Well, they don't really have many under contract at the moment. It's been reported in local SA media that the Spurs could potentially be looking at a S&T deal for PJ Brown. Brown has already visited SA with his wife and the visit went very well. Brown told a TV station there was a very good possibility he would be signing with SA. Mourning is scheduled to be in for a visit this weekend.
As for Kidd I would think so. He can use this moment to get just about anything he wants from NJ...unless that is playing with Tim Duncan for the rest of his career. Haven't heard if NJ finally offered him that 7th year.
I hope he signs with SA and brings Mourning on board. With the Fakers having GP and Malone I want someone to one up them. A Mourning at even 2/3's of his skill is more than enough if Kidd runs the point and Duncan being Duncan. If SA gets both Kidd and Mourning (at 50% or better playing condition) I STILL think they'll run over the Lakers. CENTER: Shaq vs. Zo--Shaq Hands down. But if Zo can contribute what Robinson did last year (about 12/7/3 blocks) than it would be enough FORWARDS: Malone vs. Duncan--Is this even a question? Duncan will win this battle. Malone's shots have been less consistent even though he'll hit some from time to time. I honestly think Malik Rose can probably hold Malone Fox/George vs. Jackson--If Fox starts, they have a slight edge. If George they're pretty even. Fox has the bball smarts while George has a good amount of quickness. But Jackson is like Mad Max w/o being a headcase---streakyass shooter. GUARDS: Kobe vs. Bowen--Kobe. Didn't matter how much Bowen showed he can play Kobe will be Kobe. GP vs. Kidd--Seriously this is a dead even match but if you take into accounts which player loses more efficiency when they go to their new teams, it would be GP. His scoring would be down while his assists would probably be up. But the Glove needs to get into that scoring groove to be really effective. I imagine Kidd wouldn't diminish much at all. BENCH: Spurs. Tony Parker, Manu and Malik Rose by themselves makes the Spurs bench better than the Fakers. So basically it goes down to being 3-3 deadheat. If Kidd and Zo goes to SA....that'd be something to watch when they play the Fakers.
fyi: here's the contract numbers. Assuming the $94m number for 6yrs is accurate in the article, that places the base year max at: $12.5333333m A 7yr with that 1st yr base = $120.633333m So, Kidd would give up 26 m i l l i o n dollars to sign with the Spurs vs the Nets or a SnT somewhere.
HP there is a lot of mixed info on this from people I normally considerable reliable. Most are saying because Kidd would be 37 or 38 in the last year of his contract the CBA won't allow him to get the 7 year 120.6 deal, only a top of 6 for 99 mil. Thus the only difference between the Nets offer and the Spurs in I think a 12.5% annual increases instead of 10% over 6 years, respectively. Did ya'll see the RealGm article where Kidd has he might be back with the Nets if Kidd is fired? I do think it is like 50/50 on the Nets/Spurs--but I don't have any inside info. But since MrSpur seems less optimistic than before--and I expect he has decent Spur/SA info--that lead me to incline maybe 2/3 chance Kidd stays in NJ. Look for Scott to be released or reallocated (he is a pretty dumb game day coach even if I think it is wrong Kidd publically plays this out) and the Nets to resign their own FAs and to add a significant MCE piece--I am sure Mourning is their target. Honestly I got to think GP and Malone going to the Lakers hurts SA/Kidd match chances. Kidd knows he still wouldn't be the favoriates to get to the WC finals until probably 06 when he will be like 33, it the east NJ should be close to a lock to at least make the finals with Kidd returning and modest improvements--let alone if they can get Zo.
Desert Scar, whoever is saying that there is separate contract length limit based on age is mistaken. I think that would even be against Federal Law to have such a labor agreement. Certainly, no union in their right mind would ever represent their members in that manner. btw: this is clearly stated in the CBA, so I'm sure you can find a clear statement in Coon's FAQ about this. What they are likely confusing is the "Over 36 Rule" for how 4+ yrs contract is accelerated wrt its salary cap hit for all yrs covered that the player is over 36.
