Exactly. Do you think if Beverly, Harrell and LouWill were playing in somewhere like Atlanta that Kawhi would have gone there? They had no bearing on the decision whatsoever.
NBA 2019-2020
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Exactly. Do you think if Beverly, Harrell and LouWill were playing in somewhere like Atlanta that Kawhi would have gone there? They had no bearing on the decision whatsoever.
No, not in my opinion.
But he is an Allstar and all that so it‘s probably not the worst move.
Personally, I think he can‘t improve his game in the PO because he is one of the worst shooters out there.
You'd have to ask experts on contracts and cap space like @Sarni and @Eboue but I think it pretty much means they're locked in for the next few years and are in win (or at least compete) now mode.
I don't mind the Simmons and Harris deals, but thought that giving a 4-year, $100m+ deal to a 33-year old Horford limited them a bit towards the future. I think all of Harris, Horford, Embiid and Simmons are now locked until at least the 22-23 season, so that's a 4 season window they have with their core group now. They also have Josh Richardson at an extremely kind contract, something like a 2-year, $10m deal. Think there was a player option after those 2 years but he'll have lots of opportunities to cash in big if he keeps playing like he has been. That's a worry for in two years time though for the Sixers.
If they felt that Simmons is their franchise PG going forward, it's not a bad contract. I have my reservations about him but if they didn't sign him he'd have gotten the contract elsewhere no doubt.
I think they did play a role. George and Kawhi could have looked at the team from last year and know they are walking into an organization that is already playoffs ready and would only become substantially better with them. It’s a bit like with the Nets, main reason they got Durant and Irving is they are from New York but so are the Knicks and the advantage they had was having a good and stable supporting cast to put around them.
if Richardson plays well for them they have his Bird rights, so can re-sign him for the max if that's the level he gets to.
Sixers were never going to let Simmons go. he has one weakness in his game: shooting. he's already pretty damn elite in every other facet to his game. if he can develop a shot he has best player in the league potential.
The thing people get confused about with the cap is that it incentivizes moves that aren't exactly an optimal distribution of resources. In this case, $34 million is probably more than the 76ers think Simmons is worth given his lack of a jumper limits his playoff value. But what is the other option? They are already capped out. They can't just take that $34 million per year and give it to a free agent. It's basically only there for Simmons because he's already on their roster and the CBA gives teams more leeway with Bird rights and Early Bird rights and Supermax and such. So the real calculus is: can we offer Simmons less than the max? will he be offended and create tension down the line? will another team offer him the full max? The only way you can say yes to offering him less is if the answer to the other two questions is no. And I'm confident that a number of teams would offer him a full max immediately upon hitting free agency. Either they offer him the full max or he leaves and they can fill that spot with either a rookie or a minimum free agent. They are trying to win it all, not to pair Embiid and Harris with Ty Jerome or Frank Jackson.
Not offering him the full max would have been cause to fire the GM on the spot.
That’s a good take. It’s not like they could go and get another max player to replace Simmons with. You can do sign and trade but it hard caps you for the next year and they would never fill out the team if they sign and traded Simmons for a player making similar kind of money.
I think Harris ultimately becomes a trade piece for them and wasn’t that great of a business. The issue is there was lots of money to go around this year and he would have easily got a similar deal from another team so they were sort of forced to do it. Simmons I have little issue with, he’s a very good player even if some of his limitations may prevent him from becoming a top 5-10 player.
It’s deals like $170million for Jamal Murray I have issue with, or even the Booker deal signed last year. Why take away any flexibility to hand over that deal a year in advance?
That's it in a nutshell, and was exactly the problem the Warriors found themselves in. They chose to go the hard cap route since it gave them more flexibility down the road but it really was the lesser of two evils.
Warriors are an interesting case because they really restricted themselves from having any flexibility this year but have also put themselves in a much better position going forward as they could potentially trade Russell and stay well over cap. When it comes to other players on that roster, this is their team for the next 12 months. They won’t even be able to sign buyout players.
NBA should eliminate the salary cap imo.
feck is this shit
All these moves and how it is falling, benefiting the fans most of all, a number of contenders and fascinating teams to watch, the closest to some form of parity in a long time. Very excited for this season, though I always forget just how long there is between Summer League and the real stuff starting, should push SL back to August, give the kids a Summer to get prepared for an NBA season.
Preseason games start in late September I think. The break is very long though, half the league will not play competitive basketball between April and October and in reality some will have stopped playing competitive basketball in February.
I would prefer the season to be 58 games long but stretched between September and June. I don’t need my team to be playing every other night, two games a week would be fine and would also allow people to watch more basketball overall.
Pro sports shouldn't have salary caps. I would agree on tax levels though.
But if salary caps are necessary I do prefer the NBA version over the NFL hard cap route. That said, I find the max/supermax stuff ridiculous.
