Down the road, the league needs to reward teams for developing and retaining their own players. They need to kill off superteams and Laker en lement once and for all.
I don’t think this is realistic (bc the Spurs don’t have the cash), but based on this line of thinking, could the new CBA incentivize a team like the Spurs to go into the Apron territory to build a super strong core, because we have lots of draft assets and we are good at utilizing them?
It sounds beneficial for the Spurs tbh. We have a team full of role players. We are amazing at finding role players in the draft. It’s why I don’t want to pay KJ 20 million a year when we can probably produce another version of him for cheap in a draft pick. Vassell I’m still on the fence on but it sounds like we could offer him a lower contract extension than normal bc we don’t have to worry about other teams maxing him.
Victor gets the max. We find a Jamal Murray and then just kinda fill out the roster like Denver did. It won’t lead to a dynasty but it should get us a le or two
No team may be better placed with the new CBA than the Spurs. Teams that have to gamble big contracts on semi-stars are going to get crushed. Teams with multiple budding stars are going to have to choose among them.
The Spurs may have some of those hard decisions along the way, but they are the rare team with a single superstar, full stop. They have no bad contracts, and Keldon's isn't just not bad, it's declining year over year. Plus they have a ton of cap room and lots of developing players on reasonable salary, not to mention draft picks.
KJ's deal is not ideal but it is declining and might provide good enough value to offload before it expires.
The time to game the cap is during Wemby's rookie contract and first extension. He will provide insane value during those years (in terms of salary per wins produced), assuming of course he lives up to the hype.
Once he gets the DPE it will be harder to build around him, though if he gets that DPE he should be a perennial MVP candidate at that point.
Pat Riley says hi!
We don’t overpay ours. Miami’s fatal flaw.Pat Riley says hi!
only at the end of their careers but thats mainly compensating earlier years when they were in their prime ... you made a good point
Better cap heads can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that under the new CBA, cap increases will be limited to 10% of the total cap that previous year. And in the event that the 10% increase doesn't cover the player's share of total BRI (team and players split Basketball Related Income 51/49), then the league cuts a check for the difference to the player's union, which will distribute it among it's members. So no more crazy payouts to a single free agent class, but the players still get their piece of the pie ASAP if there is a massive jump over a single year.
I didn’t know that. Thanks.
That’s my understanding too. Everyone was pissed at how the one time bump happened last time
I didn’t know that. Thanks.
Good overview of a lot of the new changes from a couple of the big brain CBA people.
it probably will decimate the maxes over time and pull down salaries in free agency.
The prior Spurs model will be the way to go, hard as it may be.
Because going by memory the Spurs never had 2 max players, even when Kawhi got maxed Duncan had already transitioned down.
Parker never got the max iirc, neither did Ginobili.
What teams won't be inclined to do is what Denver has done, maxing Murray and Porter. It doesn't make sense to just max every young player who can score 20 a night. This will eventually focus the max for smart teams to only be used on MVP type players.
Giannis yes, Middleton and Jrue no. Two maxes makes sense only with 2 MVP level players or 2 hall of famers. No more maxes for Tobias Harris.
Dumb teams that will still operate this way and find themselves screwed.
Spurs don't really have to adjust because they already are operating like they would never hit the 2nd apron because they're so cheap and broke.
The reason I think it will hold down free agency is that teams won't want to spend big on players who aren't superstars when they know the tax will be right around the corner. I could be wrong, but we'll see with Keldon Johnson over time. I suspect that when his contract is over, he probably won't be in line for a raise (as a % of the cap). What team is going to spend that kind of money on a Keldon Johnson when their own guys are going to need maxes?
Spurs have their 1 max guy now, Wemby. They shouldn't be too focused on keeping caproom for a possible max free agent, that's a bad idea, though I suppose as long as that contract ended before a Wemby max extension kicked in it would be fine.
But it does make sense for them to sign and trade for players to WIN NOW. Why? Because I think that it's hard to get players to buy into the idea of taking less when their next deal comes up without a le in their pocket. Manu and Parker wanted to win and had experienced winning.
Go get some good players now who can play in a finals series without jerking around the payroll. That means yes to a guy like Brook Lopez on a 2 or 3 year deal, no to a guy like Jordan Poole with his 4 year deal.
I also wonder if the increased player share of BRI will help offset some of the sting felt be the middle class player.
If that’s the objective then draft Bronny with one of your 3 picks next year and bring the old man in. He obviously has gas left in the tank.
I agree. Lebron would catch zero heat, might even get lauded in the media. "He's sacrificing for his son, and to be with the greatest coach of all time who he respects so much!".
