Prowling the NBA: Feb 7 - BOOM SHAKALAKA
Alright. Last week I said this week’s theme was going to be Amare Stoudemire. And I completely intended it to be...BUT…
Amare is going to be relevant next week, when the trade deadline finally hits. So the Stoudemire op-ed is getting pushed back to next week to make this week’s theme the breaking news of this week.
Which, of course, is the return of everyone’s favorite NBA video game franchise: NBA Jam.
That’s right people. The game where players jump 30 feet in the air, shove each other to the ground, and literally light the nets on fire (HE’S ON FIRE) is back, in next-gen glory complete with real player models, faces, and out of control action.

If only Kevin Love could really jump that high, right?
The downside is that, in two weeks, even this NBA Jam roster selection could be out of date. The NBA’s trade deadline is fast approaching (February 18th) and as always, the twittering in this 11th hour has reached a level that rivals actual Twittering.
Also on the docket this week, more NBA All Star news, coaching news, an interview with Kevin McHale, and something that will lead us into next week’s update and impact the league for years….the first bit of news on the new Collective Bargaining Agreement. Let's just say not everyone's happy about that one...
So let’s get started. And for the first time in a month, there’s nothing on Gilbert Arenas.
So we'll start instead with NBA Jam:
First of all, the game is a Wii exclusive, which...well, is maybe good, maybe bad. Certainly the last attempt at NBA Jam on the Xbox was less than spectacular. The Wii platform seems a little more suited for the casual, pick-up-and-play, party attitude of the NBA Jam series.
More promising though is that the series' original creator is back on board for this one. Electronic Arts acquired the license from Acclaim (who acquired it from the original publisher, Midway), and promptly contacted him as a consultant to their design team. Rest assured that everything about the new NBA Jam will be right in line with the classic ones.
Perhaps the biggest upgrade is that players now have actual faces, rather than just appearing as generic sprites with different color jerseys. Interestingly enough, the game is using fully rendered and textured 3D models for the bodies, but 2D photographs for the faces.
For those who can't make out the text (poor quality scan, sorry...), basically what EA has done is scoured the ‘net for every single picture they can find of the players who are in the game, then cutting the faces out of those photos to get the expressions they want. Each player will have three "game" faces, a couple of excited "I'm dunking" faces, plus a positive and negative face for when you do something right or wrong. The game will use some subtle blurring at the neckline to hide the transition form 3D to 2D on the players.
The disappointing news, at least as the game stands right now, is that only three players from each team will be available to choose from, not the whole roster (or at least the starters). That's unfortunately going to leave out some very NBA Jamish duos. Nick Young and JaVale McGee? JR Smith and the Birdman? Who gets left off the Lakers? Bynum? Odom? Artest?
I mean, if I'm starting a real NBA team, give me Al Jefferson and Kevin Love. But an NBA Jam team? Corey Brewer and Ryan Hollins please.
On the bright side, it's still completely legal to shove the guy with the ball.
Alright, now to kick of the hardcore NBA news. Amare Stoudemire? He seems like an ideal NBA Jammer. Even though this isn't his week anymore, there's still news on him.
The Amare Stoudemire sweepstakes:
Like last week, this is going to be divided into who’s in an who’s out. A lot of these were posted last week, but there’s a new entry in the "IN" column, so read up.
IN:
The San Antonio Spurs:
Surprise surprise. I was skeptical of this too when I first heard it, but this actually had legs. The Spurs "know they need to do something," as one source puts it, to their frontcourt if they want to really contend with the Lakers (hint to Timberwolves fans...if Timmy Duncan isn't enough...well....)
The questions here are about the long term impact. First, the Spurs would have to give up a lot....probably Manu Ginobili and some combination of Matt Bonner, Michael Finley and Roger Mason....to make a trade realistic. That's a lot of outside firepower, and the player that has been the Spurs' driving x-factor in all their championship seasons (and the missing piece in all the years they've fallen short). Further, if the trade does happen, would the Spurs be willing to spend the money needed to keep Amare beyond this summer? Is he the missing piece for a championship run in the first place?
San Antonio, of course, would be elated if the Suns decided to take Richard Jefferson from them to replace aging Grant Hill. That might gain steam in the next couple of weeks if the Suns don't feel like any clearly better offers come in.
I'm going to say that if the Spurs can get Amare, they should get Amare. As a tandem, Duncan and Stoudemire would be a nearly unstoppable force on offense, and I think Amare can pick it up enough (and Duncan can cover enough), that he at least can be as effective a defender as Antonio McDyess. He certainly can't be more of a liability on that end as Matt Bonner.
The Chicago Bulls:
The offer here is Kirk Hinrich, Luol Deng, and Tyrus Thomas for Stoudemire. In terms of talent, that far outstrips the Spurs' offer(s). But this would also have a much more adverse effect on the Suns financially....Hinrich and Deng have contracts that extend into next season (and beyond).....Ginobili, Finley, Mason and Bonner are all expiring deals.
If the Suns move Amare, does that mean they're rebuilding? Even with veterans Steve Nash, Jason Richardson and Grant Hill still on board? After Nash and Hill specifically stayed because they both felt the team was getting back into the contender mix? Hmmm...
The Philadelphia 76ers:
As reported last week, the Sixers have decided to go boom, blowing up the roster for whatever cap space they can get. Amare would certainly seem to be a good fit for their open court system: if he opts out, they get $17 million off the books. If he doesn't, they keep a player fairly custom build for their system, and $17 million off the books in 2011 (along with potentially Samuel Dalembert's $12 million and Jason Kapono's $7 million) in what is, at some point, going to become known as the "Year of Durant".
Andre Iguodala would be the centerpiece of a trade here. What else? Would the Suns want Kapono's shooting? Would they want young talent like Thaddeous Young and Marreese Speights? One would think the Sixers wouldn't give up either of those two, nor would the Suns have much interest in Lou Williams or Jrue Holiday, with Nash, Leandro Barbosa, and the emerging Goran Dragic already on board.
The New Jersey Nets:
The Nets can offer the Suns something no other team in the mix can: lots of good draft picks. The general field offer here is Stoudemire for Yi Jianlian (who's been playing very well lately), Courtney Lee, Bobby Simmons (expiring), and a couple first rounders. All would fit into the Suns' system and plans.
Another possibility is, if the Nets win the #1 pick in the lottery, a sign-and-trade over the summer with Devin Harris as part of the deal.
For now though, the Nets' only untouchable is Brook Lopez, for obvious reasons. A combination of Lopez and either Harris or John Wall would give Amare a good show of talented support to play with, and a trio of Stoudemire, Lopez, and either Harris or Wall would be a major draw this summer for LeBron or Wade.
For his part, Amare was quick not to rule out the Nets just because of their record this year. When asked about teams he'd automatically say "no way" to, Stoudemire responded, "I don’t think the Nets are one of them."
The Detroit Pistons:
Like the Sixers, the Pistons have gone into all out remake the roster mode, and have several attractive pieces to offer the Suns.
First are the veterans, Richard Hamilton and Tayshaun Prince, both of whom would be fantastic fits for the Suns' system and assurance to Nash and Hill that the team isn't starting over. Also possible is Charlie Villanueva, the sweet shooting big man the Pistons signed over the summer.
One player the Suns would certainly want who the Pistons won't be giving up is Ben Gordon. Detroit is very locked into Gordon and Rodney Stuckey being the backcourt of the future, even if Stuckey has yet to prove he deserves the support.
The Phoenix Suns:
The new addition to team in the running for Stoudemire is the one he's already on. This week, in an interview with Fanhouse, Stoudemire said he is more likely to stay with his current contract next year rather than opt out and hit free agency.
