Hell they really got screwed. They are only going to make 3.7 million MLE They can only sign for 5 years instead of 7 years , I am really going to cry for them now, I mean how will they feed their family with those salaries?
Istll think the 5/4 year max idea is stupid. Put in team options halfway through the deal, don't make teams sweat through re-signing their franchise guys even more than they have to now. Let the Spurs sign Tim to a lifetime deal. Let the Heat sign Wade for life. No one wants to watch Kobe play tease every 5 years. An option would let teams drop dead weight if a player goes Allan Houston or Penny on them. Evan
TOTALLY AGREE! From a dead weight standpoint the 4/5 year idea is great to protect franchises. But from a Franchise Player standpoint like you said, every 5 years a franchise is going to sweat and be held hostage. Team Options is a great way to go.
that would be ideal. imagine letting guys like Badiane and Spani-whatever develop here for a few years, get acclimated to the game and way of life..... that would be sweet.
I have no problem with the shorter contracts as long as the teams have the ability to extend them like they do now. We can just extend Yao every 2 years for 2 additional years. It's what we did with Tmac. That way, a team or player have a way out in fewer years.
Why would player's association agree to that? Even if they did, imagine try to resign a franchise player like Yao, we'd offer you 8 year deal, but you don't get flexibility if you play well, but no security if you don't and we'll cut you in five years. Another team, 4- 6 year deal, no option, which would you take?
all of this could just be old or false, but if the Luxury Tax is set right at the cap limit, then history says that's where most owners will stop paying. right now the cap is like 43 or 44 but a lot of teams are over 50M b/c, if there were to be a LT, it would be around 53 or 55. so teams spend up to the possible LT. if the LT were to drop to 43, i'm thinking you'd see a big decrease in spending. so the cap gets bigger but becomes a much harder cap compared to the smaller and softer cap of today. maybe owners will stop caring so much about the LT if it happens right at the cap but i wouldn't count on it. this sounds like a concession by the players, not the owners. hell, it all sounds like concessions by the players. they would get more roster spots and higher minimum (helps the big group of scrubs), but the MLE (which a lot of guys sign with) is lower, the cap will essentially be lower, the age limit is in, raises are lower. maybe a max contract will be larger with a bigger cap but they probably reduced the percentage of the cap it can use. maybe more jobs for veterans and scrubs is what the players union wants. and yes, making 3.7 isn't getting screwed, but it's all relative. making way less for a lot shorter than you used to is getting screwed. maybe that's why there's going to be a lockout. as long as they don't make the FA period rushed and hurt our chances of getting a PF and some upgrades, then it's all good. if they miss games, then they're the biggest morons ever.
Guys! Did you skip over this. This is garbage from Chad Ford from months ago. It is not the new CBA. I just added up the total of the 30 team salaries for this year - 1.734B. If a hard cap is put in place at $50M for each team that is only 1.5B. That is in effect 16% cut in salaries because most teams don't like the Luxury tax - but they can't cut the contracts because they are guarenteed. The players wouldn't agree to this unless the TV contracts were getting smaller. The owners wouldn't agree to this becuase they would be throwing money away to the Lux tax. If they want to put in a hard cap it would have to be higher - around 58M just to digest the current contracts. I know there are small caveats to this logic, but any major flaws?
