NAOS
Well-Known Member
For example,
The Lakers will be able to buy themselves back into relevance. Kobe's contract will expire, and they'll have ****loads of space. In other words, they could go from total abomination to flushed with talent.
NBA Statement: NBAPA will not agree to smoothing the salary cap
- Thread starter vegas
- Start date
For example,
The Lakers will be able to buy themselves back into relevance. Kobe's contract will expire, and they'll have ****loads of space. In other words, they could go from total abomination to flushed with talent.
candrew
Well-Known Member
This is all about the never ending lack of trust between the players and management. While not smoothing out the cap may hurt competition and the overall the product, the bottom line is after the lock out when 22 of the 30 owners were crying poverty through creative accounting, the players are not willing to defer one dime to the owners - and in the end, I can't blame them
candrew
Well-Known Member
That's if they're willing to sign a long term deal - my guess is we see a lot of one year contracts this summer.
Beer
Well-Known Member
When this happens, and it will happen .... I will kill myself. Kidding I won't but I will be much more vocal whenever I see some dick wad in a laker Jersey.
I don't believe it will help or hurt. The salary cap is just a number. Salaries will go up across the board, but ultimately all the teams still have the same restraints both on the minimum and maximum salary cap.
The sudden change will create a windfall for players that happen to have their contracts up at the right time. There will be a lot of movement initially as players try to maximize their salary at that time. But ultimately the league will settle into the new numbers and everything will be the same but with bigger numbers.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
it will lubricate movement toward larger markets (more desirable places for the majority of NBA players) across the board. That one facet/phenomenon of this overall change is already enough to declare smaller markets losers. Sorry bud. I feel the pain, too.
Coach Ellis
Well-Known Member
Maybe, but the luxury tax is still going to be prohibitive to just maxing out everyone. Jazz fans need to get used to the idea of Favors, Gobert, Hayward and Exum as the core, because there's a good chance those 4 get massive contracts to stay in Utah. And then fill in around them. Bird rights for the next few seasons are going to be HUGE as large markets become flush with cap space to try to lure players away. The Jazz are fortunate that they can pay Hayward and Favors more (and with an extra season as well) and that they'll have the right to match anything Rudy or Dante are offered. The cap spike is going to hit right when the Jazz core will be coming together and contending. Hopefully the Jazz manage their money in a way that allows them to be contenders. That's one of the major reasons that we should celebrate the Kanter trade. Utah sheds his salary and attitude to make room for "team" guys who fit the system. I like a developing Core much more than trying to buy a ring.
I just fail to see the situation as anything more than a one-time ripple. Salaries will be going up. Some larger market teams will be able to make some very big offers to a few select players, but the teams that the players are on will be able to offer them much more for the same reason. This also evaporates after that first year. Teams are still required to spend 90% of the salary cap so that money will be swallowed up by these big contracts. I don't see it being a big deal. At least, I don't see it being much different than how things already are.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
If every free agent were restricted, then your post would make a lot more sense. The whole "unrestricted" thing bungles your point in a major way.
Also, any systems theorist will tell you that one time ripples can alter the system entirely, depending on the ripple. There's no doubt that this will re-distribute the talent in the league. That's what the money is doing: BUYING talented services. My claims are that the re-distribution will favor larger markets, and that, regardless of the number of "ripples", this re-distribution will be significant.
Your posts aren't changing my mind.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Well, an UFA's previous team can offer a better contract under the CBA than a different team. That part is accurate.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
We'll see. It might not be set in stone yet.
My point is and has always been that it's not good for all the players. It's great for Lebron James and a few others. The other players need to pull their heads out their asses and get off LeBron's jock. They are fools if they go a long with this. If they do, I bet they all start complaining in hindsight when they realize they made a mistake. It's sad that they fail to see it yet.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
I wonder what the hell is going on there and why players aren't speaking up. What do they have to lose?
This could get interesting. We could see the union start to have problems from within.
I guess I feel the same then. Your argument isn't just that bigger markets have more influence in the free agent market. I mean, everyone knows that. You're saying that this change in the salary cap gives them an even bigger advantage. I just don't see it. The numbers will change, but the advantage remains the same.
green
Well-Known Member
This is a different NBA than you old people are used to. LeBron went to Cleveland. Howard spurned LA for Houston. Bosh stayed in Miami over Houston. Duncan never left SA. Big markets definitely have a big pull...but it wasn't the end all be all it once was. Oh, and all the big market teams suck.
If you are Durant, do you leave a team that can win it all to go to LA for less money than you'd get staying in OKC? I don't know, but it isn't the slam dunk leave small markets for big markets anymore.
Free Agents in 2016:
A: Kevin Durant, LeBron
B: Al Horford, Joakim Noah, Dirk Nowitzki, Dwight Howard, Kobe Bryant, Damian Lillard
There are two players that are franchise changers: Durant and LeBron. Those two make you a contender no matter how bad you are. LeBron probably isn't leaving Cleveland. Durant might leave OKC, but he'd be leaving a lot of money on the table to leave OKC.
So, if you are LA, your hope is to get Durrant and pair him with Kobe and Noah.
That's about it as far as big market hopes go. Maybe go watch Anthony shoot it 30 times a night in NYC?
