EPT3
NBA Offseason 2013 - Page 74
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
3 | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
"New York Nets" | ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On September 26 2013 05:34 slyboogie wrote: This Paul George contract is going to be bad. 90 over 5? He's a nice player but god. This is the NBA salaries list: http://espn.go.com/nba/salaries 90/5 is 18 a year which would have made him #11 last year #12 in 2011-12. I'd say its not a bad deal. I'd rather him than like 5 or 6 guys in the top 10 over the next 5 years, and more than 7 of the next 10. | ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On September 26 2013 05:47 cLutZ wrote: This is the NBA salaries list: http://espn.go.com/nba/salaries 90/5 is 18 a year which would have made him #11 last year #12 in 2011-12. I'd say its not a bad deal. I'd rather him than like 5 or 6 guys in the top 10 over the next 5 years, and more than 7 of the next 10. Not apples to apples, this is a contract signed after the most recent CBA. That's the most money he could get under the current agreement. And it's too much. Compare it to contracts signed post CBA - Durant, Chris Paul. They're paying him like he's worth that? I don't think he's that good. I understand he'd probably never sign for less, since public perception of him is so positive after the ECF. Another reason wht salary caps are dumb. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On September 26 2013 05:54 slyboogie wrote: Not apples to apples, this is a contract signed after the most recent CBA. That's the most money he could get under the current agreement. And it's too much. Compare it to contracts signed post CBA - Durant, Chris Paul. They're paying him like he's worth that? I don't think he's that good. I understand he'd probably never sign for less, since public perception of him is so positive after the ECF. Another reason wht salary caps are dumb. Well, I'd look at it like this: Durant and CP3 are Massively underpaid, Paul George is slightly underpaid. Of Course the Key to winning titles is having a Massively underpaid player or several underpaid players (i.e. Lebron/Durant, or The Spurs Trio). | ||
|
DystopiaX
United States16236 Posts
| ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
If anything, he has a lot of room to improve on offense, which is a good thing (one of the easier things to improve). With the way the league is headed though, and with perimeter players that can play both ways becoming more important/valuable, I do think George is worth it. But only if his offense continues to improve (TO BE CONTINUED) | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On September 26 2013 09:06 cLutZ wrote: The problem with judging this negatively is because of the Max Salary system as a whole. The contract only looks bad because its basically the same as LBJ, CP3, KD, etc. The reality is Lebron should be making like 40 million a year. Noooo. You have it backwards, if there was no "max salary system," then this contract would only look bad. But because we have a salary cap, this contract is bad. He is, incontrovertibly, tied to your organization because he will represent a quarter of its payroll - you can't (well you could..New Jersey) go above "x" because "x" is the luxury tax line. It's tough because Paul George is very talented and, physically, clearly gifted. And if you let him hit RFA, someone, or alot ones, are going to tender a max offer to him. So I understand Indiana's dilemma. Mostly, this is just unhappiness with the salary cap. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On September 26 2013 09:41 slyboogie wrote: Noooo. You have it backwards, if there was no "max salary system," then this contract would only look bad. But because we have a salary cap, this contract is bad. He is, incontrovertibly, tied to your organization because he will represent a quarter of its payroll - you can't (well you could..New Jersey) go above "x" because "x" is the luxury tax line. It's tough because Paul George is very talented and, physically, clearly gifted. And if you let him hit RFA, someone, or alot ones, are going to tender a max offer to him. So I understand Indiana's dilemma. Mostly, this is just unhappiness with the salary cap. Well the salary cap in the NBA is super screwy. I think, given the per team salary cap, George will be paid Fairly under this contract (as I said, to win in the NBA you have to fuck your players over, and the best way to do that is Rookie contracts, the 2nd best is have players that return >the max like Lebron, Durant, etc). But not every team can be perennially elite, because there are only like 3-4 players good enough to do that. So if you can't do that, you try to be the Bulls/Pacers/Grizzlies (maybe Clippers/Nets), hope that you can stay healthy, catch an injury/bad performance by the teams with players that CAN carry, and make a finals run. The Mavs did it in 2011, Pistons did it in 04. Every other NBA champ has basically had a Lebron/Kobe/Shaq type player on it. | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13336 Posts
