NardDogNation wrote:

JayNYC wrote:Real talk... A simple fix would be allowing all teams the option to "Amnesty" one player salary per year. Caps are what they are, and actually do increase the likelihood of increased competition amongst BOTTOM FEEDER teams.. but keeping a dead weight contract, cripples teams!!! This CBA in general has so many flaws, hence the reason for finding varying loopholes to circumvent one clause for another.. SMH

Exactly! I'm a pro-labor guy in most respects but I still can't understand why contracts are still fully guaranteed. In a league where every franchise has been badly burned by a player undeserving of his contract, you would think that THIS would've been the owner's new battlecry with the CBA. Sadly, they are, what most wealthy people are, money-hungry whores whose products/services are a distant 2nd to the bottomline. They have managed to artificially suppress player contracts amidst unprecedented growth and profits for the league. That was evidently their only objective, since they can now have an even larger slice of the pie.

Couldn't have said it any better.. AGREED!

Memphis traded Gay because they wanted to, not had to. They felt Rudy was not the max type player.

OKC had two max players and one had to go. They got good value in return and in the long run also did that right.

Lin got more money and a good opportunity then be bound to the knicks for less money.

The taxes the Net will pay are crazy, but its their money to blow if they want.

It helps if every few years other teams besides the Celtics and Lakers win a chip! Now, a team like the WOlves and Grizz have a legit shot.

Baseball needs to have Pitt, Oakland, KC and others have a legit shot as well!

Bottom line is money and in the long run if the NBA is more interesting the more money is made. ITs about maintaining franchise value and growing it.

Knicks had a revenue advantage for years and years and did little to take advantage of it.

OKC and Heat were constructed under the old ways.

If you can trade off your "Hardens" and get picks and youth you can maintain a very very long successful run! Back in the day the Montreal Canadians sold their vet players to expansion teams wanting to make a splash with big name players and took their draft picks. They were able to mainatain a flow of top tier players thru the draft and built a dynsnasty from it. OKC could have kept Harden to some extent but the role players would have had to been less.

ChuckBuck wrote:Weren't OKC and Heat constructed totally different?

OKC mainly through the draft and Heat through free agency?

They had their guys under contract under the old CBA, harden came up in the new and they needed him with a slight discount. Harden wanted no part of that.

He got his own team, max money in a bigger city and one with good upside then stay as third fiddle to Westbrook and Durant.

Miami got the superfriends who all took a discount. Not sure they could replicate it in the new CBA.

Nardognation looking at CBA as a Knick fan. The window to get this franchise right would have been to let Ewing walk or even better to have traded him in 96' when Nelson took over. That was a long time ago but think how if done right how things could have been with an unlimited amount of money to spend and if done wisely.

Would have taken balls to change the era but Ewing was a major draw for MSG and they did not want to let that revenue walk out the door.

Alway about the short term!

Nalod wrote:I prefer the partial guarantee like the NFL.

Memphis traded Gay because they wanted to, not had to. They felt Rudy was not the max type player.

OKC had two max players and one had to go. They got good value in return and in the long run also did that right.

Lin got more money and a good opportunity then be bound to the knicks for less money.

The taxes the Net will pay are crazy, but its their money to blow if they want.

It helps if every few years other teams besides the Celtics and Lakers win a chip! Now, a team like the WOlves and Grizz have a legit shot.

Baseball needs to have Pitt, Oakland, KC and others have a legit shot as well!

Bottom line is money and in the long run if the NBA is more interesting the more money is made. ITs about maintaining franchise value and growing it.

Knicks had a revenue advantage for years and years and did little to take advantage of it.

OKC and Heat were constructed under the old ways.

If you can trade off your "Hardens" and get picks and youth you can maintain a very very long successful run! Back in the day the Montreal Canadians sold their vet players to expansion teams wanting to make a splash with big name players and took their draft picks. They were able to mainatain a flow of top tier players thru the draft and built a dynsnasty from it. OKC could have kept Harden to some extent but the role players would have had to been less.

I never bought the hype of Rudy Gay but he was very much dealt because of the new ownerships apprehension about paying the luxury tax; same as the Thunder. And I disagree with you completely about the implications of the CBA. You can't just spend if you want to spend. The Nets will have nearly a $100 million tax bill but their ability to use the midlevel exception is inhibited, as well as their ability to perform a sign and trade is as well. Those two things (trades and signings) are two of the three main tools to improve a team, which they'll be handicapped by. That's a big deal in my opinion and does very little toward maintaining parity.

NardDogNation wrote:

Nalod wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:Weren't OKC and Heat constructed totally different?

