Are you generally in favor of the rules forcing great teams to break up?

Jalen and Chet are both eligible for 250-296 million.

I think it’s 250 or so but goes up with an all NBA pick. Jalen was already all NBA so I think one more would elevate the back end of his deal to just shy 300 million But feel free to correct me.

I’m not gonna ask you which one they should keep short term because they will probably pay them both. They won’t even be in the luxury tax if they pay them both. They’re gonna have another couple of years after that before they reach Celtics territory and have to break it up.

But the day is coming. That’s why the CBA was written that way. They’re not gonna let you have a Supermax then 2 more.

This is obviously a repeat of the previous thunder contender with chat, probably in the Harden role.

people still question if they chose the right guy to keep Between Westbrook and Harden, even though Westbrook was more established, and it really came down to Harden or Ibaka.

Chet, I suppose has the higher ceiling…

Jalen getting shipped out for a gang of picks so they reload into the 2030s is pretty possible.

They probably figure they can win at least one more, unlike the Celtics, who are already in the luxury when they won. They still have a shit load of picks and in a couple years whoever they move is gonna get them four or five more I’m sure.

They’re going to be loaded with assets. They almost can’t even afford to use for the next 10 years. They have the picks and the talent to trade for whoever comes up on the market Star wise but whoever it is, they aren’t gonna be able to pay for long.

You have to get out of the tax for two years in five to not have the repeater penalty where the league starts, taking picks and team building tools like your mid-level exception and the ability to make certain kinds of trades. And they aren’t in it yet so this isn’t a right now thing.

I’m just guessing Williams isn’t gonna retire in OKC unless Chet gets hurt before signing back.


The NBA has basically decided to eliminate the era defining consistent lineups of the past. The system we have wouldn’t allow the showtime Lakers. Or birds Celtics. I’m not sure you could create the warriors again from scratch.

you can keep your bird forever and you might hold onto your Mchale, but you can’t have Parish on top of it and you forget about having Dennis Johnson.

Is the NBA better if the Lakers had to send James Worthy to the nets for a bunch of picks because 12 teams would sign him to a super max offer and they could only keep showtime together for three years once Magic got paid?

They’ve basically eliminated dynasties so we have eight straight years of different champions. While acknowledging that run started before the new rules It feels like it’s going to be going on for sometime.

The league and fans basically identify arrows by the Dynasty of the time. The era fans are least familiar with is the 70s when there wasn’t one.

The NFL thrives off the parity, but basketball is not football in this country.

Is the sport better for having a ton of one and done champions that get shredded for draft picks because more franchises have the potential to win? Or is it worse because We don’t get the one or two teams that feel special?

I suppose the thunder could navigate it well enough to be considered special anyway….

I don't think the parity you're describing is entirely owed to this. It's a factor of course but I also think it has to do with the randomness of the modern game. So it's a combination of both.

I don't know if having dynasties or not having them is better for the league. I do like parity but not when it's random and fluky.

The '80s were insane. Post-merger, pre-expansion. Imagine having [I]multiple[/I] Hall of Famers coming off the bench... Easily the best teams in NBA history.

I think the max salary rules have backfired. Now any good young player gets the max, and anyone who makes 3rd team All NBA makes the supermax. Getting rid of all the max rules would force teams to actually negotiate contracts instead of just gifting them.

[QUOTE=tontoz;15018754]I think the max salary rules have backfired. Now any good young player gets the max, and anyone who makes 3rd team All NBA makes the supermax. Getting rid of all the max rules would force teams to actually negotiate contracts instead of just gifting them.[/QUOTE]

Teams would be even less stacked if tou are paying one player most of your payroll to 1 player instead of two or 3

I’ve always said the constant discussion of contracts, salary caps, aprons, luxury tax, player options, team options, buyouts, the CBA, the ratings, yada yada yada is what’s wrong with the league.

Instead of talking about great teams and basketball like the 80’s Celtics and Lakers, or the great champions we’ve actually have had the last 8 years here we are talking about off the court rules.

So yes the rules make the league suck.

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;15018759]Teams would be even less stacked if tou are paying one player most of your payroll to 1 player instead of two or 3[/QUOTE]


You don't have to pay them that. You have to actually negotiate.