Besides it’s always fun to screw with the Lakers. The ultimate f@ck them up the a$$ move is to sign Kyrie into cap space. Then execute a pre-arranged trade with the Lakers when it’s allowable sending out Kyrie and getting back Reaves, Rui and Bamba plus a 26 swap and 27 unprotected pick then snatch LeBron next year.
Last edited by buttsR4rebounding; 05-30-2023 at 02:25 PM.
Except it's not about what Brown is worth its about what is the alternative. Boston will operate over the cap so its not like they have an option of paying Brown 40 to 50 million or spending 40 to 50 million somewhere else. It's pay Brown 40 to 50 million or maybe have around mid level exception money.
If all things were equal they probably would rather have 2 or maybe 3 players with that money than Brown. But not signing Brown doesn't free up enough money for them to get those 2 or 3 players...so the logical thing to do is sign him or sign and trade him to a team for said players.
true they probably resign him. But it's not a given that they resign him for the supermax.
instead of just assuming every team is going to have 2 max guys and then having to struggle to build around that, i think teams are going to have to be more selective before handing out a max to a player just because he's their second best player and "thats the thing to do."
maybe bradley beal shouldnt have gotten a supermax just because thats what he was eligible for. maybe zach lavine, a really good player, isn't a 40 mil per year player that you pay the max to "just because".
darius garland. very fine player. is he a 40+ mil player? in the old cba, sure. in the new one, maybe not. think the calculus will change there as much as it will for how much you can pay the 3rd, 4th, 5th guy, etc
everybody knew ayton was good player but not a max player. but then phoenix went ahead and matched the big offer he got anyway just because the cap allowed them to and "thats what you do" when you have a good player.
now teams will actually get penalized for handing out max contracts to players that arent max players
celtics shoud probably trade jaylen brown and let somebody else figure out how to build a contender with brown getting supermax money. hes a very good player. but wont justify his contract imho
Last edited by spurraider21; 05-30-2023 at 07:26 PM.
in bostons case right now, sure thats the case. and i do think its odd that the new cba takes effect so quickly, and not giving teams time to really plan/prepare for it, especially without another amnesty clause situation.
but going forward, maybe a team like the celtics wouldnt have 3 separate guys making 18 mil per year in addition to their big 2. theyve built their team to be expensive. was brogdon really worth 22.5 mil to them this year? or maybe having 7 separate guys making over 10 mil wont be tenable anymore. its going to change teambuilding strats overall
you also have teams like the clippers with 2 supermax guys but their roster literally has 9 guys making 10m per year. punishing lazy teambuilding is ok by me
Last edited by spurraider21; 05-30-2023 at 08:11 PM.
i do think there should be some relief tho. like if the delta between a max and supermax contract is, say, 15 million, that 15 million shouldnt count toward the luxury tax. or maybe only some portion of it should. thats a fair point simmons makes in that vid. its pretty wild how advantageous OKC's contract with SGA is just because he got his all nba not AFTER he signed and not before. and now thats locked in for 4 more seasons and he's a bargain
I've been saying the supermax is a horrible idea, and it would've been nice for the league to have phased it out with the new control mechanisms. I definitely agree that teams will be more selective with their max deals, but I think folks assuming they'll only have one-rookie max are off-base. They'll still be able to afford two unless both of those players are Rose-max guys. It's when you start having to pay mid-tier players salaries at the top of their fields that you really start getting into trouble. These changes stop trades more than anything else.
I don't think the league has any interest in rewarding teams building through the draft, and I don't think they should. I think the league likes player movement, especially if they can prevent consolidation. The Spurs timing their contracts and getting buy-in and sacrifice to sign Aldridge is something I think the league would really like. The new rules create this scenario by not allowing too many very good players to team up anymore. What they'd hate is the Spurs cobbling together contracts to trade for another star and then refilling that talent by encouraging players to force buyouts. That's what's been made unsustainable by this model. The Spurs saving a max slot and getting a good player to come over is definitely something I'd be interested in if I thought there was a player worth such a contract out there. Re-signing every decent player ala Denver in the post-Melo era and the G&G Grizz is something that was, is and will always be unsustainable. That doesn't mean not to sign Vassell (obviously), but the idea of trying to grab more than a couple of such players is not very well thought out. They should definitely be looking for another max player, because the difference between them and a guy making twice the MLE is much greater than the difference between a guy making twice the MLE and a smart role-player free agent on a value contract.
yeah, supermax is too punitive. posted that just before your response. its pretty wild how much better OKC's deal with SGA is than boston's future deal with Brown assuming he supermaxes.
i think the main legitimate grievance with the new cba is how quickly all these rules take effect without an amnesty provision or any sort of relief
Last edited by spurraider21; 05-30-2023 at 08:02 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