What happens if Durant stays in OKC, because he doesn't want to leave Westbrook to go play with Kobe?
Then large market teams are SCREWED. BUT, they will have to do SOMETHING to appease their fans. So, then they start handing out max deals to players like Noah, Horford, and older players. That isn't going to help an LA out. That will screw an LA over, because now they will be good enough for the playoffs, but not good enough to attract a big free agent in 2017 and not bad enough for the draft.
Anyhow, I don't think this will be that big of a deal for two reasons:
There aren't that many "superstar" level players on the market
and
players can earn a lot more money staying with their team than leaving. And the endorsement deals aren't that different city to city anymore. You can still get a 200 million dollar shoe deal staying in OKC.
What would you do? Make 350 million competing for titles in OKC, or make 375 million losing in LA?
What will give large market teams a big advantage is the luxury tax. They can pay to make a mistake with an Horford or Noah. Small market teams can't.
If you are Durant, do you leave a team that can win it all to go to LA for less money than you'd get staying in OKC? I don't know, but it isn't the slam dunk leave small markets for big markets anymore.
Free Agents in 2016:
A: Kevin Durant, LeBron
B: Al Horford, Joakim Noah, Dirk Nowitzki, Dwight Howard, Kobe Bryant, Damian Lillard
There are two players that are franchise changers: Durant and LeBron. Those two make you a contender no matter how bad you are. LeBron probably isn't leaving Cleveland. Durant might leave OKC, but he'd be leaving a lot of money on the table to leave OKC.
So, if you are LA, your hope is to get Durrant and pair him with Kobe and Noah.
That's about it as far as big market hopes go. Maybe go watch Anthony shoot it 30 times a night in NYC?
What happens if Durant stays in OKC, because he doesn't want to leave Westbrook to go play with Kobe?
Then large market teams are SCREWED. BUT, they will have to do SOMETHING to appease their fans. So, then they start handing out max deals to players like Noah, Horford, and older players. That isn't going to help an LA out. That will screw an LA over, because now they will be good enough for the playoffs, but not good enough to attract a big free agent in 2017 and not bad enough for the draft.
Anyhow, I don't think this will be that big of a deal for two reasons:
There aren't that many "superstar" level players on the market
and
players can earn a lot more money staying with their team than leaving. And the endorsement deals aren't that different city to city anymore. You can still get a 200 million dollar shoe deal staying in OKC.
What would you do? Make 350 million competing for titles in OKC, or make 375 million losing in LA?
What will give large market teams a big advantage is the luxury tax. They can pay to make a mistake with an Horford or Noah. Small market teams can't.
vegas
Well-Known Member
yep my personal thought it Bron has been seeing himself up for this for a while now. He and cp3 gain $ at the expense of the scrubs and anybody under contract. I can't imagine those players getting shafted don't speak out against this at some point.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
....hopefully, it will result in a long, long, long, long lockout of the players!
Why would you hope for that? So the billionaire owners can gain even more?
NAOS
Well-Known Member
Not all classes of players are equally impacted by this. In other words, the distribution of talent will be registered differently amongst "superstars", "all-stars", "above RPM players", "role players", etc. Think of the Trevor Bookers of the world. Would he still have come to Utah if he had an equal offer from a big market team that was suddenly flush with cash? Probably not. And, like it or not, Booker has been an important part of our team this year.
Also, free agency, by definition, makes it harder to keep teams together. A small market team simply can't afford to pay the premium for all of their players just in order to keep them. That doesn't happen in the real world.
Plus, you know the superstars and all-stars will form a couple of superteams. That's fate. It just takes one or two of those to put a glass ceiling on the hopes of a small market team like the Jazz. That's all. Easing would have helped limit the formation of superteams.
This is all bad news for the jazz.
Last edited:
Coach Ellis
Well-Known Member
2016 is when the Cap Increase is expected to spike. . .
Gordon Hayward and Derrick Favors will both be UFA, but the Jazz have their Bird Rights and can offer them more money than anyone else. . . I'm expecting a 4 or 5 year extension for both of them.
Rudy Gobert will likely command a 4 or 5 year max deal in 2017.
Dante Exum will likely command one in 2018.
The Jazz will still have their rookies from this year under cheap contracts, as well as any European players (Tomic/Pliess/Neto) that they might bring over this offseason. Guys who will come cheaper on their first contract with the Jazz than they would if they were operating as UFA on the open market (especially Tomic).
And no matter how much money gets thrown around over the next two years, there will always be super teams. The simple fact is that when the market stabilizes, the stars will command a larger percentage of the cap and there's only so much money to go around for one team. There might be a small window for teams to either stockpile players or hoard cap space to draw stars in FA down the road. . . but counting on that is not as easy as I think some people believe it will be.
Winning teams have an advantage, no matter what the market.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
I understand what you're saying, and I'm sympathetic to many of your points. But you yourself admit that the ripple effect this has will take time to stabilize. I've been implying that that period of stabilization will directly correspond to the high-point of productivity for certain players. Those could be our players' windows. For the players, teams, and fans who are kept out of the glory land because of this instability: do you think they'll care if the market will eventually stabilize?