For a small market team like the Pacers it makes sense to take the risk. Someone would have paid George the max and it might as well have been them. Not saying it will work out, but the right move IMO. | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13336 Posts
On September 26 2013 09:41 slyboogie wrote: Noooo. You have it backwards, if there was no "max salary system," then this contract would only look bad. But because we have a salary cap, this contract is bad. He is, incontrovertibly, tied to your organization because he will represent a quarter of its payroll - you can't (well you could..New Jersey) go above "x" because "x" is the luxury tax line. It's tough because Paul George is very talented and, physically, clearly gifted. And if you let him hit RFA, someone, or alot ones, are going to tender a max offer to him. So I understand Indiana's dilemma. Mostly, this is just unhappiness with the salary cap. Can you remove the cap though? Wouldn't this entrench super teams and finally kill of any semblance of balance in the NBA? I know there are a lot of rich NBA owners but rich enough to take on market power of LA, NYC or Chicago? | ||
|
DystopiaX
United States16236 Posts
| ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On September 26 2013 10:28 RowdierBob wrote: Can you remove the cap though? Wouldn't this entrench super teams and finally kill of any semblance of balance in the NBA? I know there are a lot of rich NBA owners but rich enough to take on market power of LA, NYC or Chicago? Would it be all that different from now? Talent allocation isn't all that balanced even now - though the hyper punitive luxury tax might change that. I'm not against a luxury tax, but a hard cap (pseudo, in the NBA's case) sucks. There's no proof that it creates competitive balance, it's just a scheme by owners to justify spending less money. Like the poster who mentioned Jerry Reinsdorf - that guy gets the benefit of a massive market, infinite legacy and basically never spends a penny into the tax. The roster spot limitation and a reasonable (150%?) luxury tax is enough. And I think these fears of "all star" teams are ust not that realistic. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
Chris Bosh $19,067,500: Probably would have been worth ~ 25-30 Mil if no max (when he signed) Lebron James $19,067,500: $40 Million With a source even! http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704103904575337300075163446.html Dwyane Wade: $18,536,000: 30-35 Mil | ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On September 26 2013 07:57 MassHysteria wrote: Slyboogie has a point that the Pacers are signing him at a time where the perception on him is at a high. Although I do believe he is a Top 10 to Top 15 player, specially with the way the league is headed, it could be questioned if he will continue to improve. Was this the best we will ever see him? If anything, he has a lot of room to improve on offense, which is a good thing (one of the easier things to improve). With the way the league is headed though, and with perimeter players that can play both ways becoming more important/valuable, I do think George is worth it. But only if his offense continues to improve (TO BE CONTINUED) Of course you'd remove both. The player max is based off of the salary cap. And your example is exactly why a "super" team is unlikely. Some teams are very very wealthy but they don't have the revenue streams to front a 250 million dollar payroll. I don't want teams to go bankrupt, I just don't like owners who act like the amateur draft, salary caps and publically funded stadiums are there for "competitive balance" and the "good of the sport." | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On September 26 2013 12:03 slyboogie wrote: Of course you'd remove both. The player max is based off of the salary cap. And your example is exactly why a "super" team is unlikely. Some teams are very very wealthy but they don't have the revenue streams to front a 250 million dollar payroll. I don't want teams to go bankrupt, I just don't like owners who act like the amateur draft, salary caps and publically funded stadiums are there for "competitive balance" and the "good of the sport." Totally agree. The draft slotting for salaries sucks the most I think, but max salaries are second. Honestly, its basically how every union works though: It benefits the middle/lower tier workers, sacrifices a lot for the elite workers, and screws over people without seniority! | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13336 Posts
I don't think talent allocation is all that bad in the NBA right now. Looking at the West last year is a pretty good indicator on how healthy the competition is. I like that team and asset management are much more important under the new CBA. I think it gives a much greater advantage to smart GMs and not just those with an edict to spend. Is it perfect? Far from it. But I doubt the grass is much greener on the scrap the cap side of the fence. | ||
| ||
