EPTNBA Offseason 2013 - Page 75
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
RowdierBob
Australia13006 Posts
| ||
|
karazax
United States3737 Posts
| ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
In the NBA you would be doomed. Not only because of rookie development curves but player value is very difficult to figure out. NBA players play multiple roles while on the court. Owners do not want to risk losing value because they were impatient and didn't understand what they had. Players would just irk teams offering short, non-guaranteed money and go for the owners paying for security. I think the NFL contract setup is terrible for the players, however teams have to also protect themselves because the risk of injury is so high. The NBA doesn't need that. | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13006 Posts
Y! Source: DeMarcus Cousins reaches agreement on a four-year, $62M contract extension with the Sacramento Kings. http://yhoo.it/16NuaHJ And people were worried about Paul George. Shaqramento is go! | ||
|
Shadowpostin
Germany798 Posts
On September 27 2013 21:16 RowdierBob wrote: I can't watch: And people were worried about Paul George. Shaqramento is go! wow,wtf are they thinking | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13006 Posts
YOLO! | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
karazax
United States3737 Posts
On September 26 2013 23:58 Ace wrote: Wouldn't make sense for the NBA. Smaller talent pool + players having a much larger magnitude of effect on the game = bad for business. Players would just irk teams offering short, non-guaranteed money and go for the owners paying for security. The only reason it wouldn't work is because the players would never agree to it. On September 26 2013 23:58 Ace wrote: In the NFL with 50 man rosters and specialists at every position it works. You can cut a guy at anytime or have partial guarantees because he is easily replaceable (in general).In the NBA you would be doomed. Not only because of rookie development curves but player value is very difficult to figure out. NBA players play multiple roles while on the court. Owners do not want to risk losing value because they were impatient and didn't understand what they had. Having a smaller player pool means you wouldn't cut players as often as the NFL because you wouldn't have a ton of elidgeable replacements, but if you were to the point of wanting to cut a player, or force him to take a smaller salary or be cut, he was obviously replaceable. Not having guaranteed contracts would actually protect owners who don't want to risk losing value because they were impatient or didn't understand what they had. They could better afford to take on a risky player and let him go if it didn't work out, taking it year by year while still holding the players rights. If they choose not to, it isn't the system that let them down. On September 26 2013 23:58 Ace wrote: Players would just irk teams offering short, non-guaranteed money and go for the owners paying for security. If the system was the same as the NFL there wouldn't be some teams offering short non-guaranteed contracts and other teams offering long term security. No contracts would be guaranteed from any team except for injured players. Players would have to earn their contracts every year with their play, which from a fan's perspective is ideal, and from a player's perspective is a huge negative. On September 26 2013 23:58 Ace wrote: I think the NFL contract setup is terrible for the players, however teams have to also protect themselves because the risk of injury is so high. The NBA doesn't need that. It really doesn't protect NFL teams from injuries, injured players can't be cut from their contracts. It protects teams from paying a big contract to a player and then finding out he isn't capable of performing at that level for the duration. It will never likely happen because the player's association wouldn't agree to it, but it would absolutely help with parity if teams who over paid for players on long term deals could cut players who were under performing, reclaim that cap space and move on. Franchise tags would have to work differently, but you could just make the franchise tag = pay the average salary of the top 3 players in the league regardless of position. Of course a franchise tag in the NBA would be a much bigger deal considering the size of the teams compared to football teams. It would allow small market teams to keep one star they drafted, and limit how many stars a large market team could lock down, which should lead to a more competive league from year to year. Never being stuck with bad long term contracts is a huge reason why bad teams can become playoff teams quickly in the NFL with a good GM. On a different note, Morey tweeted a pic of the Houston Rocket's new locker room: ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BVLT4sbCIAEBysK.jpg:large) | ||
|
DystopiaX
United States16236 Posts
| ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
On September 28 2013 01:08 DystopiaX wrote: I could see him pulling a Zach Randolph and pulling it all together. can we call this the bargnani rule? pretty please? | ||
|
karazax
United States3737 Posts
| ||
|
seiferoth10
3362 Posts
Edit: Parsons has been diversifying his portfolio: http://www.seventeen.com/love/advice/chandler-parsons-love-advice | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Also, Wall has that whole "the Wizards are significantly better when I play" thing going for him. Same can't be said for Cousins. | ||
|
BoZiffer
United States1841 Posts
| ||
|
AntiGrav1ty
Germany2310 Posts
Anyways, I don't see DMC making a progress that would warrant anything close to that contract. There is absolutely nothing on the Kings that tells me he's gonna be better or more mature than he has been the last 2 seasons. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 28 2013 22:41 AntiGrav1ty wrote: Not really relevant here but I feel like Phil is way overrated when it comes to handling players and difficult personalities. He never moulded characters like Pop or even Doc or Karl. He is not as much of an educator as he is a winner (and that had a lot to do with the superior talent he always had). Anyways, I don't see DMC making a progress that would warrant anything close to that contract. There is absolutely nothing on the Kings that tells me he's gonna be better or more mature than he has been the last 2 seasons. I mean, I'm not sure that he's molded them, but he's certainly had his share of headcases and found ways to get the most out of them. Rodman and Odom alone would cause most coaches to retire. | ||
|
AntiGrav1ty
Germany2310 Posts
In the years that Phil won he was fortunate enough to have insane talent and/or a bunch veterans and winners in his teams who could overcome difficulties on their own. If you have that much talent or a player like MJ it's a lot easier. Winning solves a lot of problems. When he wasn't winning the difficult personalities were definitely a problem. Kobe and Shaq when they weren't winning it all, Kobe in the post-shaq years, MWP throughout all his stint, Gasol's lack of motivation/fire in his last years. If you wanna see how he would do with DMC just look at Bynum. His behaviour and immaturity is probably on the same level as DMC. The public "trust issue"-talk to reporters, the hideous foul on barea when they are already knocked out (one of his many flagrant fouls), the demonstrative pouting on the court, reinjuring himself while he's out bowling on an injured knee... And he had that kind of behaviour even though he was on a pretty good Lakers team with veterans and winners. | ||
|
Devil Trigger
United States107 Posts
On September 28 2013 22:44 Jibba wrote: I mean, I'm not sure that he's molded them, but he's certainly had his share of headcases and found ways to get the most out of them. Rodman and Odom alone would cause most coaches to retire. I can give you Odom, but not so sure about Rodman. The Chicago Bulls signed a friend of his and his sole purpose on the team was to keep Rodman calm. I don't remember his name, but he was a garbage time player and got three rings sitting on the bench. | ||
|
jmbthirteen
United States10734 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. He's one of the best 2 way players in the league, lead his team to within a game of the NBA finals, was an all star, and is 23 years old and will only be getting better. Not a bad deal at all. Remember, this doesn't go into effect this year, its next year. So most likely you will have a guy who is leading his team to a ECF or NBA Finals, another all star appearance and another all nba team. And the Pacers already have Hibbert/West/Hill all locked up for 3+ years and will either lock up Stephenson or Granger for a long time this off season. His max contract doesn't constrict the Pacers much at all. And the NBA can't remove the cap. That would be a horrific thing. Look at how amazing it is for baseball. | ||
| ||
