What's new
By:

Durant's decision has all but assured a long-term lockout

NUMBERICA said:
The Warriors will own Bird Rights on all of their players except Durant. The only question is simply how much money they're willing to spend (provided these two years for Durant go well enough).
Click to expand...
The cap likely won't be an issue for 3 more years for GS, provided Livingston and Iggy don't demand HUGE raises.

Also, they'll have KD's Bird rights in 3 years.
 
GVC said:
GS has their Bird rights, so they can keep them indefinitely. They'll also have the MLE, and only owe one of their future 1sts -- to Utah in 2017. If they can turn Kevin Looney, Jason Thompson and their remaining picks into a decent 5, they're set for the next 3 years -- after which they'll have to re-sign Klay.
Click to expand...

Thompson is gone, Looney is trash. Their only hope is that their recent draftee Damian Jones doesn't bust (he's very much a project). Pat McCaw could be intriguing for them as well.
 
Time out. If KD is signing for only two years, doesn't that mean they won't have Bird Rights on him?
 
I also don't see it as impossible for other GMs to collude and freeze out GSW
 
GVC said:
The cap likely won't be an issue for 3 more years for GS, provided Livingston and Iggy don't demand HUGE raises.

Also, they'll have KD's Bird rights in 3 years.
Click to expand...

But he signed a 2-year, and they'll be well above the cap by then. I have to be missing something here.
 
I'm confused. Do all parties understand that a 1+1 makes it basically impossible to continue the relationship beyond the second year?
 
Last edited:
b_line said:
I have been saying it for a while now, but I just don't see the warriors enjoying health and stability for very long. Curry is going to have ankle problems again, durantula has a screw in his giant *** foot, and like [MENTION=848]dalamon[/MENTION] said, the role players will be gone after curry gets dem checks.
Click to expand...

A bunch of role players will already be gone. Barnes, Ezeli, Speights, Bogut, Livingston, Barbosa, and Clark are all up.
 
Stifle Tower said:
hmmm...so a ring next year and then Durant leaves before the tax man cometh?
Click to expand...

Nah those guys will be together for a while. In a year or two the vet minimum guys will be back on the market... They aren't there this year because of the cap spike.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Nah those guys will be together for a while. In a year or two the vet minimum guys will be back on the market... They aren't there this year because of the cap spike.
Click to expand...

But if Durant becomes a FA after 1 or 2 years, don't they have to fit him under the cap because they won't have his Bird rights? They'd need a discount from Curry to do that. Guess the rest of the league has to hope for an injury since W's won't have depth.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Nah those guys will be together for a while. In a year or two the vet minimum guys will be back on the market... They aren't there this year because of the cap spike.
Click to expand...

They won't have Bird Rights. They'd have to be under the soft cap which means they'll have to dump a bunch of salary or won't be able to sign him.

Good thing for them that they'll catch this before he signs the actual deal. Because if they don't, that is insanely stupid.
 
NUMBERICA said:
I'm confused. Do all parties understand that a 1+1 makes it basically impossible to continue to relationship beyond the second year?
Click to expand...
It's a bit strange. I haven't looked at cap holds for their 2017 free agents -- Livingston, Iggy, Curry -- but with the cap jumping another ~$14mil next season, they should be able to re-sign Durant next summer if he opts out, retain Curry and at least one of the other two.
 
GVC said:
It's a bit strange. I haven't looked at cap holds for their 2017 free agents -- Livingston, Iggy, Curry -- but with the cap jumping another ~$14mil next season, they should be able to re-sign Durant next summer if he opts out, retain Curry and at least one of the other two.
Click to expand...
Good point. That's probably why they did a 1+1. He can get a bigger deal next year, along with Curry. And Klay and Draymind are cheaper max players. They'll be able to keep all 4 if they fill the roster with cheaper depth (vet ring chasers and rookies). Iggy is aging and Livingston is expendable. Just renounce those guys and have the league minimum as the cap hold for several roster spots.
 
I guarantee there will be a long lockout. Owners should demand a hard cap. No max contracts. And franchise tags. Players won't accept that. I wouldn't be shocked to see a year before the lockout would end.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
nateboz said:
I guarantee there will be a long lockout. Owners should demand a hard cap. No max contracts. And franchise tags. Players won't accept that. I wouldn't be shocked to see a year before the lockout would end.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
A hard cap means less money for players. No max contracts means less money for 90%+ of the players. The only thing that makes sense is a franchise tag. That's the only thing they could hope to negotiate. And since they should give up a significant share of BRI, I think it should be on the table. It is literally the only measure that could be taken. A hard cap does nothing to keep a player from taking less money, and no max contracts makes the league even more about the owners most able and willing to spend (a decided, locked in logistical advantage for the major markets [who have finally been losing ground on their power]).

A hard cap + no max contract might work, but they'd have to basically scrap everything from every previous CBA and start from scratch. THAT would be a long lockout. Furthermore, it would make maintaining continuity almost impossible, and that door swings this way too. And I can't see the players union going for it.
 
nateboz said:
I guarantee there will be a long lockout. Owners should demand a hard cap. No max contracts. And franchise tags. Players won't accept that. I wouldn't be shocked to see a year before the lockout would end.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I just don't see an NFL style cap.
Especially with the new money coming in.
 
NUMBERICA said:
A hard cap means less money for players. No max contracts means less money for 90%+ of the players. The only thing that makes sense is a franchise tag. That's the only thing they could hope to negotiate. And since they should give up a significant share of BRI, I think it should be on the table. It is literally the only measure that could be taken. A hard cap does nothing to keep a player from taking less money, and no max contracts only makes the league about the owners most willing to spend.
Click to expand...
Max contracts are the reason the NBA is a mess. Then you have rich teams spending millions over the cap. Small teams can't afford to overspend. The NBA is not a league for any team to win a championship. I'm actually ok with losing a season if it changes things.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
Hard to side with anything the owners claim after watching the absurd dollars being given to mid-tier players. As long as people keep filling the stands and buying merchandise, nothing will change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top