the NBA has 450 active players (30 x 15).

The NBA has a cap.

The cap was raised 35%.

But some guys are getting raises of several hundred percent.

But not all 450 players can get those percentages of raises. Teams would go over the cap by mathematical certainty.

So in ANY NBA economic scenario, they'll always be a pool of players that will have to play for the scraps, no matter what the top guys are making. In fact, this year's numbers make it likely the pool of scrap players will in fact be larger, not smaller.

Eventually the 85% will be spent by everyone and the pool of guys looking for $2 to $5m or less will be no less than it ever was.

The NBA system has not changed. It's the same CBA it has been and it's terms are worse for the players than the last CBA. There will now be as there always has been the haves and have not.

The equation hasn't changed, just the quotients.

The NBA will still need and have the same pool of 450 active players and they can't all get ridiculous raises.

Just consider for a few moments you're wrong Briggs. You'll be better informed for it.

Sure If there is no lockout I will freely admit I was off on this one

Lockout or no lockout, your math is wrong and the variance is overstated. You state 70mm as thr capmlast year but concede our payroll was 75. By this you say we had 20 mill to spend last year, but you treat the 94 like a hard cap, leaving us only 14mm. Using the very same exceptions we used last year, we can exceed thr cap and be similarly situated. Toward the bottom, there will be roster slots but not salary available - only exceptions. So, drilling down to vet minimums and Undrafted or dleague options, we will fill out thr rest of the roster (or already have)

Paris907 wrote:Miami came up with big 3 just a few years back and the league has essentially nixed the concept unless your fortunate enough to have Bird rights.

The league hasn't lifted one finger to nix the concept.

If players want to volunteer to take less, it can happen again.

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Caseloads wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:The big issue that will need to be worked out in the new CBA is actual superstars not being able to get fair value relative to market. There will be much pain and suffering in negotiations. They have a but of loopholes and nonsense things that need to get fixed. The fact that only middle of the road players get to negotiate is beyond broken.

Agreed. How do you allow for "SUPERMAX" contracts? would have to be something like, been awarded several all-stars or MVP or all-team NBA, championships, etc.

In a cap environment, why would the majority of the union support taking away from the vast majority to give more to a smaller %?

I actually see it as an increase in the max or no max bc not having negotiations of contracts isn't really in the best interest of the players. This may adversely impact guys like Delly and Moz who hit the lottery but the flip slide is there really is no market for negotiations with great players.

I also see a push for a tiered cap which some owners may fight. They need that and the max to create a more fair market.

Again, I fail to see why the majority of the player's association would get behind money being taken from them to be given to the to 2-5% of the players.

I GET why Lebron James and Stephen Curry would want a higher than 30% max.

i don't know why anyone else would. Whatever percentage you give to them, you take from everyone else.

Knickoftime wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Caseloads wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:The big issue that will need to be worked out in the new CBA is actual superstars not being able to get fair value relative to market. There will be much pain and suffering in negotiations. They have a but of loopholes and nonsense things that need to get fixed. The fact that only middle of the road players get to negotiate is beyond broken.

Agreed. How do you allow for "SUPERMAX" contracts? would have to be something like, been awarded several all-stars or MVP or all-team NBA, championships, etc.

In a cap environment, why would the majority of the union support taking away from the vast majority to give more to a smaller %?

I actually see it as an increase in the max or no max bc not having negotiations of contracts isn't really in the best interest of the players. This may adversely impact guys like Delly and Moz who hit the lottery but the flip slide is there really is no market for negotiations with great players.

I also see a push for a tiered cap which some owners may fight. They need that and the max to create a more fair market.

Again, I fail to see why the majority of the player's association would get behind money being taken from them to be given to the to 2-5% of the players.

I GET why Lebron James and Stephen Curry would want a higher than 30% max.

i don't know why anyone else would. Whatever percentage you give to them, you take from everyone else.

It's a fair point that the Players Union would advocate for the greater good which is trash players making max money. I guess one would argue that it comes from the owners side. Other league's have caps an no maxes and it works fine and allows for a fair market. The current system has too many loopholes and only benefits a few teams. My issue is with the system more so than with Conley being the league's highest paid player. For example, if I am LA I should be allowed to payarimi@publichouseusa.com somebody whatever I feel like (an actual pitch to get a player). It's the only way to offset the taxes loophole that continues to be exploited. Tax free teams have more money to spend. The system is broken. I would like to hope we can both agree that is ridiculous.

EwingsGlass wrote:

Paris907 wrote:Miami came up with big 3 just a few years back and the league has essentially nixed the concept unless your fortunate enough to have Bird rights. Thus having Melo, Noah and Rose chokes the quality of your rotation and the depth of your bench. IQ of GM needs to go north in a significant way. Otherwise I question whether Briggs #s are correct re Noah and Lee as I believe they are escalating.

Um, the Celts did it before Miami if you recall. Miami 1) had FAs agree to take less (still possible) and 2) still made trades with Toronto and Clevelend to preserve bird rights.

Not sure what action by the NBA changes this?

The Celts were 7 deep that year. They filled in the bench after. Miami had vets flock to them on vet minimum exception contracts. If anything, the fact that these aren,t three max contracts helps us. Specifically next year when we have another $18mm of new cap space.

Only we'll probably have less im thinking if we go over the cap to re-sign Lance and others. That's gonna eat into next years money.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/HowardBeck/status/749995755352489984