Ramsay B. Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 58 minutes ago, Rhom said: And this question is coming from a guy who bought the newest Air Jordans every year from 1990-1994. (My favorites were the Olympic version that had the number nine on the back.) So I fully understand the concept, but you know what no one in my middle school was running out to buy? The newest Scottie Pippins. At least spell his name right. The Olympic VII's are classic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 5 hours ago, Fez said: Those salary cap increases may not come though, or at least not to the extent expected. The cap for the upcoming season did jump to $99 million, but that's down from the last projection the league made in April, which was for $101 million; and way down from earlier projections of $107 million or more. The projections for future seasons haven't been updated since this latest downward revision, but they were already not nearly as large as the upcoming season's projected cap or certainly what's happened in the past few seasons; and its likely they are now even smaller. Bottom line, the Warriors, and everyone else, are going to have less money in the next few years than they thought they'd have to carry out their plans. Also, every player in every pro sport takes the money, unless they are a longtime veteran chasing their first ring, have a spouse even richer than they are, or have post-playing career plans with the team. Or are fleeing a small market team because the endorsement increases will cover any loss in salary. What's bizarre is the way they compute those. I was listening to the latest Simmons podcast yesterday with Houston GM Daryl Morey, and they were saying that part of the reason the cap dropped this season was because of the Warriors and Cavs tear through the playoffs. The fewer games ended up dipping the cap total. Seems like a really strange way to compute that number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 2 hours ago, Rhom said: I still don't understand shoe deals. Guys like Phil Knight and his equivalent at UA, Reebok, Addidas, and such are smarter than I pretend to be; but how are they profitable for the shoe company? Does an $80 million endorsement from Klay really bring in more than $80m in sales directly? And this question is coming from a guy who bought the newest Air Jordans every year from 1990-1994. (My favorites were the Olympic version that had the number nine on the back.) So I fully understand the concept, but you know what no one in my middle school was running out to buy? The newest Scottie Pippins. Yeah, it seems crazy to me as well. Klay's deal is with Anta, a Chinese shoe company that I've never even heard of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slurktan Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 Thinking more about Durant taking less money.... the next deal he has will almost be certainly a max deal. He can't fuck over the union twice in a row right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 22 minutes ago, Slurktan said: Thinking more about Durant taking less money.... the next deal he has will almost be certainly a max deal. He can't fuck over the union twice in a row right? Are there rules surrounding that? Like say if a high impact guy like LeBron was willing to play a season for a ridiculously small amount with the understanding that this money would be used to go after other high profile guys. How far can the cap be subverted in this way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: What's bizarre is the way they compute those. I was listening to the latest Simmons podcast yesterday with Houston GM Daryl Morey, and they were saying that part of the reason the cap dropped this season was because of the Warriors and Cavs tear through the playoffs. The fewer games ended up dipping the cap total. Seems like a really strange way to compute that number. It's not bizarre the way they count it. The cap is based off of actual league revenue, the projections are based on projected league revenue. When the number of playoff games is way fewer than normal, you lose a ton of revenue. Especially when there were 14 total Conference finals plus finals games. I think there were 20 last year. That's a huge revenue hit. 1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Are there rules surrounding that? Like say if a high impact guy like LeBron was willing to play a season for a ridiculously small amount with the understanding that this money would be used to go after other high profile guys. How far can the cap be subverted in this way? They've got to fix this is in the next CBA, and I'm sure they will. Durant is once again destroying the competitive balance of the league. He's subverting the luxury tax penalties so his teams don't have to play within the constraints that everyone else does. They've got to make it so you can't take significantly less than your market value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 Hayward to Boston. NBA has got to do something about this. You can't have a system where small market teams are always going to lose their stars right as they enter their primes, especially when said small market teams have put winning teams around them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 11 minutes ago, sperry said: It's not bizarre the way they count it. The cap is based off of actual league revenue, the projections are based on projected league revenue. When the number of playoff games is way fewer than normal, you lose a ton of revenue. Especially when there were 14 total Conference finals plus finals games. I think there were 20 last year. That's a huge revenue hit. They've got to fix this is in the next CBA, and I'm sure they will. Durant is once again destroying the competitive balance of the league. He's subverting the luxury tax penalties so his teams don't have to play within the constraints that everyone