I miss the tripleheaders in the regular season and quadrupleheaders in the playoffs and I miss Walton, but I sure don't miss Snapper Jones, Tom Hammonds, Bob Costas, Doug Collins, Isiah Thomas, and that John Tesh intro.Miss the NBA on NBC days
And by his sidekick, to be honest.
I know Westbrook had an amazing series, as well, but it was low efficiency and, ultimately, he suc bed to his flopping, chucking ways in Game 6.
More importantly, look at those numbers from Durant. Then consider he is typically not the one with the ball in his hands in the clutch due to Chuckbrook's propensity to TRY to take over games.
Does he do it? Occasionally. But as an opposing fan, I'd much rather watch him try then see the ball go to the reigning MVP.
That's a strong assertion. Durant's arguibly the best offensive player we've seen since Michael.
No NBC?
Faried just got $60m, so yep we gotta pay KL some nice dollars regardless.
so how much can we afford to pay Ayres?
The league would be really dumb to make a gigantic leap in the salary cap over one or two seasons because some big market team will use that blip to create a super team of stars that no other team would be able to surpass when things eventually settle after the cap raise. It'd also be a huge blow to teams who have carefully looked after their cap space, like the Spurs.
Its not the leagues choice what the cap is. Its apart of the CBA. Its tied to total income of the league divided by 30 teams.
True, but there's been talk about mechanisms to control the cap increase, spreading it over X number of seasons for example.
Denver is having to walk that back. The extension, as announced, violates the CBA. You CANNOT give a 5 year extension at less than the Maximum salary, which his announced deal was. I doubt they want to MAX him, so that deal will drop to 4 years, and a big chunk of that money, likely 10-12 M will drop right off.
Can you imagine being the fan of a team that has a front office with so little understanding of the CBA?
It's so comical it's hardly believable.
The players would be stupid to allow that, especially since the owners have been quoted as saying they're going to lock them out again in 2017. Any money they give up in "smoothing" the cap up, they'll likely never see again.
Don't think the players union would even be asked about this, they would only need to structure the actual TV deal in a manner they see fit, i.e. not starting at say 2bn, but at 1 and with higher annual increases or something like that. Players will be ed again of course, and if there's a 2017 lockout they'll be ed even more.
It's already structured as increasing from start to finish, and Silver has already hinted about "smoothing" anyway.
Doubtful. The players are already talking about getting back to the table for negotiations. They have an out of this CBA after next season ( i believe).
i posted an article a couple of months ago about the possibility of expansion that has the added benefit to both sides. Up to 30 more jobs for the players and each team won't have as massive of a cap (instead of BRI divided by 30 it would be divided by 32). That could be something that comes up down the road.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=237823
Teams should start making decision using this new KEY information that will affect caps.
Obviously it will be increasing over the length of the deal, but I'm not aware of a source showing the exact numbers. The last year of the current TV contract is at around 1bn, the first year of the new TV deal could be 2bn with modest annual raises, or 1.5bn or 1.1bn with higher raises or whatever way they structure it. This is where the huge cap increase could happen if they don't smooth it.
You think the players will lock themselves out? When was the last time this has happened? It's called a lockout for a reason and I wouldn't expect the players union to cause it - only the owners might want to but it's unlikely IMO.
A lot of teams already have - Spurs, Suns, LeBron, etc.
And he used to play defense early in his career.
Last edited by Obstructed_View; 10-08-2014 at 05:05 AM. Reason: forgot to put winky ;) in post.
Good points, and you're probably right. If anyone other than Lebron is worth that money, it's KD. The point I was getting at was more that it's been extended so that you don't have guys like Rudy Gay or Rashard Lewis or even Dwight Howard making the max, at least not right away. It's a moving target though. I wasn't trying to debate the merits of Durant, he's just the best non-Lebron max player that came to mind. If there's ANY debate whether or not he's a max player, then it pretty much means guys like Joe Johnson aren't in that stratosphere.
Something else to note is the unlikely event that Davis may just accept his QO in 2016, because the difference between what he'd make on an extension and what he'd make by signing a new deal after the new money kicks in could be massive. For a player of his caliber, it might make sense to risk injury. The only saving grace for New Orleans is the Rose-max, which has a chance to keep the numbers close.
All this means that 2017 may well be the Summer of the Unibrow. And the Spurs will have a max slot just sittin' around...
Last edited by Chinook; 10-08-2014 at 05:22 AM.
Not only Davis, but also Beal, Lillard and Drummond from that same draft class would be smart to do it. They'll also earn some pretty penny on their QO, as they're drafted so high. Over $9 mil for Davis, 7-8 for the others. Not a bad gamble to make.
Today's ty NBA doesnt deserve NBC
The new deal average $2.66 billion per season. The league could raise the steadily raise the cap in order to prepare teams for the '17-18 season.
It would be a "strike" not a lockout it the players were to opt out the the deal. The players didn't strike last time around, the owners locked them out. I could see both sides be willing to renegotiate the CBA. Players were already warned to prepare for another work stoppage last season by the players union.
They got screwed over in the last CBA. It would be silly to think they wouldn't want to get back to the table A.S.A.P. The owners got the players to drop for 57% in BRI to 50%. If the players still had that split, the players could have been looking at a salary cap of around 100,000,000.
The players would like to have "max salary" caps removed (based on years of experience)I'd imagine the owners would want a hard cap (that was floated around the last CBA, where the cap would be raised significantly but, teams couldn't exceed that figure no matter what). In order to keep big market teams from going towards 100 million without going into the luxury tax.
According to PTR the cap could jump to 88 million in 17-18. Bad teams like Sacramento and Phily would have to reach the minimum salary floor 90% of the salary cap ($79,200,000). Or they would have to divide the difference to the players on roster. So i could see that being changed as well.
Exactly - they'd be crazy if they don't create a mechanism for smoothing.
When was the last time there was a strike in any major sport? 20 years ago? Players are very very unlikely to do that.
Players got screwed and they'll happily accept the new TV deal without needing to renegotiate as they'll be getting significantly more money as well. If the owners are unwilling to negotiate a change the players will not dare to strike as they'll be taken to the cleaners.
No they don't. And there's already a hard cap for all practical means and purposes tbh.
Philly will happily pay the difference to their roster, just as they'll be doing this season.
might not make sense for davis to risk injury considering his already spotty injury history
but hey anything that allows for even a 0.01% higher chance of the spurs landing davis is fine by me
Splitter, Davis, Leonard, and Green would be one of the most monstrous defensive cores in a LONG time
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