"I can opt out this summer or I can opt in, which means I'll be back another year (for $17.69 million)," said Stoudemire, speaking after the morning shootaround in preparation for Wednesday night's game against Denver. "That's definitely an option. I'm leaning more toward that right now.
This would drastically reduce the Suns' desire to trade Stoudemire, since their motivation to deal him is the thought he will opt out and walk away for nothing. If he were to "opt in", the Suns could simply retain him for next season.
The next step appears to be talking with Suns' management about a contract extension, which Stoudemire expects them to make soon. The point there, of course, is how much gets offered. Stoudemire seems to believe he's a max free agent, which is a view unlikely to be shared by the Suns or most other teams, but at the same time, Amare can probably get max money by finishing the season strong and playing up the competition between teams to sign him. He'll be the most coveted of the "second tier" free agents, and a team that misses out on LeBron/Wade/Bosh and is desperate to sign star power will probably consider offering him max money very strongly.
If Stoudemire chooses to opt in, he'll be in the same situation Carlos Boozer is in, after he chose last season to stay in his contract. The main risk Amare runs with that decision is that the new Collective Bargaining Agreement that's being planned to take effect in 2011 (the summer Amare would hit free agency) could put a much stricter limit on contract sums, reducing the amount Stoudemire would make under that scenario versus what he could make if he opts out and hits free agency this year.
OUT:
The New York Knicks:
Which is odd, because they're in on basically every other trade rumor out there. But team President Donnie Walsh has flatly said, "I haven't talked to them" and laughed at the idea that he would.
No real reason why, but odds are the team is 100% focused right now on somehow getting Jared Jeffries out the door. Without that, the Knicks can kiss their summer plans goodbye.
For the Suns, the obvious question is who would they want off the Knicks' roster? The only players that would really interest Phoenix are the two players New York won't give up: Danillo Gallinari and Wilson Chandler. Not to mention that for the finances to work, the Suns would have to take on Larry Hughes, Al Harrington, Darko Milicic, or David Lee. Expirings have their uses, but again, what would that say to Steve Nash? The Suns can get a much better offer from a different team and Walsh seems to know that.
The Miami Heat:
On the surface, Amare + Wade seems like any team's dream. How would anyone possibly guard those two and emerging scorer Michael Beasley?
But the Heat have two things in mind here:
1) Unlike the Knicks, the Heat actually do have the money to sign two max free agents. Why not just wait until the summer and see what happens?
2) The Heat reportedly value Chris Bosh much more because of the defense factor.
Stoudemire has a summer home in Miami and says he'd gladly play for the Heat, but he too seems to be thinking it'd be a summer signing, not a deadline trade.
The Minnesota Timberwolves:
This I'm admittedly back and forth on. On one hand, I don't think David Kahn is planning to trade for Stoudemire, especially at the expense of Al Jefferson or Ricky Rubio. On the other hand, I do think he's considering a way he can trade for Stoudemire that won't break the bank.
In terms of last week's trade rumor, Kahn said he isn't going to make any trades, Amare included, unless "someone calls up with a deal that’s so preposterously one-sided, we'd have to do it, " which he defines as, "Something that even Al Jefferson would have to say, 'David you have to do that.'"
So Kahn's statements seem to rule out a Stoudemire trade, but at the same time....they don't.
"I think Al actually backed up exactly the conversation we had face-to-face in Denver a couple of weeks ago, and that was as follows: ‘Al, I am not looking to trade you, and that’s the truth. I haven’t made one phone call all year long proposing a deal that involved Al Jefferson, and I won’t do so this year,’ " Kahn said.
But....
"I also said ‘At the same time, Al, you know, though, that I can’t control this totally. If somebody calls and makes us an offer that is so obvious, we have to do it. And he said ‘Of course, I know that, David. You can never promise that.’"
So that's what it is, I think. Right now, no....but later? Who knows. I'm going to rule us out for now because, like the Knicks' situation, the Suns are probably going to get a better offer from someone else. But at the same time, I don't think we can ever be %100 ruled out of any trade situation. Unlike McHale, Kahn is a guy who keeps all doors open at all times.
And another story that was reported last week…
The Celtics are looking to move Ray Allen:
Reports began breaking a week ago that the Warriors were going to try and put together a package of Monta Ellis and expiring for Ray Allen. That rumor turned out to be speculation, but on the other hand, Ray Allen is indeed available.
The Celtics are apparently shopping Allen, looking for what the Warriors could offer: a younger shooting guard and a couple expiring deals. Allen’s contract expires at the end of the season, but the Celtics don’t want to commit to an extension for the aging guard and don’t have the money to replace him in the open market. So the only choice left is to trade his contract for a different one that will stick with the team for a few years.
The problem is that the list of players who fit the desired description is short, and none of those players seem like particularly good fits.
Monta Ellis can score with the best of them, but he’s undersized for a shooting guard and not a particularly effective defender. Would the Celtics be willing to risk having Rajon Rondo guard bigger, stronger shooting guards when they already rely on him so much for everything else?
Kevin Martin has size and can shoot, but doesn’t defend and there’s questions about him playing a team game. Andre Iguodala is a great teammate and can defend with the best of them, but can’t shoot.
Maybe the most intriguing and best option is Kirk Hinrich. He’s relatively young, a solid shooter, a solid defender, and could also move to point guard to give Rondo some needed backup.
On the Bulls’ side, moving Kirk Hinrich and the expiring deal of John Salmons would free up enough cap space for them to sign not one, but two max free agents over the summer.
If I were to make a guess, I’d say it’s more likely Ray Allen stays put than not. None of the available guards can really compare to him, even at this age, and the Celtics have only recently (as in this weekend) gotten their whole roster more or less healthy. Still, it’s looking increasingly unlikely he’s going to be in Boston beyond this season, and trading Allen is the only way they can replace him with anyone quality.
Of course, Ray Allen isn’t the only shooting guard being shopped around.
The Rockets are still looking to trade Tracy McGrady:
Reports are the Rockets/Wizards trade talk is still alive, but are currently stuck. The core of the deal is McGrady for Caron Butler and either Mike Miller or Randy Foye. However the Rockets also want Brendan Haywood, the Wizards want Louis Scola or Carl Landry, and the two aren’t willing to exchange them for each other.
The Rockets are also still talking to the Bulls, but likewise, those negotiations are stalled. The Rockets want Joakim Noah and the expiring deals of Brad Miller and Jerome James, but the Bulls are much more interested in moving Kirk Hinrich and Tyrus Thomas, and have no intent to trade Noah to anyone.
Talks between the Rockets and Sixers involving Iguodala and Samuel Dalembert are "sporadic", as one source puts it. Still, Houston believes it has a better than 50% chance of moving Mcgrady somewhere before the deadline.
Now moving on to a Rockets rival…
The Utah Jazz are talking about trading Carlos Boozer for Tayshaun Prince:
The Jazz know Boozer is gone at the end of the year and want to get something for him before then. The Pistons are reeling, with an overload of swingmen and no low post presence. So the deal makes sense for both teams.
The snag for the Jazz is that the ownership and coaches disagree on what to do. Jazz management is still unsold on paying the huge luxury tax bill that would come with keeping Boozer all season, and want to get something for him, since they won’t have the money to make a big signing over the summer even if his deal is kept an expires. Jerry Sloan and the coaches on the other hand want to keep him at all costs for the remainder of the season because they believe that gives the team the best chance to make noise in the playoffs. Prince would add a playoff tested veteran to the Jazz who can do a little of everything and really glue a team together, but moving Boozer would leave Utah very thin in the frontcourt, with Millsap moving into the starting five with just Kosta Kufos to back him and Mehmet Okur up off the bench.