HP--Larry Coon seems to now think the Nets are only allowed to offer 99 mil to Kidd--be it 6 or 7th years--thus no reason to stretch it to 7 though they could if they reduced the starting salalry. It seems they need the NBA to get back to them to be definitive--but it looks like Kidd can't get the 7 year 122 mil deal. http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=150002
Desert Scar, you are not reading Larry's response correctly. He is saying that the Rule of 39 he is not totally correct on how the accellerated salary caps work. He is not denying that 7yrs is the max. Reread it. Aside from rereading his response, just believe me that the CBA's Over 36 Rule does not mentioni limiting contract length on age. If you don't believe that, then I am willing to bet that no labor agreement (the CBA is a Labor agreement) in the United States is allowed to consider age a factor in compensation. You are not allowed to consider age, sex, race, religion to discriminate on salaries, and it seems fair to assume that would include contract length in this scenario. Afterall, market forces measuring ability will determine contract length, up to the limit. That is what anti-discrimination laws are all about. The Over 36 Rule is in place to prevent a loop hole, whereby someone signs an aging start, say Hakeem, to 7yrs well past his ability to play, but they use a lower starting salary...say $2m,,, to try to keep his yearly cap hit low. Well, the 36 Rule prevents it by making his cap hit more up front....the 36 Rule has nothing whatsoever in its CBA Article that mentions limiting contract length.
ok, i see what you're saying now. Larry is correcting himself on the total compensation. He's saying a 6 or 7yr would be the same overall compensation. The cap hit of the 7th yr would get spread over the course of the contract, thus lowering the 1st yr's max compensation. That looks to be determined by his talk with the league, but sounds correct.
Desert Scar, I just got done looking over the CBA article title "Over 36 Rule." I think Larry Coon might me wrongly second-guessing his first intuition. I participated in proofing his last draft, and he changed a previous FAQ question from what was correct, to what was incorrect. He changed it back based on two of us re-correcting him. I'm going to post in his thread. I'm skeptical that his new take is correct.
OK, here's what I posted to Larry Coon, We'll see what he and Don think. <blockquote><hr>hey Larry, I don't think the word "attributed" is difficult to interpret. It seems synonymous to "re-allocation," and means any year that the salary is spread over the previous seasons, by my read. So, First Zero Year would be Kidd's 7th year (the first year attributed to other years). This is the Kevin that you acknowledge in the bottom of your FAQ (i'm honored, btw). Remember, I (as well as Don, I believe) responded to say that you might be second guessing your first take on the FAQ about trade value for unsigned draft picks. As you agreed, you had it right the first time. A friend from clutchcity.net pointed out this thread, and I've reread the Section 3(a)(2) to regain a fresh perspective. I think you might possibly be second-guessing yourself, on this one, as well...with all due respect to you, Don and everyone else. Notice (a)(2)(ii) states clearly that Qualifying Vet contracts are covered by (iii). Then (iii) only mention 32-35 yrs old and >5 yr contracts. I think you are assuming that (a)(2)(i) therefore covers 30 and 31 yr old Qualifying Vets. I question that. The reason I question this is because (a)(2)(vi) explicity states situations whereby the Over 36 Rule does *not* apply, and (vi)(B) says that Qualifying Vets who are 32, 33, or 34 can freely sign for 5 seasons or less with no re-allocation pursuant to Section 3a2. Now, that means Kidd could conceivably get 9 more yrs at full max with no Over 36 rule kicking in. While that would take two contracts to pull off, if your new interpretation is correct, I do not find the general purpose of the CBA to reward a 4 + 5yr contract over a 7yr. That just seems inconsistent with the way it is written...that would be a loophole favoring shorter term contracts, imo. Plus, your new interpretations devalues the adv of being a 30yr Qualifying vet. That also seems like it would be a gross oversight by the framers, if correct. Instead, I just think that 3(a)(2)(i) does not cover Qualifying Vets, at all, rather (iii) does in their entirety, and thus age 30 and 31 are exempt at any length contract. Thus, I think the reports of 6yrs at $99m are just mistaken. My read is 7yrs $120m is his max. of course, I could be wrong I've certainly been wrong before. as always, thx Larry, Don and everyone else for all the work. You really provide a great service.<hr></blockquote>
Well, based on the response I got, it looks like Kidd is screwed. All I would have been is a good proofreader of the CBA for the union, to tell them not to OK that Section as signed. Looks like it got past several union biggies. Further, it screws NJ's owner, too. All around a poorly written rule.
