What would the Hawks need from the Celtics for Millsap? (assuming you rebuild)

[PandaKidd]

The people I trust the most think they will offer Al a 5 year MAX and depending on what he does will decide the rest. He accepts it, they come back with the same roster.

He rejects it and goes somewhere else its rebuild city.

Isnt it weird though? Ferrys approach was CHEAP value contracts, and they may offer Al the richest Hawks contract in history? (Itll be bigger than JJ Right?)

[Jamaaliver]

...most think they will offer Al a 5 year MAX and depending on what he does will decide the rest. He rejects it and goes somewhere else its rebuild city.

Isnt it weird though? Ferrys approach was CHEAP value contracts, and they may offer Al the richest Hawks contract in history? (Itll be bigger than JJ Right?)

Yes, a max-contract for AL would be bigger than JJ's...dollar-wise. Perhaps not as much of the salary cap, percentage wise, though.

Agreed, it IS ironic that the front office believes it necessary to start overpaying for 2nd tier (and in Bazemore's case, 4th tier) players to maintain the status quo.

The only monkey-wrench is that the draft comes a week prior to Free Agency. So Wes & bud are forced to decide on Teague's fate before knowing if they'll get back AL.

It also prevents them from moving Millsap for a move up in the draft, not knowing if they're embracing a full reboot or just minor roster adjustments.

Should be interesting. And I hope we have the guts to be aggressive. But I suspect more of the same, doing everything to maintain the status quo.

A Teague trade seems the only major upheaval they're likely to commit to.

[PandaKidd]

Yeah i expect a lot of chatter and rumors, I think a Teague trade is 50/50 at this point, but is prob more likely in FA than Draft night because im not sure he moves you up enough.

[jayu70]

...most think they will offer Al a 5 year MAX and depending on what he does will decide the rest. He rejects it and goes somewhere else its rebuild city.

Isnt it weird though? Ferrys approach was CHEAP value contracts, and they may offer Al the richest Hawks contract in history? (Itll be bigger than JJ Right?)

Yes, a max-contract for AL would be bigger than JJ's...dollar-wise. Perhaps not as much of the salary cap, percentage wise, though.

Agreed, it IS ironic that the front office believes it necessary to start overpaying for 2nd tier (and in Bazemore's case, 4th tier) players to maintain the status quo.

The only monkey-wrench is that the draft comes a week prior to Free Agency. So Wes & bud are forced to decide on Teague's fate before knowing if they'll get back AL.

It also prevents them from moving Millsap for a move up in the draft, not knowing if they're embracing a full reboot or just minor roster adjustments.

Should be interesting. And I hope we have the guts to be aggressive. But I suspect more of the same, doing everything to maintain the status quo.

A Teague trade seems the only major upheaval they're likely to commit to.

If the cap jump was not happening and remained static the way it did during the JJ years it would be a problem. The continual rise makes it easier, at least for me, to understand and not be overly bothered.

[Jamaaliver]

If the cap jump was not happening and remained static the way it did during the JJ years it would be a problem. The continual rise makes it easier, at least for me, to understand and not be overly bothered.

Sadly, all these exorbitant salaries from the rising cap are inevitably going to lead to another lockout.

ESPN's customer base is dwindling. Network viewership is dwindling. NBA contracts are skyrocketing.

The TV revenue dollars will dry up, leaving franchises on the hook for some truly outrageous salaries. Particularly teams like ours with a fair-weather fan base.

If we pay AL $30 million in a couple of seasons and then fall to 45-37...it'll be difficult to justify. And we saw the fanbase turn against JJ almost immediately after his major payday.

The front office folks made terrible financial decisions, but the ire of fans gets directed at the players usually. AL's image isn't as Teflon as it once was. And a doubling of his salary amidst mediocre production will be difficult to swallow.

[jayu70]

If the cap jump was not happening and remained static the way it did during the JJ years it would be a problem. The continual rise makes it easier, at least for me, to understand and not be overly bothered.

Sadly, all these exorbitant salaries from the rising cap are inevitably going to lead to another lockout.

ESPN's customer base is dwindling. Network viewership is dwindling. NBA contracts are skyrocketing.

The TV revenue dollars will dry up, leaving franchises on the hook for some truly outrageous salaries. Particularly teams like ours with a fair-weather fan base.