The Pistons have reportedly also suggested a Boozer/Richard Hamilton trade, but despite the great potential of a Williams/Rip backcourt, the Jazz are less than enthused about the three years and $38 million left on Hamilton’s contract.
Now for a long string of Mavericks-related news, starting with….
The Dallas Mavericks are determined to move Josh Howard:
Which is something that should have happened two years ago, but hey…
The Mavs are skidding out of control, thanks in particular to…well, us….and Howard is the expendable, not-fitting-in piece they’re looking to use to right the ship (as opposed, ironically, to the mammoth expiring deal of Erick Dampier).
What Dallas wants in return is either a genuine shooting guard who can give the backcourt some legitimate size and allow Jason Terry to go back to his sixth man role, or a defensive big man with more mobility and offense than Dampier.
The Josh Howard camp is convinced he’s going to either Toronto or Miami, who can offer the Mavs neither of the kinds of players they want. The Mavs say, "That comes completely out of left field,’’ according to one team source. The Raptors say they don’t want him anyway.
The players the Mavs are targeting are Kevin Martin, Andre Iguodala and Caron Butler (noticing a pattern in the names that come up in all these rumors?) The Martin trade attempts have been stalled, but could revive in the next week as the deadline looms closer and the Kings keep losing (2-15 with Martin now). The Mavs would probably need a third team to facilitate a Martin trade, at any rate.
The Sixers and Wizards, meanwhile, are both considering a trade with the Mavs, but are reportedly more focused on seeing if a McGrady trade to one of them starts gaining momentum first. The Wizards would probably want the Mavs to take on the contract of DeShawn Stevenson along with Butler; the Sixers will likely, at some point, suggest including Sam Dalemebert in the deal in exchange for Dampier as well.
Also happening is Mavericksland is something out of the bizarre…
The NBA is investigating how a couple of Mavs fans got into the Portland Trailblazers’ huddle:
How weird is that? Near the end of last Saturday’s Mavs/Blazers game, two female fans walked onto the court and into the Blazers’ timeout huddle. One reportedly even wrapped her arms around Blazers’ guard Rudy Fernandez before anyone noticed and had them escorted back to their seats.
"I was surprised,’’ Fernandez said. "I was listening to the coach on the bench and behind me, she touches me and says, ‘Rudy, I love you.' I said, ‘What?’’’
Jerryd Bayless said the two were drunk, which…well, you pretty much would have to be to try something like this and not think you’d get into trouble for it. When Mavericks’ owner Mark Cuban was asked how the two got past security, the always sarcastic billionaire wryly said, "The same way someone snuck into a White House function."
Cuban is referring, of course, to Tareq And Michaele Salahi (the two on the right...left is White House Chief of Staff Rham Emmanuel) who got into a private dinner with President Obama without invitation earlier in the year. Cuban also had something to say about the All Star festivities Dallas is hosting this year.
Mark Cuban and Cowboys’ owner Jerry Jones are hoping to set an NBA All Star attendance record this year:
Which certainly seems like a very attainable goal, considering the venue. The All Star game is being held in the brand new Cowboys Stadium, which can seat over 100,000 people (105,121 attended the first Cowboys game this year)
The NBA is expecting about 90,000 for this year’s All Star game, which would shatter not only the previous All Star attendance record of 44,735 set in 1989 at the Houston Astrodome, but also the attendance record for any basketball game period: 78,129, set in 2003 in Detroit during the Michigan State/Kentucky college ball game.
Holding an NBA game in a football stadium…that’s some nastolgia for longtime Wolves fans who remember when the Timberwolves played their first season in the Metrodome.
How can Cuban expect 90,000 people seated in 4 decks of stands to see the game? Well, the 60 yard jumbotron sure helps.
Of course, 90,000 isn’t enough for Cuban. He wants 100,000, and both he and Jerry Jones think they can get it. "Well, we want to push the magical number and we think we have an opportunity here," Jones said before the Dec. 19 Texas-North Carolina college game, which served as a test run for the All-Star Game. "We're well along the way right now: one-double-0."
Added Cuban, "If the NBA will let it go to 95, there's no reason why it can't go to 100."
Now for some news on who’s out of All Star weekend…
Brandon Roy is out for two weeks; Chris Paul is out for....a lot longer...:
Both will miss the All Star game, and Paul might miss the rest of the season as well.
CP3 will be replaced in the All Star game by Chauncey Billups, who proved his case this weekend with a career high 39 point performance in a win over the Lakers (and with the Nuggets sans-Melo). No word yet on who will replace Roy….my vote would be for Aaron Brooks, but it could also be a big man, like last year when Mo Williams replaced Chris Bosh.
The Chris Paul injury is torn cartilage in his left knee, which has been bothering him all year. Hornets’ coach and GM Jeff Bower said, "We're in fact-finding stages right now, gathering as much information as possible for decisions to be made to take the next steps. It is likely there will be a surgical solution for it. We don't have a timetable for Paul's return right now, nor do we know a surgical procedure right now."
Other sources have said Paul will be out 4-6 weeks, and still others say he will be out the rest of the year, considering the injury and how this is all but a lost year for the bugs.
Now for some news on who’s in for All Star weekend…
The participants for the Three Point Contest have been named:
Daequan Cook returns to defend his title. Challenging him are Paul Pierce, Stephen Curry, Danilo Gallinari, Channing Frye, and Chauncey Billups.
Have I mentioned Chauncey Billups' career night against LA? Well, I'm mentioning again, because it's relevant here. Billups scored 39 and went 9-13 from three, and some of those three pointers were just incredible shots.
I mean, that's on fire. Like NBA Jam on fire.
Anyway, now for some news on who’s out of…well, not All Star weekend, but…
Mike Dunleavy has resigned as the head coach of the LA Clippers:
He will still serve as the team’s general manager, for now at least. "I've had several conversations with our owner Sterling concerning what we think is best for the team overall," said Dunleavy. "We have discussed the possibility of my concentrating only on basketball operations. That option has always been available to me."
"I've come to the conclusion that this is the ideal time for me to direct my efforts toward the many personnel opportunities that lie before us, such as the trade market, the draft and the free-agent process. We fully expect to be active and productive on all those fronts."
Sources say Dunleavy just "burned out", which is probably true, but also to consider is that the Clippers have just fallen well short of expectations this season. Reports have maintained for a while now that Dunleavy was banking on the return of Blake Griffin to, in a sense, save his job (it’s not clear to what degree it was at risk), so one would certainly think that Griffin’s season ending surgery played a part in this as well.
Also certainly playing a part were back-to-back losses to the Nets and us….
Dunleavy’s focus now will be on what to do with the expiring contract of the highly coveted (and highly productive) Marcus Camby. No new news on that front though.
Assistant Kim Hughes will take over for the rest of the season (I mean, Sterling is a cheapskate….he’s not going to pay Dunleavy to quit AND a new coach…), but sources say the team has already tuned him out after just three days and one game. Ouch. But if you think that’s bad, then check this out…
Sources say the Clippers are considering Isiah Thomas as their new coach, and maybe to replace Dunleavy as GM as well:
Oh dear…
I think that’s all that really needs to be said about that.
Also happening in the coaching ranks this week…
Del Harris has resigned as the assistant coach to the New Jersey Nets:
Here’s what he officially said to the press:
"I have seen Kiki go from a man who was trying to encourage a team that was down to one who has developed a good sense of coaching. I believe in these recent games there is strong evidence that the team has gotten over the hump and will be much more competitive the rest of the way."
Much more competitive? Ya…right.
Here’s the real deal: Harris wanted to be named head coach, and even had his agent make the suggestion to Nets’ President Rod Thorn. The response? "Hold it right there. All due respect, he will not be the next head coach here. So if he has any delusions about that, you should let him know it's not going to happen."
As one can imagine, that didn’t sit well with Harris. And with nothing at stake and nothing to gain, he abandoned ship.
Which seems to be the general attitude of everyone in the Nets’ organization: every man for himself. With the season lost and a new Russian billionaire owner coming in next year, everyone has their own agenda. Rod Thorn is is a power struggle with Kiki Vandeweghe, who took over for ex-head coach Lawrence Frank. Vandeweghe meanwhile is in way over his head as a first time head coach, which hurts his own chances of staying with the team long term.
The Nets have signed a deal to play the next couple of seasons at the Provincial Center, home of the New Jersey Devils, while they wait for their Brooklyn arena to be built and a move to be approved. Everything’s chaos in Newark…it’ll be interesting to see how it all turns out.
Ok, before we get to the Draft Watch and CBA talk...
Kevin McHale talks about the Wolves, his new job, and what his plans are for the future:
This is from Jerry Zgoda and the Star Tribune:
Q You just came out of a production meeting? Don't you just talk off the top of your head?
A Most of the time, but this is organized. This is big time. It's fun. I like it. Chris [Webber] and Ernie [Johnson] are great.
Q With what Flip [Saunders] is dealing with in Washington, does that make you want to rush back into the league?
A No. Shocks you, huh? We'll wait and see what happens. ... Washington, I thought they had a chance to have a big year. I anticipated [Gilbert] Arenas coming back bigger than he did. The whole thing with the guns, that's a disaster. I didn't anticipate that. It's hard to anticipate something like that.
Q Players with guns: Random thing or bigger issue in the league?
A I think it's very random. I'm not telling you players don't have guns, but they have guns like I have guns: At home, for hunting in the country. There are no guns in the locker room.
Q The Wolves...is this progress?
A What do you mean by that?
Q Is this team better than where you left them? Is there a reason for fans to still hope?
A I've seen about two-thirds of their games. They've spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out who they are. That always happens with a new coach, new teammates, new lots of stuff. Then you add young guys. They're searching to find how they play together, who's going to play together. That takes time.
Q Where do you think this team was headed as you left it?
A Who knows? So much depended on, was Al going to come back healthy? If you don't get Al back healthy ... you're trying to build the team around him. I think he's looking better and better. He's getting back to form.
Q Many of the players you acquired have been shipped away. Think Al will be traded, too?
A I have no idea.
Q Memphis: Real or a mirage?
A Real. Lionel Hollins has done a great job. The thing I like: Lionel decided to go big with [Marc] Gasol and [Zach] Randolph. Most teams go small in a heartbeat. He stays big and by the fourth quarter, Gasol and Randolph have their guys in foul trouble and they're getting to the line. They don't have a lot of depth, but they outrebound you. They pound you inside.
Q When are you going to start Tweeting?
A Never.
Q With Blake Griffin done before his season started, is Tyreke Evans a lock to win Rookie of the Year?
A Evans, by far.
Q Where will LeBron be playing next year?
A Cleveland. They're going to go out and get some things [players]. There's a comfort level with him there in Cleveland.
Q Are the Celtics title days behind them?
A They haven't been healthy all year. If they get healthy and get some rhythm, they're the team to beat. I really like their bench if they can get healthy: Big Baby [Glen Davis], Marquis Daniels, [Eddie] House, Rasheed [Wallace], that's a nice blend of guys who can play. Those guys fit together well.
Q Will you coach or manage again?
A Oh, who knows? I'm going to wait and see.
The thing is, as much as I hated McHale the VPO, that's how much I love McHale the TV personality. I've seen him on a couple TNT studio shows, and he did great. I listened to him do a game broadcast, and he did so well I could actually stand listening to Reggie Miller commentate with him. It's just a little disappointing, because he shows insight on camera that he never applied in the office.
Anyway...
Draft Watch:
S-n-P has a new Draft Board up, plus there's a Consensus Big Board as well, so I'll direct you to them for your draft talk needs.
The NBA has finalized its new Collective Bargaining Agreement proposal:
And you can forget any of the hard line talk you've heard up to this point, because the proposal Stern and the owners came up with is way more radical than anything anyone ever speculated. Here's some of the standout details:
- Rollbacks on max contracts that would reduce contract amounts by 2/3
- The reduction of guaranteed salary amounts to less than half a contract's total worth
- A maximum limit of 4 years on any contract length
- The elimination of salary exceptions, such as the Mid-level Exception, effectively creating a hard salary cap
- The restructuring of current NBA contracts to conform to the new salary limits
Catch that last one? The NBA wants to not only impose mush stricter limits on future contracts, but also wants to redo contracts that have already been signed to fit within those limits.
That in particular is not going to sit well with the players. Consider Dwight Howard, for example. His contract runs to the end of the 2011-2012 season, and he stands to make over $18 million that year. Except if this proposal is part of the new CBA that will take effect the summer before that year, that $18 million could be reduced down to $6 million, maybe less, with only half of that money being guaranteed. Think he'd be happy about that?
"The league has to be careful," said one agent. "If the top players are united against David, that's going to make for a tough fight. It could get very ugly."
Ugly as in lockout ugly.
Now keep in mind...despite what that agent says, this is not just David Stern. This is the NBA Board of Governors, often mistakenly referred to as the Owners' Union (there's a Players' Union, so...) Of which, by the way, Glen Taylor is the chairman of.
Also keep in mind that it was Glen Taylor's signing of Kevin Garnett to the mega $126 million contract that arguably was the "last straw" that caused the last NBA lockout in 1998.
David Stern, Players' Association Director Billy Hunter, and Union president Derek Fisher all declined to comment on the proposal this week. "David and Billy have decided not to comment until we get to All-Star weekend and I'll fall in line with those two gentlemen," Fisher said Friday night.
Union Vice President Adonal Foyle, on the other hand, had plenty to say.
"Ludicrous."
"I think it's a proposal that's far-reaching. This has gone too far. It wants a hard cap, it basically will create no middle class, and which, in effect, means none of the Bird rules would apply."
"I think when you look at the current CBA as it stands, it benefits both the players and owners. This is an agreement where we can quabble with different things within it, but it's an agreement that gives some things to both parties involved."
"A system like that would be too restrictive, and it doesn't jibe with what we think the league is. We have been willing to negotiate a guarantee that we don't get over a certain threshold, and no other businesses do that. We hold back 9 percent of our income so that the owners can make sure they are covered on the back end. We have given up a lot of stuff, and they have given up a lot of stuff, so I think to start off a negotiation in this rash a term, I think it's unfair."
"The meetings, in our estimation, had been quite constructive. We were seeming to get a sense of where everybody was, and we went through why we think [the current agreement] should be extended. But I think a proposal like this is the first time they're saying: 'This is the way we want to go with the league.' "
I've said this before, but it bears repeating now: if push comes to shove and neither side compromises, there will be a lockout and the owners will get their way because of one key factor: they have the money to sit out of the NBA as long as they want....the players don't. And it looks a lot more likely that that will happen now with Stern and the owners opening with such a blatantly unpopular proposal they know the players are going to hate.
So here's the deal. Next week's theme is Amare Stoudemire for sure.
There's 18 months left on the current CBA, but even a proposal like this one, made as far in advance as this is, can have drastic effects on the NBA right now, and there's no better example of what those effects could be than Amare. The NBA, the trade deadline, the Timberwolves, the new CBA....it can all be tied together by Stoudemire.
Until next week...
97 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I wasn't really feelin it this week...
….I had geared up for the Amare thing, but decided to push it back at the last minute. NBA Jam is a fun little theme to go with, but it’s not a heavy hitter.
Thanks though
It's a fun theme,
and it’s jarring as heck to think of Kevin Love performing superhuman leaps in Oklahoma City. Things change, I guess.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Great post, Oceanary.
Yeah, I always did—and still do—love Kevin McHale. I know he made some poor player personnel decisions over the years, but he’s been so great for Minnesota basketball. He was the architect of the 03-04 campaign and he did a lot of good for the state playing for the U and representing us well while at Boston for so many years. Minnesota hasn’t really produced a lotta basketball talent (except for, maybe the 1998 version of Khalid El-Amin). I’m certainly glad Khan is our GM and wouldn’t have it any other way, it’s just great to see McHale succeeding in the booth
Frankly I don't like Zgoda baiting him, either.
There’s no reason for interviews to swell on “Are the Wolves better than when you left them.” You could ask those same questions in a much better way, but Zgoda pounds away at the theme at least a couple of extra times here.
If you look at McHale’s answers, he was quite decent about not airing out his laundry, at least in that interview.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
swell --> dwell
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
My current NBA pet peeve:
Rampant exaggeration of teams’ upcoming cap space. NBA analysts who are too lazy to do their jobs and actually check the numbers have told us, at various times, that the Clippers, Rockets, Thunder, even the Grizzlies will have max cap space. None of them will. (Even more annoying is that we’re the only team whose cap space I haven’t seen get exaggerated. The national media seems to be under the impression that we’re still flirting with the luxury tax from back in the KG days.)
Worst of all is the constant Bulls-related cap space exaggeration. Here are the facts: if (read: when) Salmons opts in, they will be just out of range of getting one max free agent, unless the cap comes in at over $57 million. And:
On the Bulls’ side, moving Kirk Hinrich and the expiring deal of John Salmons would free up enough cap space for them to sign not one, but two max free agents over the summer.is absolutely untrue. We know they’ll be just short of one max free agent with Salmons + Hinrich on the roster. Well, those two represent $14.8 million in 2011 salary. A max free agent would start at $16.5 million. They’d be several more million short of their goal.
Or if you care to look at it a different way, two max free agents would require $33 million free. Deng, Rose, and Noah alone are over $19 million. Even with nothing more than min roster holds for the other 7 spots (i.e. giving away Gibson, Johnson, and their 1st rounder for nothing), the Bulls would still fall short unless the cap came in significantly higher than projected.
Sorry to rant, it’s just I’m the only one fighting this battle. I was thinking about writing some sort of Fanpost about this, but here’s as good a place as any I guess.
A good point
and I think a big issue that reporters don’t factor in cap holds for draft picks and for roster spots that effect the cap.
On the other hand, the same things will effect the Wovles space, too. Actually, the Wolves and the Bulls, assuming no deadline moves, should be in about the same boat capspace wise this summer if the Wolves waive Gomes. Total real salary commitments will be a few million less for the Wolves, but they will have significantly more in cap holds, I believe.
by Eric in Madison on Feb 8, 2010 8:41 AM CST up reply actions
It's not all that much of an exaggeration
According to ShamSports, the Bulls without any options (meaning without Tyrus Thomas or John Salmons) total just over $31 million next year in salary. If you don’t bring back Salmons and subtract Hinrich’s $9 million, they have just over $22 million. If the cap comes in at $55 million next year, that’s $33 million to spend….exactly the figure you said they’d need.
The only technical point that needs to be made is that the Bulls would have to trade their draft picks. But it’s not like they fall $10 million short or anything.
Here's the link to my numbers:
The guy who wrote the article calculates everything to the dollar. You can see, the third table down has the team’s total salary with no Salmons, no Hinrich, and one max free agent at $43,231,204. Subtract the $16,568,908 for the one max free agent and the roster hold we’d be replacing with a second max free agent, and their total salary is not just over $22 million, but rather $26,188,692 million. To be $33,137,816 under the cap, they’d need a salary cap of $59,326,508 or higher. That won’t happen.
Even if they give away every single player on their roster other than Deng, Rose, and Noah, they’d only save and additional $2,853,768 after the $1,420,812 worth of roster holds were added in. So if they cut their roster down to just three guys, and the cap still came in higher than projected at $56,472,740, only then could they afford two max free agents. And this assumes that they’re fine giving away all their young players with the mere hope that the cap comes in that high, for free for the mere chance that they can lure Wade and Bosh, and that they’d be fine having every single player on their bench be waiver wire guys on minimum salaries.
The next All-Star replacement
Chauncey in for CP3 was a slam-dunk, obvious choice. Billups was the only player who I felt had a legitimate case as being snubbed.
Who replaces Roy? This gets tricky. Bear in mind, the West is only sending 2 shooting guards, and Kobe Bryant will probably not want to play heavy minutes since he’s recovering from his own injuries. In light of that, I think you’ve got to send a shooting guard. (That means no Aaron Brooks. Frankly, it would be stupid the fifth-best point guard in the conference taking minutes away from the three already selected anyway.) The consensus choice over in the RealGM thread I read was Monta Ellis, but my vote: Manu Ginobli
He’s the only shooting guard we could send (except maybe Tyreke Evans, if he counts as that) who won’t wind up as one of those “Can you believe Player X was an All Star once?” guys. That counts for a lot in my book. Sending him has the added bonus of atoning for years past, in which he deserved to go but was held out by his status as a bench player. And you can make the argument that he’s the best choice on merit alone: he’s currently 3rd among all Western Conference shooting guards in PER.
Ginobili's shooting under 40% this year...
….and averaging his lowest ppg total since 2004. He’s not an All Star in my book.
If the criteria is that it has to specifically be a shooting guard from a team above .500, then OJ Mayo and Jason Terry are the two top candidates I think. But the system isn’t set up to differentiate between SG and PG….it’s just G. So I think Aaron Brooks is the most likely candidate.
Proof once again that FG% is useless
except in making easily defeated arguments. 41% of Manu’s FGA are 3 pointers, and he has a FT/FGA of .403 (for comparison, the league average is .230). As a result of this, he has a very respectable .472 eFG% and an even better .548 TS%. He’s not inefficient.
All that is moot anyway, because like I already said, my real reasons for wanting him are to have an actual shooting guard to play in the lineup since no one else will be giving major minutes there, to atone for inexcusably holding him out of past contests in years where he’s had a PER of 24.3, 24.1, 22.9, etc, and to select someone who years later won’t be one of those “What were they thinking?” selections.
And it’s all double moot, since they chose Kaman.
Side note
Is anyone else peeved about this?
This year, Kaman gets in averaging 20 and 9 with a PER of 17.6 over Carlos Boozer, who’s averaging 19 and 11 with a PER of 20.4.
Last year, Al Jefferson got held out averaging 23 and 11 with a PER of 23.1 in favor of David West, who averaged 21 and 8.5 with a PER of 18.9.
Jefferson>Boozer>West>Kaman, and there’s no rhyme or reason to it even looking at positions or team records.
I think I'd take Kaman second
Boozer has too much baggage and West seems to disappear a lot.
You don't vote in players having a bad year...
….to make up for not voting them in a year prior. That applies to Ginobili as well
LAST YEAR.
As in, Al Jefferson should have been in the game last year, not this one.
Last year, they voted in a PF from a winning team (West) over a C from a losing team with superior stats (Jefferson).
This year, they voted in a C from a losing team (Kaman) over a PF from a winning team with superior stats (Boozer).
I’m decrying the inconsistency of the apparent priorities of the All-Star selections from year to year. Is that clear yet? A year ago we were fed the line that the Hornets’ superior record overcame the difference in production between West and Jefferson. This year, team record apparently doesn’t matter to the point that Kaman got in over someone who is actually more productive from a better team, Boozer.
First of all, take it easy
Temper temper
Second, team record did matter this year. Kaman is the only player in the All Star game from a sub .500 team (or at least a team below .500 when the voting happened), and that’s only because he was selected by David Stern, not the coaches.
There’s nothing inconsistent about it except for Stern being Stern, and that in itself is consistent in him being inconsistent. But in no way does this show that record didn’t matter this year. It matters every year.
You warrant caps.
Note that my original post contains the phrase “last year,” as does my follow up post clarifying that I was referring to Al’s deservingness “last year” to the first guy who misinterpreted my post. Then you came in, misread both posts, and made the same error again. I’ll take it easy when you do a better job of not misinterpreting entire chains of posts.
The little Ginobili quip is a good way to make someone angry as well. I gave three (3) reasons why I would have liked to see Ginobili replace the injured Roy. Neither reason alone constitutes 100% of my overall justification for supporting him. When you address only one of them in rejecting my idea in its entirety, you’re committing a logical fallacy, whether intentionally or not.
Classic Oceanary
You left out the parts where you failed at reading and made (and continue to make) dumb posts disagreeing with others based on your own misinterpretations of their posts. Do you ever wonder why you get in so many arguments around here? That’s why.
The Stern vs. coaches aspect is only relevant to your interpretation of my posts. I’ve been decrying the inconsistencies in who actually gets selected, irrespective of how those selections are made. Explaining/Justifying the failures of the selection process may matter to you, but it doesn’t to me or what I was originally talking about. It’s also completely unrelated to either of your logical gaffes, and your attempt to use the one smart thing you’ve said in this chain of posts to distract from the two dumb things that preceded it is either a shameful attempt at yet another straw man argument or further evidence of your delusion.
So where's the "inconsistency"?
That Kaman made it in despite LAC’s record, but Jefferson didn’t? Never mind that West was voted in by the coaches, Kaman was put in by Stern. Never mind that Kaman’s selection is an anomaly to the general rule, not the norm.
Want to know how many players the coaches have voted in from sub .500 team in the last 5 years? ONE. Devin Harris in 2009. And all the sudden you want to talk like there’s some “inconsistency” in the system because David Stern, who is NOT a coach, made a unilateral decision to put in Kaman.
If you want to argue that Ginobili should have been in based on his advanced metrics then fine. That’s not the way the votes work, but whatever. But saying there’s an inconsistency of record mattering in some cases and not in others? COMPLETELY FALSE.
Like I said, you’re wrong. And no number of $10 words in your posts changes that.
Like I said...
…team record has always mattered. It always will. History completely debunks your argument.
Wait no...there were two...
….Danny Granger was voted in last year as well.
Still, 2 out of what….70 players? 75? Seems the voting has been pretty consistent to me.
Unless they play in a big market
usually miss being an All-Star one season early in their career, and make it up later. That’s why I say, let’s see what happens next year.
Keep in mind...
….you use advanced stats more than any coach is when you talk about All Stars. I doubt many head coaches compare advanced stats when they vote players in, and I HIGHLY doubt David Stern does. If they’re going to look at any number and consider it relevant, it’s 39% FG shooting. Otherwise it’s largely about what they see and where that players’ team is in the standings.
Kaman replaces Roy
http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/news/story?id=4897767
I would’ve gone Rudy Gay than Kaman purely for roster balance reasons. If they were going Center, however, I would’ve gone Gasol.
Correct me if I'm wrong
but Foyle’s comment: “I think it’s a proposal that’s far-reaching. This has gone too far. It wants a hard cap, it basically will create no middle class, and which, in effect, means none of the Bird rules would apply.”
Seems to not “jibe” with what little I know of the proposal. Getting rid of the mid level exemption doesn’t necessarily preclude a team from spending more to retain a player they already have. I will admit that this could be buried in the fine print, but I would think that more information would have been published about that already by the players union if it were true.
Let the PR games begin. I think everyone’s head will be spinning by the time this thing is done.
by TheEvilProfessor on Feb 8, 2010 8:56 AM CST reply actions
Well, the original article that I read on this
did say that the proposal included a hard cap.
by Eric in Madison on Feb 8, 2010 9:08 AM CST up reply actions
I guess let the disinformation begin
I would love to get my hands on a copy of this proposal. Unfortunately, I don’t know many pro players that would photo copy one for me :(
by TheEvilProfessor on Feb 8, 2010 9:41 AM CST up reply actions
Yeah, there's going to be a lot of
half truths (or less) flying around. I’d love to know more about league finances and who if anyone is actually losing money and why and how much, but I don’t think I’m getting a look at the books anytime soon.
Blazers Edge has a decent piece on the issue right now.
by Eric in Madison on Feb 8, 2010 9:52 AM CST up reply actions
yeah
both sides will want to control information in order to try to win fan support and pressure the otherside. I think the doctrine of how to do these things was written long ago.
by TheEvilProfessor on Feb 8, 2010 10:03 AM CST up reply actions
I don't know
I think this is more representative of the union’s negotiating strategy and the stakes.
Let's hope there are no
“back door shenanigans”! Just back door cuts to the hoop. Those older episodes were nothing short of brilliant.
We all know that art is not the truth, art is a lie that makes us realize the truth.--Picasso
I feel like the players union
does more to represent the guys who don’t deserve big contracts than the guys who do. Adonal Foyle? When is the last time he was relevant? Of course he wants a guaranteed contract. I bet if you ask Lebron or Kobe, they would obviously prefer a guaranteed contract, but they would probably be more worried about the cap. And rightfully so. Why should Blount’s contract be guaranteed to him in full? I realize it’s hard to give nonguaranteed contracts when there is still an option for guaranteed, and I realize that you can’t just do every contract as nonguaranteed, but there has to be a middle ground somewhere. Anyone know where it is?
Among the things that I find frustrating
is the implication that somehow the players or the Union are responsible for bad contract decisions made by teams. Nobody was forced to sign Mark Blount for the amount that they did. If the owners came out and admitted that what they want is protection from their own mistakes and stupidity, I would feel better about discussing it.
That said, I suspect there will be some type of ownership opt out involved in future contracts under the next CBA (in other words, making them non-guaranteed). My question is, if the owners have the right to cut a player under contract and not pay him, shouldn’t the player have opt out rights as well, if he outperforms his contract?
by Eric in Madison on Feb 8, 2010 11:08 AM CST up reply actions
Incentives incentives incentives
I’ve always been a fan of them. That way if you do outperform you get paid and if you don’t you still get paid you fairly priced base contract.
Guarantee a guy like Lebron 9M and then give him a 1M MVP incentive, 3M allstar game (12M is fair for allstar game and if you get the MVP, you most likely go the allstar game), and say another 1M for playoffs and 3M for finals MVP. Then add small incentives in there and fudge with the guaranteed amount: average 6+ assists for .5M, 6+ rebounds for .5M, over .500% FG for .5M… etc etc. All of a sudden the contracts seem more fair. You are still guaranteed a certain amount for injuries or owners making dumb contracts, but you are still motivated to try to perform for the max contract. Somehow you have to be wary of the ZBo’s of the world (or of the past…?), but I really feel that this would be a nice way to balance the issue of stupid owners and moronic players.