[QUOTE=tontoz;15018777]You don't have to pay them that. You have to actually negotiate.[/QUOTE]

The top players arent going to get paid more than they do currently?

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;15018778]The top players arent going to get paid more than they do currently?[/QUOTE]


Sure the MVPs will. But the problem is someone like Beal getting the supermax just because he is eligible for it.

[QUOTE=tontoz;15018781]Sure the MVPs will. But the problem is someone like Beal getting the supermax just because he is eligible for it.[/QUOTE]

Biggest problem with beal is the no trade clause

Regardless of “the rules” it’s on the players for taking the money that ruins or breaks up the team.

Players could sign for a little less to try keep these “dynasties” alive but don’t.

Bottom line end of discussion.

Holmgren has missed more regular season games than he's played in. I'm not so sure he's getting every dollar he normally would, or maybe he gets a deal like Zion Williamson's.

But to touch on the subject of this topicif you are a fan of talented team then sooner or later you will hate the second apron. Historically we are used to seeing teams fall off because either the core got too old or the team made bad decisions. With the second apron a GM that makes good picks in the draft and good trades for the supporting cast will find himself picking which good players they are going to get rid of because they made a smart move in the past. That's what's happening to the Celtics. They didn't sign a max free agent from anyone since Gordon Hayward.No robbing opponents of talent through bidding wars. Just paying their own players, who they happened to be right on too frequently.

It's very possible, given age and injury, that they still would be replacing Porzingis and Holiday this summer but there's no way they would be trading KP for Niang. That was nothing but a salary dump. Hypothetically, if Tatum didn't get injured? The NBA's rules would be forcing a rebuild, if not outright destroying one of it's best, most-marketed teams. And the same thing will happen to every team that manages to collect a lot of talent until/unless a bunch of young men each willingly sacrifice 10s of millions of dollars knowing that they are in the 10 to 15 years of their lives where they will be making 99.9% of the money they will ever have (not happening).

There is probably a floor of popularity the NBA can bank on but imagine a real marquee Finals match-up where Tatum and Brown are back in for the 5th or 6th time, facing SGA going for a threepeat, something like that where the elite teams are seriously established and going at it...we can only imagine, we won't actually see it.

[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt;15018784]Regardless of “the rules” it’s on the players for taking the money that ruins or breaks up the team.

Players could sign for a little less to try keep these “dynasties” alive but don’t.

Bottom line end of discussion.[/QUOTE]
How many times has Jrue Holiday been traded? If he signs for 5 mil per year it just means Brad Stevens will get an extra first rounder when he decides to move him.

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;15018783]Biggest problem with beal is the no trade clause[/QUOTE]

PG13 doesn't have a no trade clause but it's still a toxic contract.

[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt;15018784]Regardless of “the rules” it’s on the players for taking the money that ruins or breaks up the team.

Players could sign for a little less to try keep these “dynasties” alive but don’t.

Bottom line end of discussion.[/QUOTE]

it’s only the end of the discussion if you think someone who started life poor and is trying to maximize the brief window of earning potential is the one who should be sacrificing instead of people like the guy who runs the Nuggets talking about possibly having to trade Jokic over money when his dad owns the Nuggets, the Rams, Arsenal and an NHL team and his mom is the daughter of the founder of Walmart.

both sides could afford to make less money or to generally be less wealthy, but one side has quite a bit more wiggle room.

People like Dan Gilbert have wealth that fluctuates by $20-$30 billion. He’s been from 20 billion up to 40 billion down to 30 up to 50 and now he’s around 27. And we’re talking about players who could afford to leave some on the table?

Steve Ballmers worth like $150 billion. But it’s Kawhi Leonard’s fault if he doesn’t choose to simply pay the repeater luxury tax?

The owners have made it cost prohibitive to build these teams and keep them, but quite a few of them are the kind of rich where nothing is truly cost prohibitive.

The Cash poor NBA owners are actually people like the Buss family who were holding an asset worth $10 billion till they decided to cash it out.

Blaming players because people who have virtually but not quite inexhaustible resources Choose to limit what they will spend for contention?

