|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Booooo....why even bother with a guy that won't play next season?
Because they might think he'll be the better player in the long term? It's not like we're winning the Championship next year anyway.
No, I get that part.....but this is a growing team that needs to start their growing now. If Kanter grades out slightly worse....wouldn't he still be better than Jonas next year with a full year of NBA play under his belt. Jonas would have to play catch up.
If you assume each guy won't make a big impact until year two. That means Jonas won't do anything for two years while Kanter could be an impact player next year.
Sorry, I just don't see why. Maybe they grade them out so that Jonas is worlds better....but if it's close, I'd rather have the B- guy now, than a solid B guy a year later.
if it's a tie, then yeah take Kanter. otherwise, take Jonas. I have been unimpressed with Jonas from the little video we have seen, but the Cavs have scouts that obviously have seen him much more than we have.
also, Jonas not being on the team next year means a better draft pick in a better draft next year. it could be the difference between being in position to draft an elite talent vs. an allstar talent in next year's draft (alot of variables involved obviously). if it makes us lose 5-7 wins next year, then it's actually a good thing (as long as he is the better prospect).
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027 |
The NBA situation is definitely worse, several teams are in the red, and have been for a while.
I still think they get something done, at least they are going hard right now, whereas the nfl had to fight it out in public like a couple that just started dating. The NFL won't miss any preseason games, but the offseason is huge for those franchises, ESPECIALLY ours where we are installing brand new systems on both sides of the ball, we have a new voice in the locker room, and our quarterback is still early in development.
I think at most a few weeks get missed, some of the stuff I've read recently is encouraging.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
yeah, the NBA is in worse shape. once the owners opened up their books to the players, you knew that it was because there would be alot of blood (red ink). there's a reason the NFL owners wouldn't do the same.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027 |
Quote:
yeah, the NBA is in worse shape. once the owners opened up their books to the players, you knew that it was because there would be alot of blood (red ink). there's a reason the NFL owners wouldn't do the same.
If the nfl ends with the players getting 48% and no 18gm schedule, i think the owners got EXACTLY what they wanted. Like i bet 18 games would have been nice, but I think they also realize how ridiculous it is. Ridiculous expectations = raised final prize.
I don't know how the NBA will be fixed, although I am disappointe that Stern does not like the idea of an nfl-style franchise tag so that cities like Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Detroit can keep their great players just like everyone else.
I think the NBA should do away with a sign and trade. If a guy like Dwight, or Chris Paul wants to leave their team, let them go and find their own deal, and not have the owner get back a crappy package so that A.) the player gets their cake and eats it too and B.) the owner somewhat doesn't feel completely vacated
I understand free agency is part of sports, but it's absolute garbage in today's world that the big markets get to control everything, they don't have to watch a franchise player in their prime walk away. God bless the NFL.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,834
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,834 |
Yeah, the NBA should adopt an NFL style system, with a franchise player, a hard cap. and non-guaranteed contracts. I never understood how players can get a guaranteed contract and fail completely to produce ..... and the team are left holding the bag.
I kind of like the idea of allowing the "home team" to re-sign a player at a higher dollar amount ..... but doing away with that and instituting a franchise tag would accomplish the original intention of the rule much more effectively.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027 |
I don't think you should restrict a player from leaving. It's his choice, we all understand that, but there should be real incentive to stay. They kinda had it set up like that, except that a sign and trade wipes it out.
Have it set up so that a franchise can take care of their guy, but if that guy wants to leave, he is going to have to take a large cut. No sign and trade, none of that. If you want to go, there's the door. Good luck getting your contract.
Maybe include some kind of a bonus if a player sticks around x amount of years with the original team that drafted him.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
IMO, Franchise tags are communist (if I'm saying that right - not a Gov student). As much as I want to hold on to our guys, they should have the right to move to X city for a better opportunity or if they've always wanted to live in City Y. I was able to leave my old job in Cleveland for a better job in Chicago....I was able to improve my life, why can't they?
Just make the incentive to staying bigger:
Make all returning free agents contracts guaranteed...or just the mid-to-max deals. Any Max deal signed with a new team isn't guaranteed.
And then throw in that the home team can offer 10% more and maybe an additional year. And that 10% isn't counted towards the hard cap.
Done.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Punchsmack/punch.gif) “...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
the problem is that they tried that but the incentives for the players changed.
they had it so that the original team could give them more years + more money per year with bigger raises + no-trade clause (8yrs in NBA + 4yrs w/ team). and, that is well enough for the 2nd tier guys to stay in one spot.
but, the elite guys finally figured out that they wanted shorter contracts because it gave them FO-leverage and flexibility(so the no-trade clause means less). the sign-n-trade made the money portion a wash (because no team can tell their fans that they turned down something for 'free' even if it's barely anything).
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027 |
circumventing the system 101
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Quote:
IMO, Franchise tags are communist (if I'm saying that right - not a Gov student). As much as I want to hold on to our guys, they should have the right to move to X city for a better opportunity or if they've always wanted to live in City Y.
It depends on how you see the NBA (which I think is a major crux of the whole monopoly argument in regard to the NFL labor dispute.)
Viewpoint 1) If the NBA is who you are working for (i.e. if the teams are all parts of the NBA) then they should be able to tell you exactly what team you can work for at any time. Free Agency is a luxury which the NBA grants you as a benefit. If your company says "you're going to work in this department now, or you can go work for someone else" what do you do? It may not be good for employee relations, but it's certainly within their rights.