OKC mainly through the draft and Heat through free agency?

They had their guys under contract under the old CBA, harden came up in the new and they needed him with a slight discount. Harden wanted no part of that.

He got his own team, max money in a bigger city and one with good upside then stay as third fiddle to Westbrook and Durant.

Miami got the superfriends who all took a discount. Not sure they could replicate it in the new CBA.

Nardognation looking at CBA as a Knick fan. The window to get this franchise right would have been to let Ewing walk or even better to have traded him in 96' when Nelson took over. That was a long time ago but think how if done right how things could have been with an unlimited amount of money to spend and if done wisely.

Would have taken balls to change the era but Ewing was a major draw for MSG and they did not want to let that revenue walk out the door.

Alway about the short term!

I'm not sure that letting Ewing go in 96 was the best option but DEFINITELY in 99. In essence, I do agree with you though that the cornerstone of our problems has been the reluctance to say "when" and rebuild. The problem NOW is that even if we did it the right way like OKC, our hands would be forced in surrendering key players (see James Harden) for pennies on the dollar.

OKC/seattle sucked for a few years to get to that "rebuild". The CBA had implications for OKC and Harden for sure. He is a max player and would have had to take about a 3 mil per year "Discount" to stay. I think Rudy Gay as not so immediate but they got big money tied to Randolph and Gasol is basically untouchable. Hollinger is now doing his metric thing in Memphis and the perception is Rudy is not a cornerstone to success for a championship for the money they are committed to.

As for Ewing, by 1999 his wrist was crap and he was a shell of his former self. I used 1996 because he was a free agent at the seasons end and one would have to think Checketts was thinking uptempo which is why Nellie was hired. THis did not jive with Ewing who would see less touch's and hurt his stats to justify his stats. Yeah, ewing was a warrior but he also a tough SOB who wanted his money! Trading ewing at that moment would have caused a riot! In hindsight it the perfect time as we had gotten the most of his career and he was staring to really break down physically. He also could not hold up in Nellies uptempo system! Maybe this is where Checketts and Dolan had their first and fatal debate.

Who would have wanted him and how much we could have returned is a long debate. Shaq had spoken he wanted no part of NY at that time.

The CBA is designed to financially keep players on their teams if owners are willing to pay the tax. If you're financially committed to fielding a winning team and draft well, the new CBA is for you.

NardDogNation wrote:

y2zipper wrote:Harden left because OKC was too cheap to pay the tax and keep him. It's a soft cap and they had an exception but chose not to keep him. He never had to take a discount and was low-balled by OKC. The restricted player movement shouldn't matter when you get three players as good as what they had.

The CBA is designed to financially keep players on their teams if owners are willing to pay the tax. If you're financially committed to fielding a winning team and draft well, the new CBA is for you.

Teams were bitching about paying $70million annually for their teams. You think they'd be comfortable paying that an additional $70 million in taxes alone as a repeat offender? I think not. OKC not keeping had nothing to do with being cheap as it did with practicality. Without him they are teetering on the luxury tax. With him, that $70 million tax bill could become a distinct possibility in the near future.

I think that there are teams that would pay the money for a player that's worth the max, and Harden is well enough above replacement to justify it. It's profit-motivated to let him go. It's not like teams are in dire straights. If your OKC, you could have extended Harden, Durant, Westbrook and Inaka and everyone else should be a rotating door of players who will play below market value.

NardDogNation wrote:

loweyecue wrote:Care to explain this more?

Sadly, they are, what most wealthy people are, money-hungry whores whose products/services are a distant 2nd to the bottomline.

I think 80% of basketball franchises are operated at a net loss. Not sure where this is coming from. Maybe I am wrong but that was my impression, too lazy to look it up though.

You can torture numbers until you get them to say what you want them to say. Do you honestly think that teams like the Hornets would be offering a mediocre player like Tyreke Evans a $54 million contract if they were operating at a loss? Sacramento the same thing for Igoudala? The Bucks $24 million/2yr for Ellis? The proof is in the pudding and I find it hard to believe that this is the case with all of these ridiculous contracts being tossed around for a decade in the NBA. It's the same strawman argument that the wealthy (not rich) use about them supposedly going broke because taxes are too high. Same culprit, different venue.

IDK about Hornets, SacTo definitely runs at a loss. These teams are owned by extremely successful multimillionaires or billionaires who own multiple highly profitable businesses. The basketball teams are just rich people's fancy toys and they are willing to throw a ton of money into these. The Maloof Brothers like Dolan are independently wealthy. They don't need the Kings to make money,it's just part of their brand.