bmags Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 04:34 PM) http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/2...owners-players/ Dear god that would be awful. Just as a reference point, the Bulls payroll for 2011-2012 is $60,726,162 for ONLY 10 players (Boozer, Deng, Rose, Noah, Korver, Brewer, Watson, Asik, Bogans and Gibson). And the Bulls have to re-sign Rose to a max deal. This is gonna be a long long long winter without any basketball. One, that will never happen. But 2, without guaranteed contracts it gets a lot easier to not give a s*** about possible bad contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 10:34 AM) http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/2...owners-players/ Dear god that would be awful. Just as a reference point, the Bulls payroll for 2011-2012 is $60,726,162 for ONLY 10 players (Boozer, Deng, Rose, Noah, Korver, Brewer, Watson, Asik, Bogans and Gibson). And the Bulls have to re-sign Rose to a max deal. This is gonna be a long long long winter without any basketball. Yep, I've basically come to the realization that the season will not start on time. Best-case scenario would be for a repeat of '99 and getting 50 games in. But that's even doubtful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 12:24 PM) Yep, I've basically come to the realization that the season will not start on time. Best-case scenario would be for a repeat of '99 and getting 50 games in. But that's even doubtful. IF the league gets that many games in, it's because the union broke, and the proposal we just read probably will look like what we'll actually see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 11:34 AM) http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/2...owners-players/ Dear god that would be awful. Just as a reference point, the Bulls payroll for 2011-2012 is $60,726,162 for ONLY 10 players (Boozer, Deng, Rose, Noah, Korver, Brewer, Watson, Asik, Bogans and Gibson). And the Bulls have to re-sign Rose to a max deal. This is gonna be a long long long winter without any basketball. Remember...whatever the "Max deal" is would obviously change in this situation (no team can get by with a guy on a $17 million deal if the cap is $45 million). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggsmaggs Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 12:12 PM) Remember...whatever the "Max deal" is would obviously change in this situation (no team can get by with a guy on a $17 million deal if the cap is $45 million). Yeah that's very true. And obviously the league won't look like that first proposal b/c there is no way the players will agree to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 10:50 AM) One, that will never happen. But 2, without guaranteed contracts it gets a lot easier to not give a s*** about possible bad contracts. Exactly. The bulls could easily dump Boozer or Noah and get even further below the cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Gone for 2 weeks and nothing changes. I missed SoxTalk. Like the Mirotic draft-and-stash and if we get a guy who can spell Deng and play D at 30, I can live with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Gone for 2 weeks and nothing changes. I missed SoxTalk. Like the Mirotic draft-and-stash and if we get a guy who can spell Deng and play D at 30, I can live with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 I could see an MLB style cap structure where the "soft cap" is 45 million, but if you go over you have to pay $ for $ into a revenue sharing structure. And yes, a hard cap would HAVE to be phased in. Teams are not going to want to cut their key players to make the cap (even if they plan on resigning them), there's too much of a risk they might walk to another team. and even with a 33% reduction in pay, any team currently over $67.164 million in payroll would be destroyed overnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 29, 2011 Author Share Posted June 29, 2011 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 12:26 PM) Gone for 2 weeks and nothing changes. I missed SoxTalk. Like the Mirotic draft-and-stash and if we get a guy who can spell Deng and play D at 30, I can live with that. Nothing will change until the CBA gets fixed. If you were expecting something new, I wouldn't click into this thread until after an agreement was reached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 01:31 PM) I could see an MLB style cap structure where the "soft cap" is 45 million, but if you go over you have to pay $ for $ into a revenue sharing structure. This is exactly what they currently have right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 12:35 PM) Nothing will change until the CBA gets fixed. If you were expecting something new, I wouldn't click into this thread until after an agreement was reached. By nothing changes I mean J4L's pessimism, Felix busting out stats, Steve arguing with Felix, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 12:35 PM) This is exactly what they currently have right now. Right, but a lower cap could increase the amount of money that goes around. Personally, I dont want to see rev sharing because I just dont think it really helps all that much. I want to see contraction of the weak financial teams, but that wont happen. Contract the Bucks, Hornets, and Kings for starters. Edited June 29, 2011 by Athomeboy_2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 29, 2011 Author Share Posted June 29, 2011 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 12:38 PM) By nothing changes I mean J4L's pessimism, Felix busting out stats, Steve arguing with Felix, etc. Ah, I gotcha. Disregard then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 12:38 PM) By nothing changes I mean J4L's pessimism, Felix busting out stats, Steve arguing with Felix, etc. Something did change, Steve busted out a bar graph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Well, it's deadline night. Should we just change this thread name to the official 2011 NBA Lockout thread or do we want a separate thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Hmph. Portland tendered Oden an $8.8 million qualifying offer before the deadline. Assuming restricted free agents still exist whenever things settle, that's a lot of money to tender a guy like that. Although it does mean he won't end up signing with the Heat like I thought he would Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 I remember the NBA. It's too bad we might lose an entire year of D-Rose development on the court in actual game situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 11:18 AM) I remember the NBA. It's too bad we might lose an entire year of D-Rose development on the court in actual game situations. It's possible that an extra 6 months off from competitive, 100% give it your all basketball will wind up being a good thing for his health years down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 30, 2011 Author Share Posted June 30, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 12:32 PM) It's possible that an extra 6 months off from competitive, 100% give it your all basketball will wind up being a good thing for his health years down the road. The problem is it will do the same for everyone else as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 01:35 PM) The problem is it will do the same for everyone else as well. Except I care about it a lot more for a guy like Rose...came into the league as a college sophomore, lotta miles on the odometer early, guy who is more effective when he is drawing contact and who always has the ball in his hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 30, 2011 Author Share Posted June 30, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 12:39 PM) Except I care about it a lot more for a guy like Rose...came into the league as a college sophomore, lotta miles on the odometer early, guy who is more effective when he is drawing contact and who always has the ball in his hands. It also means that someone like LeBron or Kobe could get the most millage out of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 01:44 PM) It also means that someone like LeBron or Kobe could get the most millage out of this. Ahem...(Clears throat)...Wade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 30, 2011 Author Share Posted June 30, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 12:48 PM) Ahem...(Clears throat)...Wade? Wade at least played all of those years of college, which kept him at 40 games instead of 80. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 01:50 PM) Wade at least played all of those years of college, which kept him at 40 games instead of 80. But...he's taken a fairly unique pounding. We've all seen that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts