Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Durant to the Warriors!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Durant to the Warriors!

    Dayum!

  • #2
    Originally posted by revo View Post
    Dayum!
    Yea I was a little surprise I thought he would give Okc 1 more year. Should be interesting . I wonder if Draymond is going to be happy being the 4 th option???

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by hacko View Post
      Yea I was a little surprise I thought he would give Okc 1 more year. Should be interesting . I wonder if Draymond is going to be happy being the 4 th option???
      local news here says that Draymond had been lobbying KD for a year to come to the Warriors....
      "You know what's wrong with America? If I lovingly tongue a woman's nipple in a movie, it gets an "NC-17" rating, if I chop it off with a machete, it's an "R". That's what's wrong with America, man...."--Dennis Hopper

      "One should judge a man mainly from his depravities. Virtues can be faked. Depravities are real." -- Klaus Kinski

      Comment


      • #4
        I hated this when it was first announced, but now I'm getting excited to see how it will turn out next year. I feel terrible for OKC, who I'm sure will now lose Westbrook next year as well. I blame the CBA for artificially capping the salary that can be offered to the NBA's transcendental talents. If those guys could be paid remotely what they're worth, it would result in far more competitive balance and far more rational salaries being offered to the Chandler Parsons and Timofey Mozgovs of the world.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by B-Fly View Post
          I hated this when it was first announced, but now I'm getting excited to see how it will turn out next year. I feel terrible for OKC, who I'm sure will now lose Westbrook next year as well. I blame the CBA for artificially capping the salary that can be offered to the NBA's transcendental talents. If those guys could be paid remotely what they're worth, it would result in far more competitive balance and far more rational salaries being offered to the Chandler Parsons and Timofey Mozgovs of the world.
          The problem with no cap is that the NBA is a superstar sport, so a LeBron James or Stephen Curry is probably worthy of a contract in the $50m-$60m a year range.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by revo View Post
            The problem with no cap is that the NBA is a superstar sport, so a LeBron James or Stephen Curry is probably worthy of a contract in the $50m-$60m a year range.
            Yes, which is a problem why? When we play fantasy basketball, we know that there's nothing irrational about spending as much as 35/40% of your total budget on a guy like Curry or Durant. Some owners will make that choice and others won't, because they realize it will limit their ability to roster other stars. But having a team level salary cap with no individual salary cap would lead to far greater parity in the league overall. If a guy like Durant can basically go to any team and they can all pay him basically the same amount, then why not choose the most talent-loaded team that ultimately needs him the least?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by B-Fly View Post
              Yes, which is a problem why? When we play fantasy basketball, we know that there's nothing irrational about spending as much as 35/40% of your total budget on a guy like Curry or Durant. Some owners will make that choice and others won't, because they realize it will limit their ability to roster other stars. But having a team level salary cap with no individual salary cap would lead to far greater parity in the league overall. If a guy like Durant can basically go to any team and they can all pay him basically the same amount, then why not choose the most talent-loaded team that ultimately needs him the least?
              I think it's a problem because the Player's Union represents all 440 players and not just the best 20. We all know a LeBron or Steph will get the most money they possibly could under any system; but the Union loves seeing the Mike Conleys of the world making $20m a year, because he likely wouldn't any other way. And when Conley's contract gets benchmarked in the future for the new free agent class, then suddenly the whole middle-class of NBA players get massive raises.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by revo View Post
                I think it's a problem because the Player's Union represents all 440 players and not just the best 20. We all know a LeBron or Steph will get the most money they possibly could under any system; but the Union loves seeing the Mike Conleys of the world making $20m a year, because he likely wouldn't any other way. And when Conley's contract gets benchmarked in the future for the new free agent class, then suddenly the whole middle-class of NBA players get massive raises.
                Ah, you mean a negotiations problem. I thought you meant it was an equity problem.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by B-Fly View Post
                  If those guys could be paid remotely what they're worth, it would result in far more competitive balance and far more rational salaries being offered to the Chandler Parsons and Timofey Mozgovs of the world.
                  I take less issue with Parsons' contract than the big money waste the Lakers spent on Mozgov. Did they not observe the Asik deal in New Orleans?

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X