Especially when even if everyone leaves something on the table teams like the Celtics would still get broken up? They got rid of their fourth and fifth options And saved 180,000,000. If their five best players all left something on the table? It wouldn’t be enough to keep the team together if ownership doesn’t feel like it paying to lose for at least a year.


It’s bad business, so Owners choose not to do it even though they could. Knowing that I don’t know how you blame the players for doing good business when relatively speaking, they need the money a lot more.

meh dynasties are more entertaining if you have a few teams that are close to that lvl. I get the downsides but its fun to see super stacked teams. that nets team with kd, harden, kyrie was amazing to watch for half a year and then you had really talented teams competing with them. hell the 2021 jazz team are a 2nd apron team in 2025. 2 30% max contracts with a 25% of cap contract for conley and a big mid tier contract for bojan with an expensive bench.

Now you kind of have to go with the 2 stars and role player model like the pacers did unless you have guys on rookie deals like okc. having more than 1 elite role player even(they make 30+mil/yr now) is hard with 2 max guys. Tbf there are exceptions. cavs have 3 all stars are just gonna deal with 2nd apron with this roster. Magic are gonna have 2 max guys and another 2 making 70mil combined in 2026 they'll likely be in 2nd apron. Knicks will pay og and brigdes like 75 mil combined in 2027 they're really fortunate brunson took a huge paycut.

It sucks. Imagine being penalized for drafting your championship core and then having to dismantle them because of a 250 million dollar tax to keep them.

Imagine being a Spurs fan in the Mid 2000s and you had to trade away Manu because of this repeater second apron tax....

There was a different way to avoid "super teams"

This was just the easiest, most simpleton way to do that.

Yes, I like a random league where smaller markets are given a chance. I'm tired of the dynasty era where a few teams ruled the Finals. While I know those huge markets brought eyeballs to the television it becomes predictable to the point it's boring for me.

[QUOTE=Carbine;15019477]It sucks. Imagine being penalized for drafting your championship core and then having to dismantle them because of a 250 million dollar tax to keep them.

Imagine being a Spurs fan in the Mid 2000s and you had to trade away Manu because of this repeater second apron tax....

There was a different way to avoid "super teams"

This was just the easiest, most simpleton way to do that.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn’t say I’m a fan of the thunder, but it does suck that you can just draft too well and be too intelligent to be allowed to keep your team. The easiest fix to me would be not having players you drafted count toward the luxury tax. Or maybe have a maximum of two who do?

If you’re able to evaluate young players well enough that you draft three or four stars that were available to other teams the idea that you should lose them just because they’re too valuable after you develop them is pretty crazy to me.

players you drafted should have at least a 25% savings against the luxury tax only. Not the salary cap. But you shouldn’t get charged for the entirety of what they take you over the cap if you drafted them.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;15019485]I wouldn’t say I’m a fan of the thunder, but it does suck that you can just draft too well and be too intelligent to be allowed to keep your team. The easiest fix to me would be not having players you drafted count toward the luxury tax. Or maybe have a maximum of two who do?

If you’re able to evaluate young players well enough that you draft three or four stars that were available to other teams the idea that you should lose them just because they’re too valuable after you develop them is pretty crazy to me.

players you drafted should have at least a 25% savings against the luxury tax only. Not the salary cap. But you shouldn’t get charged for the entirety of what they take you over the cap if you drafted them.[/QUOTE]

The counter is just because you drafted well doesn’t mean it’s good for the league if you dominate. Imagine say a richer guy like ballmer or Gilbert owned okc and there was no 2nd apron. They could be flipping Hartenstein Caruso every pick for Giannis in half a year. It be great to watch for a half year but other teams are basically dead for Giannis’ whole prime. Lot of fans wouldn’t be happy. 3/4 of the golden state super team also home grown.

Can also argue it’s smart team building to put together a team that’s not drafted. Haliburton and siakam were traded for. Siakam trade wasn’t the obvious superstar trade most teams didn’t want to pay him a max. If there wasn’t a 2nd apron Indiana could’ve gone for a 3rd star too I think with nembard and turner making good money. Nembard other salary picks for Desmond bane for example like Orlando did.

