Comments on: First real tests of new labor deal will be Howard, Paul, Williams

By: rreducla1

rreducla1 — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 07:00:34 +0000

“to”
“disingenuous”

By: rreducla1

rreducla1 — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 06:59:03 +0000

You are saying, essentially, that if a great plyer gets drafted by a small-market team and wants ot leave, he should:

a) Have to stay there, because you say so
or
b) Take a lot less money to leave because you say so
and
c) If he wants to leave, the owner should hurt his own franchise just to spite the guy

And, as usual, you leave out key facts, either because you’re disingenous or just ignorant:

1. Cleveland didn’t get over the top because of management, in spite of a massive payroll. They failed to trigger on the JJ Hickson for Stoudemire deal, taking Antawn Jamison instead, and made dumb signings of Larry Hughes and Donyell Marshall.
2. Duncan has stayed in SA all these years; Durant has already re-upped in OKC through 2016.
3. Like Kurt said, James was leaving anyway and took less than max money to play with James and Bosh. It was an exceptional situation.
4. Like Kurt said, teams will still clear cap space.
5. Orlando, one of these supposedly victimized small markets, has a gigantic payroll. And plays in Florida.

By: wiLQ

wiLQ — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:32:48 +0000

“Which makes Dwight Howard, Deron Williams and Chris Paul — next summer’s big free agents — the real test cases for owners.”
Actually had proposed new rules existed earlier all three of them wouldn’t be free agents until 2013 because of player’s options. I’ve just re-calculated all current NBA contracts as if they were signed under owners’ latest offer and here’s what it would change: http://weaksideawareness.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/nba-players-contracts-under-latest-owners-offer/

By: poorlittlepinkus

poorlittlepinkus — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:01:08 +0000

Too much Lebron in this league.
Not enough Tim Dunkin.
’nuff said!

By: Chris Fiorentino

Chris Fiorentino — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:59:34 +0000

I made this point in the other thread, but it is probably more apropos here…the small market owners need to stand on their principles and NOT do any sign-and-trades with the teams that their stars want to go to. Granted, it is hard to just let them go for nothing, but in reality, the team getting the star will be drafting so late, that is that 28th pick worth it to give in to these guys? I would say no.

The only way to avoid allowing your star player to go wherever he wants is to do one of the following:

1) Insist on a “franchise tag” which will never happen

2) Make him take far less money to leave

#2 should be what they do, but the problem is that at the end of the day, the owners wimp out, like Gilbert did, and allow the transaction to be a sign-and-trade so they can save face.

Granted, 2 first rounders, 2 second rounders, and a large trade exception is a lot to give up on principle. But don’t do the deal, then whine about how they players can do whatever they want the following year. Had you stood firm, LeBron would have been making less money for less years, and the cap hit would have been more on the Heat. You can’t have it both ways, Dan Gilbert.

By: therealhtj

therealhtj — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:55:38 +0000

You left out the part about sign and trades. Bron and Bosh still got six year deals didn’t they as a result of the S&T’s. Those same S&T’s that the players were so adamant about keeping in the new CBA. Without those S&T’s, superstars would have to take a big chunk less guaranteed money to switch teams. They’d probably eventually make it up barring injury, but if the DWil example holds, it’ll give them a little more to think about when it comes up.

What I don’t understand is how the 430 or so other players in the NBPA, er trade association, who’ll never get a max deal via S&T or anything resembling it, let that affect their position?