http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=lockoutloserswhocouldget&prov=tsn&type=lgns Obviously, an NBA lockout would damage just about everyone involved with the league. Lost revenue, lost fan loyalty, lost player-owner trust -- these all are bad things. But there are some others who could be hurt by a lockout in less obvious ways. Darko Milicic. The Pistons' big man missed two opportunities to play in summer leagues, first because of buyout negotiations, then because of a broken hand. That's a big reason he has struggled in the NBA. A lockout would mean no summer leagues, making it three straight for Milicic. Sonics. They have big decisions to make because they have a roster packed with free agents. A lockout would slash the signing period, forcing the Sonics to pick a direction on players such as Ray Allen, Vladimir Radmanovic, Reggie Evans, Jerome James and Antonio Daniels in just a few weeks. 2002 gems. Amare Stoudemire and Yao Ming are the only obvious maximum-contract players from the 2002 draft class. They're eligible for extensions this summer, and under current rules, they would get deals of six years and about $100 million. Under the owners' new math, their deals would be for four years and about $50 million. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Poor Yao. His paycheck would be cut in half because of the lockout. That's still a lot of money though. Maybe Sonic will be rushed and we will have a chance to steal AD.
I don't think Yao would worry that much about money, his endorsements alone can probably make him a millionaire for life.
The owners proposed length is 5 years for players re-signing with their teams. Technically this is not a bad thing for the players will still not get less money per annum rather even more since their part of the revenue will be increased. The only downer is that the length could be handy should injury creep in - basically 2 more years of guranteed money with option. So Yao and Amare will not be affect per se especially condering they are young so they could get 3 5-year max deals (total of 15 years) and still be in good shape. Heck 2 5-year max deals will still be good for them and then they can take a 3 year deal following take instead of signing a 7-year deal now and their teams will be weary to give them another 7-year max in 6 years when they will be close to 30 years age wise. Am I making any sense?
The numbers don't look right to me. I believe the max for a 6-year extention for a 4 season vet is in the $80+ mil range. So a 4-year contract would be more like a 35-40% reduction in total contract value.
you think dan langhi would be dominating like he is now w/o summer league play? and i don't see where they are getting $100M for a max contract. you have to have been around long enough to get a bigger starting salary (30% of the cap) to get that kind of money. the cap would need to be around $52M for them to get $100M. now, it may be under the new CBA, but then that isn't really comparing new CBA to old CBA.
Would any of ya'll be willing to sacrfice say 30 games this season due to lockout if that meant rest and time for Yao to work on his game? I'd hate to miss all that basketball really but somehow maybe this will allow Yao the time to rest and improve and sharpen his skills and maybe take in a few big man camps.
Yeah, because he's from Eastern Europe, see? And those guys are ALL really really really really really REALLY good!!