I get fans see okc current squad way differently than say the kd Kyrie harden nets where everyone forced their way there and the owner spends infinite money but Indiana was technically built the same way. They just feel way different because the names they got weren’t big.

Punishing Intelligence and good scouting because competent people being morons makes it easier on the incompetent isn’t much of an argument to me. Regardless of how they get them taking players from good teams always benefits the shit teams they are forced to play for instead, but that doesn’t make it right.

People who know what they’re doing shouldn’t be undermined because competence being limited to the brilliant is bad for idiots. Red being willing to pay Bob Cousy $10,000 a year after the Hawks refused to give It to him and he was gonna quit the league to sell Insurance shouldn’t be punished just because he was also smart enough to trade them a scorer for Bill Russell because they were too stupid to realize defense was more important.

And the stupid teams don’t deserve to break up birds Celtics because red was smart enough to draft Larry a year before he was actually gonna come out because he knew he was good enough to wait for and dumber teams didn’t have his patience. Just because he was able to flip a pick and a role player to get Parish and Mchale to play with him, doesn’t mean we should take pity on the Warriors and send one of them back because the Celtics became too good. They only had the pic to send because they traded Bob McAdoo to the Pistons for a couple picks years earlier. They only had Macado because the Celtics and Clippers essentially swapped their entire rosters in one of the weirdest moves in history that nobody seems to remember happening. The Celtics should be punished because the Warriors later thought Joe Barry Carroll would be such an upgrade over Robert Parish They traded Parish and the number three pick that ended up Mchale for the rights to get him?

The Lakers traded an aging Hall of Famer for the pick that became magic when they already had Kareem then traded A role player and their first round pick in the same draft Mikhail was in to the Cavaliers for future first that became James worthy. Cleveland doesn’t deserve to still be good when they give away picks to draft bums.

The 76ers only got to draft Barkley with such a high pic when they already had Moses and Dr. J(who the nets simply sold for cash) because 6 years earlier they sent World B Free to the clippers in an addition by subtraction move. Sure, the Clippers wouldn’t have been a laughing stock in the 80s if they got Barkley, but World B free was all NBA for them when they got him. They then added Walton by trading another good player and a future first that could’ve been used on a couple different All-Stars.

The league changed the rules Around drafting players early and the rules governing future first round picks, but you don’t just keep the smart teams from having the players they outsmarted stupid teams to get.

They didn’t steal them. They didn’t seduce them away with glitz and glamour.

They were just smarter than stupid teams. And it feels like these days we outright want to punish it. Would the league have actually been better off without the Showtime Lakers birds, Celtics, or the 76ers being a powerhouse to oppose them?

The built-in protection against your own incompetence is granting higher draft picks to the teams that suck. If you trade away or can’t take advantage of the built-in protection due to a skill issue or cheapness why should people smarter and harder working subsidize you with good players to counter your lack of intelligence?

No. Like you already said OKC shouldn't be punished for being smart and stockpiling talent as a small market team.

Dynasties are good for the league.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;15019739]Punishing Intelligence and good scouting because competent people being morons makes it easier on the incompetent isn’t much of an argument to me. Regardless of how they get them taking players from good teams always benefits the shit teams they are forced to play for instead, but that doesn’t make it right.

People who know what they’re doing shouldn’t be undermined because competence being limited to the brilliant is bad for idiots. Red being willing to pay Bob Cousy $10,000 a year after the Hawks refused to give It to him and he was gonna quit the league to sell Insurance shouldn’t be punished just because he was also smart enough to trade them a scorer for Bill Russell because they were too stupid to realize defense was more important.

And the stupid teams don’t deserve to break up birds Celtics because red was smart enough to draft Larry a year before he was actually gonna come out because he knew he was good enough to wait for and dumber teams didn’t have his patience. Just because he was able to flip a pick and a role player to get Parish and Mchale to play with him, doesn’t mean we should take pity on the Warriors and send one of them back because the Celtics became too good. They only had the pic to send because they traded Bob McAdoo to the Pistons for a couple picks years earlier. They only had Macado because the Celtics and Clippers essentially swapped their entire rosters in one of the weirdest moves in history that nobody seems to remember happening. The Celtics should be punished because the Warriors later thought Joe Barry Carroll would be such an upgrade over Robert Parish They traded Parish and the number three pick that ended up Mchale for the rights to get him?