If we pay AL $30 million in a couple of seasons and then fall to 45-37...it'll be difficult to justify. And we saw the fanbase turn against JJ almost immediately after his major payday.

The front office folks made terrible financial decisions, but the ire of fans gets directed at the players usually. AL's image isn't as Teflon as it once was. And a doubling of his salary amidst mediocre production will be difficult to swallow.

Did you check viewership numbers in the playoffs? Even the Atlanta viewership was sky high. The TV deal is this large because of viewership and sponsorship which is creating the large player contracts.
These are the projections for the four seasons after 2016-17:

2017-18: $107 million/$127 million

2018-19: $105 million/$126 million

2019-2020: $106 million/$129 million

2020-2021: $112 million/$136 million
All higher than the original 2015 projections.

Again, the difference in the JJ era was the stagnant cap which made it difficult to ADD pieces after resigning JJ. 1 year after signing Al, the Hawks will still have cap flexibility.

[Jamaaliver]

If the cap jump was not happening and remained static the way it did during the JJ years it would be a problem. The continual rise makes it easier, at least for me, to understand and not be overly bothered.

Just remember where you heard it first.

The NBA will have a lockout in the next four seasons due to excessively high salaries.



Sent from my iPad using RealGM Forums

[jayu70]

If the cap jump was not happening and remained static the way it did during the JJ years it would be a problem. The continual rise makes it easier, at least for me, to understand and not be overly bothered.

Just remember where you heard it first.

The NBA will have a lockout in the next four seasons due to excessively high salaries.



Sent from my iPad using RealGM Forums

You do know there could be a lockout in 2017 when the CBA expires? Just when the new deal kicks in for the next 9 years.

[Jamaaliver]

You do know there could be a lockout in 2017 when the CBA expires? Just when the new deal kicks in for the next 9 years.

<sigh>

I know the current financial model the NBA is utilizing is unsustainable.

Too many teams are losing money.

Without giving an exact number, Silver said a lot of NBA teams are losing money.

“I don’t know the precise number and don’t want to get into it, but a significant number of teams are continuing to lose money and they continue to lose money because their expenses exceed their revenue,” Silver said. Even with revenue sharing and fairly robust revenue sharing when some teams are receiving over $20 million checks from their partners. That in order to compete across this league with a relatively harsh tax, teams are spending enormous amounts of money on payroll.

Last Summer

The NBA has never been in a healthier financial state coming out of a CBA negotiation that benefitted the owners and a new television contract pending worth $24 billion over nine years.

The NBPA rejected the NBA's smoothing proposal for the salary cap and the sides could be destined for a labor dispute in 2017.

But the NBA somehow is not profitable for all 30 teams.

"The NBA, meanwhile, has independently-audited financial records to show a number of teams are losing money," writes Michael McCann.

Last Spring

the NBA hoped to smooth the infusion of new TV money over a period of years so that more players would share it. Smoothing the money would translate into more modest and gradual increases in the salary cap and salary floor...As of now, it appears the NBPA won’t go along with a smoothing plan—at least not as part of a standalone issue before the next CBA negotiations.

Both [the NBA and NBPA] have financial reasons to exercise the opt-out clause. Most significantly, each would like to see a change—in opposite directions—in the split of [Basketball Related Income].

The inability of the NBA and NBPA to agree on a strategy for incorporating TV money follows other signs of a fraying relationship between league and NBPA leaders.

Last Spring at SI.com

NBA's new TV deal brings potential lockout

2014

[jayu70]

You do know there could be a lockout in 2017 when the CBA expires? Just when the new deal kicks in for the next 9 years.

<sigh>

I know the current financial model the NBA is utilizing is unsustainable.

Teams losing money.

Without giving an exact number, Silver said a lot of NBA teams are losing money.

“I don’t know the precise number and don’t want to get into it, but a significant number of teams are continuing to lose money and they continue to lose money because their expenses exceed their revenue,” Silver said. Even with revenue sharing and fairly robust revenue sharing when some teams are receiving over $20 million checks from their partners. That in order to compete across this league with a relatively harsh tax, teams are spending enormous amounts of money on payroll.

Last Summer

The NBA has never been in a healthier financial state coming out of a CBA negotiation that benefitted the owners and a new television contract pending worth $24 billion over nine years.

The NBPA rejected the NBA's smoothing proposal for the salary cap and the sides could be destined for a labor dispute in 2017.

But the NBA somehow is not profitable for all 30 teams.

"The NBA, meanwhile, has independently-audited financial records to show a number of teams are losing money," writes Michael McCann.

Last Spring

You can sigh all you want. I've stated my points and my opinions. No use going around in circles.

[Jamaaliver]

You can sigh all you want. I've stated my points and my opinions. No use going around in circles.

The owners are preparing to lockout the players next year and force them to accept a smaller portion of BRI. Any increases in BRI and, subsequently, to the salary cap, will be granted more gradually.

If we give AL a 150% pay increase this summer, the owners lockout the players next summer, and the salary cap doesn't increase as much as expected in 2018...we're left holding the bag on a ridiculous salary that takes up a greater portion of the salary cap than expected.

Read the many links I provided above.

Those salary cap numbers YOU LISTED won't come to fruition if a lockout occurs and the income distribution numbers get renegotiated in the owner's favor.

[MaceCase]

Hmmph, all of this grandstanding by the owners losing money is coming.....before the TV deal even kicks in. Which was already negotiated, it doesn't matter if 4 people decide to watch the NBA after today they negotiated a 9 year deal already so yes, there's a bit of talking-out-of-assness going on about viewership supposedly affecting anything. One would easily question why would ESPN and Turner negotiate a triply lucrative deal if they were losing viewers in the first place but I digress.

Regardless, it's always the owners' MO to cry poverty and they can always count on an ignorant populace to side with them (hello publicly funded tax exempt multi billion dollar stadiums).

The players already relented to a maximum of 51% of BRI from 57% in the previous CBA......how much more could they possibly give up? Is 20% reasonable because most everything smaller wont make much of a difference in the cap, why? Because it's still a percentage of skyrocketing revenue. As is, the supposed plight of player salaries isn't reaching that percentage in a lower cap forcing the league to cut a check to the NBPA to cover the remaining amount.

I'd say the players have greater incentive to strike than the owners do to lock them out but again, that would be based on logic. America has proven time and time again that the public will support billionaire **** over their "overpaid" employees.

[PandaKidd]

Im not sure how the value of franchises can triple in the last 10 years, Jersey and Shoe sales at all time highs, and owners can sit there and cry they are losing money.

They MAY be losing money at the gate or vis lower season ticket sales, but the TV revenue, the merchandising, I just have a hard time a majority of owners is losing money. Furhtermore, its a capitalist model, the players deserve to get paid what the market bears.

[jayu70]

Im not sure how the value of franchises can triple in the last 10 years, Jersey and Shoe sales at all time highs, and owners can sit there and cry they are losing money.

They MAY be losing money at the gate or vis lower season ticket sales, but the TV revenue, the merchandising, I just have a hard time a majority of owners is losing money. Furhtermore, its a capitalist model, the players deserve to get paid what the market bears.

Because it's the easiest thing to say without proof.

[MaceCase]

Im not sure how the value of franchises can triple in the last 10 years, Jersey and Shoe sales at all time highs, and owners can sit there and cry they are losing money.

They MAY be losing money at the gate or vis lower season ticket sales, but the TV revenue, the merchandising, I just have a hard time a majority of owners is losing money. Furhtermore, its a capitalist model, the players deserve to get paid what the market bears.

They also just added Nike as the new apparel and jersey sponsor which they say is paying 300% more than Adidas did over the next 8 years plus they announced there will be ads on jerseys. Sacramento, Golden State, and Milwaukee are getting brand new arenas over the next year, outside of creative accounting it rarely adds up that they are losing money.

[Jamaaliver]

Furthermore, its a capitalist model, the players deserve to get paid what the market bears.

Don't forget, one of the key principles of capitalism is cheap labor/production. The goal is to maximize revenue while keeping expenses to a minimum. And while LeBron and Durant are likely underpaid, any system that rewards Kent Bazemore a contract of $15+ million after a single mediocre season...is doomed to fail.

I do remember MIAMI losing money the year they won their first title with LeBron. And teams in small markets likely do struggle meet their financial obligations year round. New Orleans and Milwaukee come to mind. They struggle at the gate. Their local TV deals are modest. The revenue streams are mediocre, but their payroll obligations force them to compete with the Knicks or Lakers on personnel.