Viewpoint 2) The NBA is a collection of separate entities. Free market value is based on competition between teams. All players should be able to be free agents whenever not under contract.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
IMO, Franchise tags are communist (if I'm saying that right - not a Gov student). As much as I want to hold on to our guys, they should have the right to move to X city for a better opportunity or if they've always wanted to live in City Y. I was able to leave my old job in Cleveland for a better job in Chicago....I was able to improve my life, why can't they?
Just make the incentive to staying bigger:
Make all returning free agents contracts guaranteed...or just the mid-to-max deals. Any Max deal signed with a new team isn't guaranteed.
And then throw in that the home team can offer 10% more and maybe an additional year. And that 10% isn't counted towards the hard cap.
Done.
I think it's sort of funny that you call the franchise tag "communist" but then your solution includes a hard cap.
You were able to leave your job in Cleveland for a new job in Chicago, but what if the job in Chicago was worth $120K a year but they could only pay you $80K because somebody told them that was all they were allowed to spend (even though they had more money)......
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
j/c first bombshell trade. well, it's between the bucks/bobcats/kings, but i think it qualifies http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2011/news/story?id=6697545Quote:
The Bucks will get Sacramento's Beno Udrih, Charlotte's Stephen Jackson and Shaun Livingston and the 19th pick from the Bobcats in Thursday night's draft, while Charlotte obtains the No. 7 pick from Sacramento and forward Corey Maggette from Milwaukee.
The Kings will get guard John Salmons from Milwaukee and the 10th pick in the draft. Charlotte will keep the No. 9 pick.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Good point. However, a francise tag prohibits movement even if the player is willing to accept less to get out of town. He's locked in and has no choice. A hard cap might be communist to the teams, if they don't know how to manage their space, but the players could still move around based on the money available.
“...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Wow, so Charlotte now has #7 and #9? Trade up to #4 now? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
Quote:
IMO, Franchise tags are communist (if I'm saying that right - not a Gov student). As much as I want to hold on to our guys, they should have the right to move to X city for a better opportunity or if they've always wanted to live in City Y. I was able to leave my old job in Cleveland for a better job in Chicago....I was able to improve my life, why can't they?
Just make the incentive to staying bigger:
Make all returning free agents contracts guaranteed...or just the mid-to-max deals. Any Max deal signed with a new team isn't guaranteed.
And then throw in that the home team can offer 10% more and maybe an additional year. And that 10% isn't counted towards the hard cap.
Done.
I think it's sort of funny that you call the franchise tag "communist" but then your solution includes a hard cap.
You were able to leave your job in Cleveland for a new job in Chicago, but what if the job in Chicago was worth $120K a year but they could only pay you $80K because somebody told them that was all they were allowed to spend (even though they had more money)......
Poor analogy. Even with a hard cap, the team could still sign the player for as much as they wanted, or for the market price. The cap doesn't dictate how much a team can give any one player. It dictates how much the total expenditure of a given team can be. If a team wants to give a player more money, then its up to them to ensure that they have the ability to do so within the constraints of the cap. I'm not wild about the salary cap but in a sport that's so dominated by individual talents its a necessary evil to maintain any modicum of competitive balance.
I agree that the franchise tag is a bad idea. If a player has fulfilled his contractual obligations, he should be free to sign with the team of his choice.
I also agree that the sign-and-trade should go away...the implementation of that could get tricky, however. It would have to be very specifically worded so that it applies only to situations where a sign-and-trade would normally be implemented, or you run the risk of handcuffing a team that may wish to legitimately trade a player for whatever reason. Something along the lines of "A player who becomes a free agent and signs a new agreement with the team to which he was last contracted cannot be traded within...", and there's the rub. Say a team had a vet whose contract expired, he becomes a free agent, and ultimately winds up re-signing with that team he last played for. The team has a lousy season and decides they want to make a move at the trade deadline that includes this player. Does the language of the CBA that bars sign-and-trades affect the team's ability to make this move? You'd have to find a way to link it to something other than a duration of time, but that seems easier said than done.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
i was more thinking the Kings still have the #10 pick. so if they want to do a Sessions for Francisco Garcia+#10 trade, they still can (shed salary and get back a PG now that they lost Udrih)
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
How about one of those picks for Tony Parker, Lamar Odom, Andre Iguodala, etc?
(I don't think they will do that, just throwing it out there.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
jc...
I'm not a big proponent of trading out of the #4 pick, whether its to move up or to move back, and here's why: I think its pretty well assumed that regardless of what we do in this draft, we are likely a lottery team again next year, maybe in the 8-12 range as opposed to the 1-4 range like this past season. Next year's draft is regarded to be much more stocked with talent, both at the top of the draft as well as with depth of quality players. It may be a very real possibility that we look to move up to select a very good player in that draft, which would more than likely require us to swap first-round picks. If we move out of the #4 pick tonight, then we won't be able to move out of next year's pick because of the Ted Stepien rule, when we'll probably have a lower pick in a draft with more talent at the top worth dealing to move up for.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
No, that's only if we didn't have the #1 from the Clips this year.
Plus, don't we have Miami's 1 next year?
You're allowed to trade out as long as you have 1 1 in two years. Doesn't have to be yours.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
No, that's only if we didn't have the #1 from the Clips this year.
Plus, don't we have Miami's 1 next year?
You're allowed to trade out as long as you have 1 1 in two years. Doesn't have to be yours.
correct. also, let's add in that we could agree in principle to swap but not actually swap picks until after the picks are made (so, the other team takes playerA for us, we take playerB for them then we make the trade). it's the most common way around the Stepein-rule.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Cavs + Mavs + Draft + LeBron
Mocking
|
|