The Lakers traded an aging Hall of Famer for the pick that became magic when they already had Kareem then traded A role player and their first round pick in the same draft Mikhail was in to the Cavaliers for future first that became James worthy. Cleveland doesn’t deserve to still be good when they give away picks to draft bums.

The 76ers only got to draft Barkley with such a high pic when they already had Moses and Dr. J(who the nets simply sold for cash) because 6 years earlier they sent World B Free to the clippers in an addition by subtraction move. Sure, the Clippers wouldn’t have been a laughing stock in the 80s if they got Barkley, but World B free was all NBA for them when they got him. They then added Walton by trading another good player and a future first that could’ve been used on a couple different All-Stars.

The league changed the rules Around drafting players early and the rules governing future first round picks, but you don’t just keep the smart teams from having the players they outsmarted stupid teams to get.

They didn’t steal them. They didn’t seduce them away with glitz and glamour.

They were just smarter than stupid teams. And it feels like these days we outright want to punish it. Would the league have actually been better off without the Showtime Lakers birds, Celtics, or the 76ers being a powerhouse to oppose them?

The built-in protection against your own incompetence is granting higher draft picks to the teams that suck. If you trade away or can’t take advantage of the built-in protection due to a skill issue or cheapness why should people smarter and harder working subsidize you with good players to counter your lack of intelligence?[/QUOTE]

I think my point was just if you count drafted players for 25% less against the cap you punish a smart team like Indiana or ny. None of nys current core was drafted but all of it came through smart trades and free agency moves. It wasn’t just throw money at a superstar because we have more money than others.

They be “punished” compared to okc if that rule came in. Would be an even bigger emphasis on tanking because the draft is more valuable. The Jazz may have never blown it up with Mitchell and gobert because they drafted both guys

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;15018796]it’s only the end of the discussion if you think someone who started life poor and is trying to maximize the brief window of earning potential is the one who should be sacrificing instead of people like the guy who runs the Nuggets talking about possibly having to trade Jokic over money when his dad owns the Nuggets, the Rams, Arsenal and an NHL team and his mom is the daughter of the founder of Walmart.

both sides could afford to make less money or to generally be less wealthy, but one side has quite a bit more wiggle room.

People like Dan Gilbert have wealth that fluctuates by $20-$30 billion. He’s been from 20 billion up to 40 billion down to 30 up to 50 and now he’s around 27. And we’re talking about players who could afford to leave some on the table?

Steve Ballmers worth like $150 billion. But it’s Kawhi Leonard’s fault if he doesn’t choose to simply pay the repeater luxury tax?

The owners have made it cost prohibitive to build these teams and keep them, but quite a few of them are the kind of rich where nothing is truly cost prohibitive.

The Cash poor NBA owners are actually people like the Buss family who were holding an asset worth $10 billion till they decided to cash it out.

Blaming players because people who have virtually but not quite inexhaustible resources Choose to limit what they will spend for contention?

Especially when even if everyone leaves something on the table teams like the Celtics would still get broken up? They got rid of their fourth and fifth options And saved 180,000,000. If their five best players all left something on the table? It wouldn’t be enough to keep the team together if ownership doesn’t feel like it paying to lose for at least a year.


It’s bad business, so Owners choose not to do it even though they could. Knowing that I don’t know how you blame the players for doing good business when relatively speaking, they need the money a lot more.[/QUOTE]

Dude obviously in a perfect world the owner oligarchs should take the pay cuts.

And that goes for every industry. Even labor you don’t give a shit about. Sports unions and Hollywood unions are never on the picket line with other workers so miss me with this self righteous fighting against the rich act. People like Dan Gilbert could do a lot more than pay basketball players. Lmao.


The bottom line though is players sell out. Just like everyone. They have a price, they sell out, and there goes the team. It’s not rocket science. lol.

[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt;15019808]Dude obviously in a perfect world the owner oligarchs should take the pay cuts.

And that goes for every industry. Even labor you don’t give a shit about. Sports unions and Hollywood unions are never on the picket line with other workers so miss me with this self righteous fighting against the rich act. People like Dan Gilbert could do a lot more than pay basketball players. Lmao.


The bottom line though is players sell out. Just like everyone. They have a price, they sell out, and there goes the team. It’s not rocket science. lol.[/QUOTE]

there’s nothing self-righteous about it. I don’t complain about players or owners wanting money. But you damn sure don’t make any sense blaming players for taking fair market value from someone worth billions. You said


[QUOTE]

[I]Players could sign for a little less to try keep these “dynasties” alive but don’t. [/I]

[I]Bottom line end of discussion.[/I]

[/QUOTE]


Putting every speck of the blame onto players then go back and say of course ownership should take the pay cut.

So which is it?

I responded to what you said. I didn’t assume you thought anything. You made it pretty clear it’s on the players.

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT;15019760]I think my point was just if you count drafted players for 25% less against the cap you punish a smart team like Indiana or ny. None of nys current core was drafted but all of it came through smart trades and free agency moves. It wasn’t just throw money at a superstar because we have more money than others.

They be “punished” compared to okc if that rule came in. Would be an even bigger emphasis on tanking because the draft is more valuable. The Jazz may have never blown it up with Mitchell and gobert because they drafted both guys[/QUOTE]


they have already established and apparently many fans agree that an issue is the so-called small markets losing players To free agency. Half the moves seem to be based on giving the home team and advantage to keep their players it just seems they’ve missed an incredibly obvious one. They let the team you’re on pay more. But doing that while having a system that punishes you for paying them more just seems ridiculous.

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT;15019760]I think my point was just if you count drafted players for 25% less against the cap you punish a smart team like Indiana or ny. None of nys current core was drafted but all of it came through smart trades and free agency moves. It wasn’t just throw money at a superstar because we have more money than others.

They be “punished” compared to okc if that rule came in. Would be an even bigger emphasis on tanking because the draft is more valuable. The Jazz may have never blown it up with Mitchell and gobert because they drafted both guys[/QUOTE]


they have already established and apparently many fans agree that an issue is the so-called small markets losing players To free agency. Half the moves seem to be based on giving the home team and advantage to keep their players it just seems they’ve missed an incredibly obvious one. They let the team you’re on pay more. But doing that while having a system that punishes you for paying them more just seems ridiculous.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;15019819]there’s nothing self-righteous about it. I don’t complain about players or owners wanting money. But you damn sure don’t make any sense blaming players for taking fair market value from someone worth billions. You said





Putting every speck of the blame onto players then go back and say of course ownership should take the pay cut.

So which is it?

I responded to what you said. I didn’t assume you thought anything. You made it pretty clear it’s on the players.[/QUOTE]

At some point it has to be on the players. Just like workers at average jobs.

You can blame the system all you want. The system ain’t changing. The players literally can control where they sign. So it’s on them.

If generational wealth and billionaire status is your goal then I suggest not being a worker/employee and start a business or get into Wall Street. lol.

The system isn’t changing for the same reason players aren’t gonna start taking drastically less than fair market value. It’s ****ing stupid business. I don’t see how you blame one and not the other when they share the exact same motivation. You just choose to put less blame on the people who have more to spare for some reason.

The system isn’t just one side. The system is both sides. You can’t blame one and not the other

It is bad for the league.

Consistency is what makes the NBA great. No one likes randomness and frequant player movement. It cheapens the product.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;15019831]The system isn’t changing for the same reason players aren’t gonna start taking drastically less than fair market value. It’s ****ing stupid business. I don’t see how you blame one and not the other when they share the exact same motivation. You just choose to put less blame on the people who have more to spare for some reason.

The system isn’t just one side. The system is both sides. You can’t blame one and not the other[/QUOTE]


I think it comes down to this. You don’t fight billionaires by trying to be one, and nobody’s right when everybody’s wrong.

You could eliminate “the rules”, get rid of the cap, have a complete free market, and it would still come down to players being lured away and selling out for more money.

Come on Kblaze don’t duck the question?????

How come it’s really the free market that breaks up great teams and not the so called “rules” of which you’ve implied?