It's largely why revenue sharing exists in the first place.

But, clearly, that should change moving forward with the TV deal and advertising dollars from jerseys.

[Jamaaliver]

If the cap jump was not happening and remained static the way it did during the JJ years it would be a problem. The continual rise makes it easier, at least for me, to understand and not be overly bothered.

These are the projections for the four seasons after 2016-17: 2017-18: $107 million/$127 million

Again, the difference in the JJ era was the stagnant cap which made it difficult to ADD pieces after resigning JJ. 1 year after signing Al, the Hawks will still have cap flexibility.

I mentioned this before, that the future economic uncertainty made it difficult to fully justify overpaying AL to stay:

If we give AL a 150% pay increase this summer, the owners lockout the players next summer, and the salary cap doesn't increase as much as expected in 2018...we're left holding the bag on a ridiculous salary that takes up a greater portion of the salary cap than expected.

And now we see the cap projections already changing...and this is BEFORE the lockout occurs.

A few teams could be left in a lurch if cap numbers don't increase quite as much as before...


Salary cap projection for 2017-18 season to be lower than expected

In a surprise turn, the NBA is pulling back on its salary-cap projection for the 2017-18 season, and it could complicate the Golden State Warriors' efforts to keep their new super team together, according to a league memo obtained by ESPN.

The league previously projected the 2017-18 cap to hit $107 million but lowered that number to $102 million Thursday and lowered the luxury tax line projection from $127 million to $122 million.

...these projections are based on the current collective bargaining agreement. Both the NBA and the players' union have an opt to end the agreement by Dec. 15 and are expected to do so. The sides have been in talks about a new agreement for months and new terms could change all the projections. Here


I hope that Bazemore deal doesn't become an albatross by year three or four.

[MaceCase]

The NBA projected this year's cap to be 90 million and then 92 million. It ended up at 94 and change. It's rather pointless projecting the salary cap before revenues have actually been accounted for, and again this is all before the actual influx of all the new contracts that the league has negotiated.

Bazemore was signed underneath the current cap of 94 so unless you're suggesting that the NBA's cap actually drops below that or remains stagnant (despite still being projected to increase by 8 million just next year alone, double the % than the 4.5% increases that Bazemore salary increase is limited to) then there is hardly a scenario where simply based on the contract amount that Bazemore's contract could ever be seen as an albatross.

The key to pay attention too is the shortfall, if the NBA is failing to achieve even 51% of BRI for the players and is paying out record amounts of money to cover it then it's hard to justify any considerable rollbacks to BRI that would considerably affect the cap unless in a continued effort to criticize the Bazemore re-signing you are also predicting another world wide major recession.

[jayu70]

If the cap jump was not happening and remained static the way it did during the JJ years it would be a problem. The continual rise makes it easier, at least for me, to understand and not be overly bothered.

These are the projections for the four seasons after 2016-17: 2017-18: $107 million/$127 million

Again, the difference in the JJ era was the stagnant cap which made it difficult to ADD pieces after resigning JJ. 1 year after signing Al, the Hawks will still have cap flexibility.

I mentioned this before, that the future economic uncertainty made it difficult to fully justify overpaying AL to stay:

If we give AL a 150% pay increase this summer, the owners lockout the players next summer, and the salary cap doesn't increase as much as expected in 2018...we're left holding the bag on a ridiculous salary that takes up a greater portion of the salary cap than expected.

And now we see the cap projections already changing...and this is BEFORE the lockout occurs.

A few teams could be left in a lurch if cap numbers don't increase quite as much as before...


Salary cap projection for 2017-18 season to be lower than expected

In a surprise turn, the NBA is pulling back on its salary-cap projection for the 2017-18 season, and it could complicate the Golden State Warriors' efforts to keep their new super team together, according to a league memo obtained by ESPN.

The league previously projected the 2017-18 cap to hit $107 million but lowered that number to $102 million Thursday and lowered the luxury tax line projection from $127 million to $122 million.

...these projections are based on the current collective bargaining agreement. Both the NBA and the players' union have an opt to end the agreement by Dec. 15 and are expected to do so. The sides have been in talks about a new agreement for months and new terms could change all the projections. Here


I hope that Bazemore deal doesn't become an albatross by year three or four.

Still higher than $94 million.