Also, I guess I feel as if the players should have just as much, and preferably more (because so many people watch them and look up to them) responsibility to perform and behave as anyone. If I showed up to work every day and didn’t do anything except pout and do a crappy job, I would probably get fired in a heartbeat. So I’m just saying there should at least be a middle ground (obviously you shouldn’t be able to completely cut Lebron’s salary just because he has a career ending injury, not his fault…) between performance and pay and I really think it starts with nonguaranteed contracts and incentive-laden contracts. Then again, it’s just an idea and I really have no idea about how to work all of the intricate details that go along with it and how to make it fair for both sides.
Better yet
the league divides, say, $1.8 billion in total salary among all teams according to wins/on-court success, ranging from $20 million for the worst team, to $80 million for the eventual champion. Each teams gets to award % of draw to each player on the roster. The % are fixed for the length of the contract, instead of the dollar amounts. This would incentivize players put wins over personal statistics, but give them the choice of taking, say, a 10% share contract from a bad team, vs. a 5% share contract from a good team.
Interesting idea
likely to be voted down by both the owners and the players who certainly don’t want current performance to have “too much” to do with current revenues.
It’s exactly this kind of sharp and innovative thinking that gets a guy in trouble.
This is fine if all the players are on the same page, but what if guys got agendas? Would you want your pay determined by the work ethic of the others around you rather than your own?
I would...
if my teammate was Lebron James. I wouldn’t if my teammate was Stephon Marbury.
This isn’t that different, in principle, than employee profit sharing and/or paying executives with stock options.
You make more when your team does better. They already give out playoff bonuses, correct?
It would be interested if an agreement reduced the max contract length and max salaries but allowed the players to retain a similar percentage of revenues through revenue sharing as a result of victories.
That’s one key to PD’s proposal, revenue sharing based on victories rather than revenues.
Well, that's part of the appeal
(to me). If you had a chance to sign with a dysfunctional team or organization and get the 6% slot, or somebody who looks like they play the right way and have fun doing it for 3%, you could choose the lower percentage, but still potentially make more money. And a guy like Steph would have a financial incentive to not be a dbag, as good players would be less likely to want to be on his team.
Another problem with this system is that it makes an even larger gap between the haves and the have nots? What player would want to go to a team where they are likely to make half (or a quarter in worst case scenarios) as much as on a good team? The percentages can be adjusted only so much without having half the team as d-league level 1%ers. Essentially the worst teams would have to offer 3 or 4 times the percentage that the best teams would to pay the same wage. Which automatically forces players either to take serious wage cuts to go to a bad team or screws up the salary cap by forcing teams to overcommit to players (not in total $ but in % of salary cap). While the Wolves may not have much chance to land a big name free agent this summer, but they would have an infinitesimal chance if this system were in play. Would any free agent have signed here last summer (even a player like Hollins) knowing full well this team was going to lose a lot of games?
And let me add one real NBA example. Take what happened with the Wizards. How would you feel if that was your team and to have your season torpedoed by a moment of madness by 2 of your teammates? There’s just too many real world/non-basketball stuff that goes on that impacts games, not to mention injuries. To punish guys for the vagaries of fate seems pretty capricious.
for the record
the word “capricious” doesn’t get used enough.
by TheEvilProfessor on Feb 8, 2010 4:48 PM CST up reply actions
Well, it depends on
the gap between the winningest and losingest teams. What about, say, 40 and 60mm being the high and the low?
The Wizards are an outlier, though, right? Besides, they sucked before the Throwdown, any way. And maybe the espirit de corps keeps players from acting in ways that could result in more losses, and reductions in pay for teammates.
I’m intrigued by your concern over whether an NBA player would get, say, 3 million a year playing for a losing team vs. 2-3x that number playing for a winner. I think one of the biggest things fans don’t like about the NBA compensation system is that the players get guaranteed contracts and have almost zero financial incentive after signing the contract to play hard and win games.
This arrangement would also reduce tanking (not that it ever happens, nosiree) because management would be hitting players in their pocketbooks by not trying to win games.
America's gift to the English language?
winningest
losingest
Won't someone think of the ping pong balls?
Kurt Rambis - stop this insanity!
Ummm . . .
. . . you must either be an agent, an NBA player, or someone supported by an agent or an NBA player (you’re not Eva Longoria, are you? If so, I don’t watch your show, but I’ve heard it’s . . . on ABC).
If a player had an agenda that was hurting my paycheck, it would give my teammates and me that much more incentive to bust his ass gently encourage him to play for the team, and our paychecks (including his). But in the current NBA players with agendas (not that there are any, nosiree) get paid the same regardless, and so do their teammates.
In the end, the current system is worse for the fans, both in the likelihood of wins, and in the effort put out by the players.
I do
every day when I go in to work. Why should they be any different, and they make millions…
It's hard enough keeping locker rooms civil as it is
Can you imagine the issues that would arise on the bad teams at the low end of the pay scale, especially if a few guys decide one or two other guys aren’t giving their all and costing the team millions. The Wizards just keep coming into my mind!
I think the players should push really hard for the elimination
of restricted free agency. If contracts are max four years and there is no restriction to free agency, I think some players would jump on board depending on cap levels and how much is guaranteed vs nonguaranteed. At the end of the day there is no friggin way less than 50% and likely 75% of the contract will be guaranteed. The owners can get cost certainty on about 25% of the contracts, but will likely have to give up on restricted FA.
by TheEvilProfessor on Feb 8, 2010 12:20 PM CST up reply actions
agreed
I would like to see an agreement that
1. Shortens max contract length
2. Allows for limited buyout reductions for teams. That is, each season each team is allowed to buy out 1 contract at 50% of its present value. This protects most players but allows teams to escape at lower cost from Knicks-type situations.
3. Allows for contract innovations mid-contract. For example, if KG wants to win he can elect to lower his salary 20% this year in order to sign a free agent under the cap. But contract innovations that increase salary count against the cap (no Bird Rule).
4. keeps the Bird Rule for new contracts.
5. Eliminates restricted FA.
6. Guarantees me 10% of league revenues.
The implication is...
…that the elimination of salary exceptions would stop teams from signing free agents when they’re already over the cap, such as how the Lakers signed Ron Artest this year. So the “hard cap” comment I think was just using a “catch phrase” term…not something Foyle meant to be taken literally.
Although it could be that the NBA BOG intends to put restrictions on teams retaining their own players as well, and we just aren’t aware of it. That’s a very dicey thing to address, because it will either require a “grandfather” compromise or the mandatory restructuring of player contracts on teams already over the cap in 2011.
which may actually already be in there proposal
by TheEvilProfessor on Feb 8, 2010 5:16 PM CST up reply actions
They do want to restructure everyone's contracts as it is
That’s definitely in the proposal. It’s a fine detail if the percentage amount they want everything reduced by is enough to get all the teams under a hard cap line though.
It was a good job by the owners to send a draconian proposal and leak it
because now all the conversation is about how much the players are going to have to give up. They seized the early public momentum.
If I were the Union, I would respond with a proposal raising their percentage of BRI and eliminating the restrictions on contract length.
by Eric in Madison on Feb 8, 2010 5:35 PM CST up reply actions
Indeed
This is also going to seriously impact how free agency goes this summer, which is why I delayed the Stoudemire thing a week so everyone could absorb this info first.