But if salary caps are necessary I do prefer the NBA version over the NFL hard cap route. That said, I find the max/supermax stuff ridiculous.
Anyone out there want a 34-year-old, injury prone point guard who makes a ridiculous amount of money over the next few years?
Salary caps are excellent. Keeps the sport competitive and ensures that big markets don’t pile up all talent.
Football would be so much better off with salary cap and similar restrictions too.
You would need to attach one or even two picks to turn that deal into something shorter or cap space which I am not sure is worth it in OKC situation. I think he will start the season there and maybe could get a move to a desperate team before the deadline.
OKC don’t really need to shed salary anymore and have a ton of future assets so might be better off just keeping Paul. Buyout would be dumb as his money would still remain on the books, trading him will be super tricky.
Miami are the only suitors mentioned so far, they are hard capped though so salary matching would be tough. Maybe a team will emerge during the season - like Bulls or Wolves.
Sport just isn't fair without one.
Exactly. I don’t know how you can look at recent changes and the league being the most even and exciting in a while this year, and say cap/draft don’t work. Out of 30 teams in the league, about 20 at least have something to be excited about going forward. Why some would prefer a league dominated by 4-5 teams with the rest not even close to being able to compete is weird to me.
yep, salary caps and drafts are excellent. you look at most of the european football leagues being dominated by one or two teams - i'm surprised people still are even interested. most football fans don't ever even expect to win anything. how depressing. not what sport is meant to be about.
Exactly.
The NBA, NFL, and Australian Football League all have a salary cap in place and a yearly draft - which is always a must view/watch. People love the draft.
Out of 20 Premier League teams, at least 15 know they have zero chance to win the league in the next 20 years unless they get taken over by a rich individual (like City) or another Leicester happens which occurs maybe once per three or four decades at best. When it comes to Champions League it’s largely the same 5-6 teams battling it out with 1-2 teams joining in every now and again. Basically most teams play to survive and players play to get a move to a bigger team so they can fight for trophies. I don’t get how to anybody this formula would be more appealing than what American sports have.
Brooklyn Nets have just gone from cannon fodder with no picks to a contender because of great management in 3 years. Likewise LA Clippers. Even the crap teams have young talent to get excited about and give them some promise for future. I don’t think there’s a single team in a league of thirty currently that wouldn’t have something to be positive about.
Yes the NBA where two teams won every championship but one between 1999 and 2010 and where the West has sent the same team to the finals the past 5 years and the East the same team 4 out of the last 5 is so competitive. The last time there was a repeat world series matchup was 1978.
Of course it’s competitive, much more so than football. Cleveland is actually a perfect example of how dynamic it is, they went from complete shite to a contender and then back to garbage in a space of six years.
The same team in finals from west last 5 years last won a title 40 yrs ago.
The same team from east in 4 of last 5 has one title in their history.
If you watch the NBA you can't possibly make the argument that it's just as non - competitive as European soccer.
In any case the success you cited above is purely down to excellent drafting (GSW) or the best player choosing to go play there (cavs) nothing to do with money like usually in European soccer.
Is it fairer competition to have a salary cap and a draft, or not?
It's that simple.
Huh? 5 Teams won between 1999 and 2010? Spurs, Lakers, Pistons, Heat and Celtics
You obviously don't know what you are talking about.
The NBA draft/salary caps only work because unlike in Europe they can force employees to work for another team in a different state.
That shit wouldn't fly here.
Secondly, they are closed leagues. The franchise's belong to the NBA. It's why they can uplift a franchise and move it to another state.
That shit also wouldn't fly here.
That shit wouldn't fly here.
Secondly, they are closed leagues. The franchise's belong to the NBA. It's why they can uplift a franchise and move it to another state.
That shit also wouldn't fly here.
The bond most European fans have with their clubs goes beyond winning trophies. It's why at the same time NBA/NFL franchise's can uproot an entire team from one city to another, because it's a 'bigger market' and more profitable for the owner.
Yes, how sad for the multimillionaire employees to be doing their dream job.
Even more gutting for the multibillionaire owners that they can't hoard more money out of football clubs.
this is why you have players unions and collective bargaining.
the structure of European football would have to change drastically across all the big leagues for a salary cap based system to be implemented. which is very unlikely. the big clubs are too powerful.
magic johnson is cancelled
Nice to see Magic being so grounded and in touch with real life.
This needs to start because I feel like the football season will be boring
Wow was Linsanity 7 years ago?! I follow the NBA a lot from the UK and I can remember this like it was yesterday! Seems it's up in the air about where he will play next.
https://nypost.com/2019/07/29/jeremy-lins-nba-status-keeps-getting-sadder/
https://nypost.com/2019/07/29/jeremy-lins-nba-status-keeps-getting-sadder/
I decided to pay for the league pass this season for the first time, but going to their website confused me a bit. What's the difference between these two?
