Reply With Quote
I don't like it. I don't want anything to change, or disturb the status quo.
I've had actual nightmares over the ins ution of a hard cap.
I don't like it. I don't want anything to change, or disturb the status quo.
I've had actual nightmares over the ins ution of a hard cap.
Translation: If the Lakers can't dump more into their starting 5 than most NBA teams spend on their entire roster, we're going to be fighting just to make the playoffs.
More, or, less.
I don't qualify 'em. I just tote 'em up.
Haves and the small market franchises.
Get used to a shortened season, if any. Owners are going to squeeze hard.
Older teams, like the Lakers, Celtics, and Spurs, will decline even further because of the wasted year of their older players's declining effectiveness...
In any case, Miami, Thunder, Bulls and possibly Grizz (depending on how Gay turns out) look like the rising young teams that will start owning...
does this mean that Miami is locked as the only super team for the next few years?
the league needs a new villain team now that the old one is dead.
That's no way to talk about the Spurs...Have some respect for the dead.
The proposal seems fine to me. It doesn't prevent a superstar/franchise player from going into free agency and leaving his current team. It only gives that team more incentives for that player to stay. The proposal basically gives a team the ability to offer even more money and an extra year on a contract offer. Basically, it just gives a team an opportunity to really overspend to keep a guy they believe they need to keep. But, for example, considering how LeBron technically took a little less than max money to go to the Heat, the proposal isn't a fullproof way of keeping a player with his current team. It's not like the franchise tag in the NFL. It certainly appears that it would help small market teams but it guarantees nothing.
This is already there on the current CBA, but instead of limiting it to one player, it applies to every guy with an expiring deal. I guess the owners are trying to protect themselves from their own dumb decisions (hey ho Joe Johnson) by limiting this to a single player.
I don't see what's enticing for the players here. Especially if the counter-demand is to get rid of fully guaranteed deals...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
