RealGM

paulpressey25 wrote:DB, we could build a much better team here than Hammond. No question.

But if the current trends of the last two years hold, we'd never be able to keep that good team together very long. If Utah can't keep Deron, Toronto with Bosh or Cleveland with LeBron it will be hard if-when we would luck into that superstar.

That is what has changed. It used to be we just hoped we'd luck into the superstar. Now you get him and you have to spend every waking hour catering to him in the hope he doesn't leave as a FA.

InsideOut wrote:Agree we could have done better than Hammond but still wouldn't be able to compete. Milwaukee has too big a disadvantage.

Teams like the Bucks need luck while LA/NY don't need luck. Just by being LA you have guys like Jabbar/Shaq/Kobe demanding to play for you. The only way to stop that is a hard cap and or franchise tag.

emunney wrote:Great players enter the league at 19, so by the 7th year they're basically entering their prime. Is that a good time to lose them? And is there a single instance of a great player going FROM a big market TO a small one after those 7 years?

Battle Ground

• Luxury tax: Two key issues remain in dispute:

A. The NBA has proposed that if a team goes into the luxury tax more than three out of every five years, it will be hit with an extra $1 penalty tax in addition to what it is paying in the super tax.

B. If a team breaks the tax threshold by $1, it forfeit its share of the tax money. Put simply, only non-tax-payers get any money back

The union opposes both provisions for the same reason: It discourages teams from going into the luxury tax.

• Mid-level exception: As the NBA has stated, the two sides have agreed to reduce the mid-level exception from $5.8 million to $5 million. However, the NBA wants any team who uses the mid-level to be limited to three-year deals. If a team is paying the luxury tax, the NBA's proposal calls for that team to lose the full mid-level and be limited to a smaller, $2.5 million exception. The players believe this both hurts the middle class and discourages teams from spending into the luxury tax.

• Qualifying offers: Players want more lucrative offers. Ownership wants them to stay the same

• Escrow: The NBA is seeking escrow protection -- believed to be 10 percent -- which would, in essence, guarantee the league hits its target BRI number. Players have offered to increase the escrow to a band of 8-10 percent

• Sign-and-trades: The NBA proposal prohibits luxury tax paying teams from executing sign and trades. The players are against that.

• Trade exceptions: The players want them increased. The NBA wants them to stay the same.

• Rookie contracts: While the rookie wage scale would stay the same, the union has pushed for incentivizing contracts to give elite rookies the opportunity to make more money quicker.

• Annual raises: Under the terms of the last CBA, players were entitled to 10.5 percent raises (for players with Bird rights) and 8.5 percent for everyone else. The union has offered to reduce it to 7.5 percent/6.5 percent while the NBA's offer was 5.5 percent/3 percent.

• Salary-cap holds: The union wants them lower. The NBA wants them to stay the same.
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/w ... z1dAVlgow0

smooth 'lil balla wrote:

emunney wrote:Great players enter the league at 19, so by the 7th year they're basically entering their prime. Is that a good time to lose them? And is there a single instance of a great player going FROM a big market TO a small one after those 7 years?

Bingo.

DrugBust wrote:If guys were leaving after their rookie contracts, I'd be firmly in your camp. But that never happens.

jerrod wrote:

smooth 'lil balla wrote:

emunney wrote:Great players enter the league at 19, so by the 7th year they're basically entering their prime. Is that a good time to lose them? And is there a single instance of a great player going FROM a big market TO a small one after those 7 years?

Bingo.

so? if the player chooses to take less money or their team agrees to trade them, what's wrong with that?

WEFFPIM wrote:It should stop boggling my mind how fans of a team don't want to see changes occur that might actually help them win a title. Yet, I continue to be baffled by it.

InsideOut wrote:
Are you just trying to play devils advocate? You sound like their teams had a choice not to trade them? Would you have traded Melo or just let him walk for nothing?

jerrod wrote:

WEFFPIM wrote:It should stop boggling my mind how fans of a team don't want to see changes occur that might actually help them win a title. Yet, I continue to be baffled by it.

we're dysfunctional

if you think that our lack of success is primarily because of anything other than incompetence. you're not watching very closely.

i don't feel like that should be rewarded. i'm all for limiting the wealth disparity in the nba, but we don't deserve to be anywhere the finals at this point. we all agreed on that right up until lockout, then it suddenly became the system and the player's fault that we suck.

DrugBust wrote:If guys were leaving after their rookie contracts, I'd be firmly in your camp. But that never happens.

jerrod wrote:

InsideOut wrote:
Are you just trying to play devils advocate? You sound like their teams had a choice not to trade them? Would you have traded Melo or just let him walk for nothing?

that was their choice. that's what free agency is. when contracts expire, players can choose where they sign.

i don't see the problem

emunney wrote:Great players enter the league at 19, so by the 7th year they're basically entering their prime. Is that a good time to lose them? And is there a single instance of a great player going FROM a big market TO a small one after those 7 years?

jerrod wrote:

WEFFPIM wrote:It should stop boggling my mind how fans of a team don't want to see changes occur that might actually help them win a title. Yet, I continue to be baffled by it.

we're dysfunctional

if you think that our lack of success is primarily because of anything other than incompetence. you're not watching very closely.

i don't feel like that should be rewarded. i'm all for limiting the wealth disparity in the nba, but we don't deserve to be anywhere the finals at this point. we all agreed on that right up until lockout, then it suddenly became the system and the player's fault that we suck.

DrugBust wrote:

emunney wrote:Great players enter the league at 19, so by the 7th year they're basically entering their prime. Is that a good time to lose them? And is there a single instance of a great player going FROM a big market TO a small one after those 7 years?

Say we draft a guy and he's one of the biggest stars in the league, a true franchise player. No one is going to be able to force him to sign a second deal that forces him to stick around long term.

jerrod wrote:
if you think that our lack of success is primarily because of anything other than incompetence. you're not watching very closely.

InsideOut wrote:

DrugBust wrote:

emunney wrote:Great players enter the league at 19, so by the 7th year they're basically entering their prime. Is that a good time to lose them? And is there a single instance of a great player going FROM a big market TO a small one after those 7 years?

Say we draft a guy and he's one of the biggest stars in the league, a true franchise player. No one is going to be able to force him to sign a second deal that forces him to stick around long term.

How come we don't see a bunch of NFL stars all trying to get to the big markets and force trades? Why do the stars like Manning, Brady, Rogers all seem to stick with their teams forever? If the NFL can find a way to keep stars in GB and Indy I think the NBA should be able to keep a guy in Milwaukee. GB and the Steelers have the most wins over the past 20 years. If those teams had an NBA team they couldn't keep their star players a week before they would start demanding a trade.