Except that Donuts would then be taking an enormous risk when he could have a lucrative contract in his back pocket. What if he (God forbid) suffered from the "i" word next season? It could be unconnected to his back and still be career damaging. Unless another team is offering something better this off-season (this is all a speculative scenario, naturally), he'd be nuts to pass on a deal like that, in my humble opinion. It's a guaranteed $30 million, DD, with the promise of much more in year 4, either from the Rockets or from someone else.
DaDakota, In all sorts of ways it makes sense to do a one yr deal, like Durant did. But the Rockets don't want that, so he won't get a 1yr unless he plays hardball with the QO. We should be talking about what it takes to prevent him from signing it. Are you saying $44m / 4yrs with last year not guaranteed but renegotiation after 3yrs like Harden is available is not enough?
Because of the big spending this year, the cap projection is not as high next year. It is currently scheduled to only go up 8M from 94M to 102M.
I don't believe the Rockets will offer what it would take, and they probably shouldn't. Morey seems to have a line in the sand on all players and if they cross it, he lets them walk - Dragic for example. I think DMo's line is probably a bridge too far, he can probably get 15+ next year if he proves healthy - so why would he go for 2m more this year when it could cost him 30+M in the long run? I think the only thing holding this up is his agent trying to get an offer that forces the Rockets hand....and there are not many teams with significant cap room left. DD
I had heard it was going up to 108m or here it says as high as 110m, (Edit) - ah here is a memo from Silver about 102m Thus next year all teams will have 8m more in cap room to spend and Dmo will be an UFA - making him more valuable. DD
After a new CBA is negotiated the new cap with higher splits given to the players will most likely be substantially higher than 102 million. These projections aren't taking a new CBA into account. Players are going to get a bigger piece of the pie.
Agreed, although the NBA managed to "freeze" the salary cap during the first year of the 2011 CBA, and the second year of the CBA had a guaranteed floor (since the players had taken such a steep cut in that deal). Perhaps the owners remind the union of this and attempt (and probably succeed) in freezing/capping the resulting salary cap during the first 1-2 seasons of the new CBA. Remember, the players would still end up getting their increased piece of the pie from the league via a huge check to the union at the end of the season, to be split up amongst the players as the union sees fit. This would just be the equivalent of the "smoothing" the league tried to implement before. The union had no obligation to accept it before, but they might have to this time if there is a lockout and collective bargaining ongoing.
Oh there WILL be a lockout. Soon. I'm looking forward to the next "amnesty" technique that the league comes up with to help rid teams of the horrible contracts that undeserving players will get over the next few offseasons.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">What's up <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RedNation?src=hash">#RedNation</a>! I have 2 signed bobble heads to give away.RT this and follow my Instagram @donatas_motiejunas <a href="https://t.co/C9bxnBlTcf">pic.twitter.com/C9bxnBlTcf</a></p>— Donatas Motiejunas (@DonatasMot) <a href="https://twitter.com/DonatasMot/status/761950242044542976">August 6, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I disagree. The owners are making money hand over fist, and the only way they could jeopardize that would be if a prolonged lockout cost the league games in 2017-18. Odds are that there will be a lockout but, as in 2005, it'll be relatively short-lived and no portion of the season will be lost. I expect the players to gain back SOME additional percentage of BRI. Probably not the 57% they had under the 2005 CBA, but probably more than the 49-51% range they currently have. I just think the resulting salary cap increase in 2017-18 (and maybe in 2018-19, too) will probably be "smoothed" to avoid an even more exaggerated situation to this summer's cap increase.
Hate to contribute to derailing this thread with CBA stuff, but we are bored, likely no news this weekend, and nothing to talk about except DMo's bobblehead -- Did he sign the bobblehead, too, or did he only sign the box? Why are we calling it a "Lockout." Owners got what the want last time, just negotiate for renewal (with technical loophole tweaks) and force a Strike. If they lockout this time, they we look very greedy...vs making the players manage the PR mess of Striking. Owners clearly can't justify 49-51% of BRI, they fooled the fans last time thinking they were broke. This time they just need to sit and say "we just want to renew". Fans are suckers for the whole owner whining about money thing and blaming the rich entertainers for it. Never ceases to amaze me how many fans side with the owners "because they are business men." No, this is their billionaire hobby.
After all of the insane contracts thrown around this off-season, the players have no cause to complain about wanting more. If they strike, people will be very much against the players for being greedy.....well except for those who seem to think that the players who are in between the top .01% and top .0005% of wage earners in the US represent them. Those people always argue that the players deserve more no matter how much they make.
Owners did not deserve the 49-51% they got by forcing a lockout. That was proven. They were dicks for doing it. Nothing that happens now can change the fact it was proven that they were not broke and they lied, at the fans' expense by ruining a season. And you want to defend ******* billionaires that lie about their books like that. This year, if they are smart they will NOT do a lockout, and play the innocent card (we just want status quo) and force the players to come after them.
There wouldn't be an NBA at all without them and the players would be making relative peanuts elsewhere. They simply aren't underpaid. If the people who make it possible for the players to be some of the richest people on the planet decide they want to make a bit more while still making the players some of the richest people on the planet who is to say that's "being an *******"?