The other alternative for the Union
is just to repeat the word “irresponsible” to describe the owners’ proposal. One of the reasons that the owners hold cards is because there is an image of NBA players as irresponsible.
The players should try to turn that on its head by continuously referring to the owners as irresponsible with their negotiating position. Essentially, in the relationship between management and players, the players are regularly infantalized. They now have the opportunity to turn that around.
by Eric in Madison on Feb 8, 2010 5:52 PM CST up reply actions
Are you still at the office?
Stay there—I’m sending over some Pinkertons to have a little chat with you.
That might give a very poor public image
of players just asking for more. They would be better off offering minimal give on some cost certaintly measures like 10% of contract being variable upon performance in return for the elimination of restricted free agency. That way players get more rights while still potentially giving up nothing. That would make them seem like the more responsible and reasonable bunch.
by TheEvilProfessor on Feb 8, 2010 10:56 PM CST up reply actions
why don't they
Allow the players to maintain their current pay, but reduce the luxury implications of the contract by said amount. This would allow them to bring all teams to the same playing field immediately (to some degree), while not costing players all that money? And owners would still have to live up to their signed contracts.
Don't quote me on this, but
I wondered the same thing about where the “hard cap” was referenced. I came away from the couple articles I’ve read thinking that the “hard cap” was referring more to the fact that teams over the cap would no longer be able to sign outside players to the MLE, which has been a way in the past of having a soft(er) cap. Based on what I’ve read, perhaps they should be saying “harder cap” to be more accurate??
Does anyone in the league still think TMac is a worthwhile player? I just can’t fathom how anyone would want to give up any real talent to get him. Jo Noah? Iguodala? Seriously? They have to be kidding themselves, right?
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
If nothing else
he still has some fan draw (somehow he almost played in the allstar game…). I think he still has something left in the tank, but it will take a while (and possibly this whole season) to get back to his potential again (and that’s not to say his potential is extremely high anymore).
The interest in McGrady is...
….for the contract, not the player. For teams like the Sixers, who are losing continuously and just need to start over, McGrady is an easy ’reset button" that will clear $23 million off the books in one move.
For a team like the Bulls, it’s about salary cap or the summer.
I’ve yet to see any team express interest in McGrady as a piece to help their team on the court. No one is talking about him in those terms right now.
But maaaan.. Iguodala is a lot to give up just to clear cap space.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
It is
But he’s the only player any other team really wants. Interest in Dalembert is low, with teams only willing to take him in a package deal with Iggy….and no one wants brand in any form.
It’s an unfortunate situation for the Sixers that they’ve painted themselves into a corner.
I'd bet there are a few teams that are interested in his fan draw
or at least a few owners. McGrady almost made the allstar game this year… there are plenty of people out there (a lot in China…) that still want to see him play. Obviously the expiring is a big deal, but a free look at an ex-superstar who is touted as having his body under control for once is a nice incentive. And it’s exactly why Houston can still ask for more than just another expiring. Otherwise Blount would also be quite a hot piece to trade for.
Also, isn’t a Quabble something they use in Quidditch?
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
I'll give another shout out to Kevin Durant here
24 straight games with 25+ points, and OKC is 16-8 in that stretch. In the five games this year where he hasn’t scored 25 points (yes, there’s only five games that it’s happened), they’re 0-5… so that means in the rest they’re basically the 2nd best team in the West when he’s playing the way he’s currently playing, and the crazy part is that the average age of their roster is only 24.3 (the eldest in their core group is 25 – Thabo).
32-8-3 in January with ridiculous efficiency (52-53-90), in a virtual tie for the NBA’s leading scorer, third in Roland Rating, 6th in PER… doing all of this at 21 so it’s the same type of effect that LeBron had.
Just amazing, simply amazing. I’m ashamed that I had Oden ahead of him given how this turned out. Timberwolves need to find their “Kevin Durant” – hopefully Rubio can have that type of impact, but if not… ugh.
Lots of love for Durant.
The most frustrating part of the post
Not the CBA stuff.
Not the trade stuff.
Nope, the fact that NBA Jam will be on Wii ONLY!!!! C’mon! Why no Xbox 360!!!!!!!
The developers were actually asked this...
…and they said it was basically a difference between NBA Jam being an arcade game versus a sim game. They said they felt that the XBox and PS were designed for simulation games like NBA Live and 2K, and in the end it just felt more appropriate to but a more arcadish game on the Wii.
Although Live is borderline arcade in my book anyway…
NBA2K10
I play it for the x-box, my twolves line up consists of Marc Gasol, Al Jeff, Wilson Chandler, Evan Turner & Monte Ellis. Gotta love video games :) My live ID is HarmfulPenny is anyone wants to play online sometime.
by TheMorningAfter on Feb 9, 2010 11:15 AM CST up reply actions
NBA Jam
Awesome! I may have to go buy a Wii just for this game so I can relive my formative years.
Any word on who the TWolves players will be? I loved to light it up with Chuck Person back in the day.
Old rosters here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Jam. Nothing like throwing down a cartwheeling fire dunk from the 3 pt line with Mike Iuzzolino.
So many quarters down the tubes…
I wonder what is causing owner's to push so much against the players
I notice the NFL is apparently doing the same. One conclusion is that owner’s saw what the NHL pulled off and want to copy.
The other is more intriguing. They shared a lot of revenue the last couple decades. Didn’t seem to mind because team values kept increasing, as did revenues, especially from new sources (TV, Internet, new stadia). I wonder if owners have decided they maxed out the revenues they can get, and now the only way to increase profits/team values is to go after player salaries??
It's the bosses trying to screw over the workers
Granted, we’re talking about billionaires versus millionaires, but the principal is the same.
Additionally, a lot of team have really effed up their revenue (I heard a rumor that only like 3 teams are currently in the green…though that will undoubtedly be much higher by the end of the year). And one thing economic history shows is that an easy way to fix your business is to stick your workers with the bill.
According to Forbes....
….only New York, Chicago, and the LA Lakers made money last year.
Stern says about half the NBA teams are turning a profit this year, but I have a hard time believing that. But I think this proposal goes beyond just a yearly profit/loss margin. A lot of this is what the owners wanted in the last CBA and couldn’t get pushed. I think the NBA feels that player salaries have reached a point of being excessive, and the owners are trying to make up for what they felt was a mistake on their part for not pushing a harder line in the last CBA.
I think the owners can make a strong case
that much of the revenue increase over the last decade is due more to good business/marketing decisions than what players have done on the court. I don’t think the on court product is any better now than two decades ago, yet payrolls are double or triple what they were at that time. Owners want more of the money they have created. Who deserves the money when an owner strong arms a new stadium (the owner or the players)?
It could be a good year or two for the owners...
…if they crush both unions and the NFL gets what it wants in the American Needle case. Drew Brees explains why that might suck for players here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/07/AR2010010702947.html
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
The arguments in American Needle were heard a few weeks ago
It’s tough to read the tea leaves, but the Justices were VERY dubious about the NFL’s position.
by Eric in Madison on Feb 9, 2010 7:19 AM CST up reply actions
I've realized that Canis
is a pro bono situation.
by Eric in Madison on Feb 9, 2010 11:47 AM CST up reply actions
I hear...
..our collective gratitude is worth $75/hour.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Yeah...
…I read through the transcripts and they seem dubious that the single-entity concept would be used across the board (i.e. they like to be The NFL when it suits them but not when it gets in the way of teams like Dallas or Pittsburgh making oodles of money as separate entities.)
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
