Give me a wall of text explaining. Please.

I’m not really sure what you’re even asking me so I guess I’m gonna have to read through some of this again but for now I’ll just point out….


[IMG]https://www.hostpic.org/images/2507092301480347.jpeg[/IMG]

Second guy signed. I’m not sure what the rules are about having more than one super Max and rookie super extension. I know you can’t sign two players to a super max, but I don’t know about the regular super Max and the rookie scale super Max on the same team. You’d figure if they had to choose, they would give SGA the super and Williams the rookie super and give Chet whatever version of the max they have left, but like I said I’m not up on the rules on combining them. Maybe they can have 2 rookie max and a regular super? There’s no way they get Jalen to sign for less than he could is there?

Of course there’s always the under the table option. I’m sure it’s more common than we think. Joe Smith is the most prominent example that got caught, but Gilbert Arenas told a story recently of the warriors being unable to match the wizards offer and trying to give him a one year deal +4 luxury cars to take an under the table agreement they would give him his money next summer. He said his Agent talked him out of it by pointing out the difference in first year money would pay for those cars and more.

his dumb ass was about to take it.

He didn’t even mention The agent caring that it was illegal.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;15021078]I’m not really sure what you’re even asking me [/QUOTE]


No one ever is.

Asking deranged nonsense questions is just what that poster does.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;15021081]Second guy signed. I’m not sure what the rules are about having more than one super Max and rookie super extension. I know you can’t sign two players to a super max, but I don’t know about the regular super Max and the rookie scale super Max on the same team. You’d figure if they had to choose, they would give SGA the super and Williams the rookie super and give Chet whatever version of the max they have left, but like I said I’m not up on the rules on combining them. Maybe they can have 2 rookie max and a regular super? There’s no way they get Jalen to sign for less than he could is there?[/QUOTE]

New cba those rules all go out the window even the supermax rule. You just have to follow cap rules. Mobley and garland both got rookie maxes while Mitchell had max extension though not the supermax.

I just read up on it. There’s still a limit the new rule just added an exception granting an extra slot if you drafted the players in question. So you can have 2 rookie Supermax Derrick Rose rule guys and a regular super…if you drafted them all. They just know it’s gonna force you into the luxury tax and eventually into moving one of them.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;15018796]it’s only the end of the discussion if you think someone who started life poor and is trying to maximize the brief window of earning potential is the one who should be sacrificing instead of people like the guy who runs the Nuggets talking about possibly having to trade Jokic over money when his dad owns the Nuggets, the Rams, Arsenal and an NHL team and his mom is the daughter of the founder of Walmart.

both sides could afford to make less money or to generally be less wealthy, but one side has quite a bit more wiggle room.

People like Dan Gilbert have wealth that fluctuates by $20-$30 billion. He’s been from 20 billion up to 40 billion down to 30 up to 50 and now he’s around 27. And we’re talking about players who could afford to leave some on the table?

Steve Ballmers worth like $150 billion. But it’s Kawhi Leonard’s fault if he doesn’t choose to simply pay the repeater luxury tax?

The owners have made it cost prohibitive to build these teams and keep them, but quite a few of them are the kind of rich where nothing is truly cost prohibitive.

The Cash poor NBA owners are actually people like the Buss family who were holding an asset worth $10 billion till they decided to cash it out.

Blaming players because people who have virtually but not quite inexhaustible resources Choose to limit what they will spend for contention?

Especially when even if everyone leaves something on the table teams like the Celtics would still get broken up? They got rid of their fourth and fifth options And saved 180,000,000. If their five best players all left something on the table? It wouldn’t be enough to keep the team together if ownership doesn’t feel like it paying to lose for at least a year.


It’s bad business, so Owners choose not to do it even though they could. Knowing that I don’t know how you blame the players for doing good business when relatively speaking, they need the money a lot more.[/QUOTE]

To me the spirit of the cap is to break teams up.

It's no one's fault. If Kawhi accept less money than he's worth, then he's at fault. If teams force themselves to pay players, then it's their fault. At least in the context the cap.

So that’s all three.


[IMG]https://www.hostpic.org/images/2507110239590331.jpeg[/IMG]


Let the countdown begin