else does. They've got to make it so you can't take significantly less than your market value. It's bizarre to adjust it every year. You build your team based on that number and if it drops significantly you're going to be forced into trades you might not want to make, or a retool you don't want. Seems to me it should hold for at least two seasons, otherwise it becomes really hard to keep the same team on the floor for any length of time. Maybe pro rate it over 3 seasons? I don't know. I get your point on the 2nd bit. It's a lot like the Pats in the NFL having a distinct cap advantage by having the best QB accept a below market salary. I'm kind of torn regarding that in that the cream of the crop teams kind of earn that luxury. And also it does require that the player make a voluntary sacrifice. I agree there should probably be a percentage that is set in stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 Just now, sperry said: Hayward to Boston. NBA has got to do something about this. You can't have a system where small market teams are always going to lose their stars right as they enter their primes, especially when said small market teams have put winning teams around them. Now that I don't agree with. The Jazz had the advantage here in that they could offer Hayward a higher salary than the Celts could. This is clearly the player exercising a choice. Free Agency is a good thing. These guys shouldn't be slaves to their franchises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Now that I don't agree with. The Jazz had the advantage here in that they could offer Hayward a higher salary than the Celts could. This is clearly the player exercising a choice. Free Agency is a good thing. These guys shouldn't be slaves to their franchises. They aren't "slaves" to their teams. Their teams still have to offer them market rate salaries. Works just fine in the significantly more successful and popular NFL. The problem is that that "advantage" isn't really a big advantage given the $$$ these guys have made already. Hayward could have made a few extra bucks over the life of his contract with Utah, but who fucking cares when your lifetime earnings are over $200 million? It's exacerbated with guys at Durant's level, whose salary is really just a supplemental income to their endorsement money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 36 minutes ago, sperry said: They aren't "slaves" to their teams. Their teams still have to offer them market rate salaries. Works just fine in the significantly more successful and popular NFL. The problem is that that "advantage" isn't really a big advantage given the $$$ these guys have made already. Hayward could have made a few extra bucks over the life of his contract with Utah, but who fucking cares when your lifetime earnings are over $200 million? It's exacerbated with guys at Durant's level, whose salary is really just a supplemental income to their endorsement money. So what's the answer other than making these guys slaves to their teams? Like in Hayward's instance, how is this not working as intended? It's not like he took a big cut to play with the Celts, he just decided it was a better team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briantw Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: So what's the answer other than making these guys slaves to their teams? Like in Hayward's instance, how is this not working as intended? It's not like he took a big cut to play with the Celts, he just decided it was a better team. Did he decide it was a better team, or was it more that big free agents will never join him in Utah, but they will in Boston. And making guys "slaves" to their teams is ridiculous analogy when they can still get the maximum money on the open market. It's bad for the league to have the best players leave the small markets for the big markets as soon as they hit their prime. It wouldn't be good for the NFL if Aaron Rodgers and Andrew Luck just left their midwestern teams to go to California right when they hit their primes. All you do is get rid of the concept of "unrestricted free agency", at least for specific players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 Just now, sperry said: Did he decide it was a better team, or was it more that big free agents will never join him in Utah, but they will in Boston. Same thing, at the end of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 9 minutes ago, briantw said: It took them 5 this last ECF. I think the Celts as they stand now have improved by quite a bit. They won't take them in 5 next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Same thing, at the end of the day. No, it's not. The reason FA's won't sign in Utah is because it's Utah. They had a fantastic young core set up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 Now Hayward's agent is saying he hasn't made a decision yet, so maybe you'll get your wish sperry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Now Hayward's agent is saying he hasn't made a decision yet, so maybe you'll get your wish sperry. They just got their announcement leaked before they could make it. He is signing with Boston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 Just now, sperry said: No, it's not. The reason FA's won't sign in Utah is because it's Utah. They had a fantastic young core set up. Right, so that makes the Celts the better team, at least from Hayward's point of view. Utah does have a nice team, and that's how they eventually change that perception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Right, so that makes the Celts the better team, at least from Hayward's point of view. Utah does have a nice team, and that's how they eventually change that perception. This makes the big market team "every" single time. A league where the small markets are farm systems for the big markets is not sustainable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.