http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=adande_ja&page=stateofthenba-090721 Interesting article, also some good stuff on the haves and have-nots in the NBA and perhaps the need for more parity in the league. I'm sure the economy is affecting Paul Allen but I still think he'll be willing to spend money if the right player and the right deal comes his way. At this point I'd rather we hold onto our capspace and see what happens once the season starts. I know we didn't do anything last year, or so far this year, but I still think the best deals are yet to come. I could be delusional though. I just think owners who have been holding out hope that things will get better will realize they're going to get even worse, and they'll quickly hand us Chris Paul for free. Or something...
It would be a long shot. But it may be worth the gamble to wait until the trade deadline to make a move. (just in case) Its like playing the lotto. Doubtful that you will win big, but unless you are in it, you can't win it. Oklahoma City is looking mighty pretty with all that cap space.
If Kevin Pritchard had shown any desire to do a deal at the deadline I would be ecstatic for that. What we were all told BY HIM, was that we didn't trade RLEC at last years deadline because the same players we were after than woul dbe cheaper now. Now we hear the same thing, only pushed back. Yes, KP will be in a power possition with financially struggling teams at the deadline who are out of it, but those teams will also have some power because they know that if KP doesn't do something then he will lose any chance to bring someone in to help.
But I think there are going to be fewer teams like Portland looking to buy, compared to teams looking to sell, which gives us more leverage. If they're serious about needing to cut salary, they don't have much leverage at that point. They would need us more than we need them. But like pinwheel said, it's still a longshot that something great falls into our lap.
So....... "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"? I would agree if that bird really excited me. But who does? Same with last Feb. CButtler and maybe GWallace did but neither has moved. So no big deal to me so far. So the question is do you want to roll the dice? Are you a gambler? Or do you just want a small upgrade?
I understand the salary cap going down, but it makes no sense to me that they would drop the luxury tax threshold, as well. The LT is intended as a deterrent to over-spending, so as to keep the league healthy financially, the owners (who are too dumb to not over-spend) happy, and the teams operating somewhat within the realm of parity. The idea is to instill responsible contract planning... But lowering the LT just punishes teams for proper planning under the old numbers. Why not leave the LT where it is when the cap goes down? The only change to the LT should be to go up when the cap goes up.
I am a gambler, and watching trends and such I would not bet on KP making a move at the deadline. At least a major move. Our team will be good. There isn't much doubt about that. Just not good enough, and that's the problem as I see it. Let's say Portland is playing .600 basketball at the deadline with the current roster. There will be teams better, but we are in say 4th or 5th place in the west. It's deadline day and Charlotte calls and says they want to deal Wallace. They are hurting financially and will deal him for cap space and a couple of young players like Outlaw and Bayless. Both backups, but very popular on the team. Would KP do that? I don't think he would.
I think you're reading KP 100% incorrectly when you say you bet he won't make a major move. I think that's exactly what he's waiting for. Nothing good enough was offered for RLEC. Nothing has been offered so far this summer that's good enough. Teams with potential luxury tax issues can hold onto their players through January and see if they've got a serious chance of making noise in the playoffs. If they don't, they're going to be looking to dump salary to avoid multimillion dollar hits in tax payments. Portland and OKC look to be the only teams that could accommodate them. That's not a bad position to be in. On the other hand, if somebody decides to make a salary dump this summer and offers up a player that's good enough, I'm all for that too. It's the good enough player aspect that's most important, not the timing.
He did show desire. He talked with a lot of teams and was heavily involved in reported discussions for Amare Stoudemire, Shaquille O'Neal, Gerald Wallace, Vince Carter. Not actually ending up with a trade he thought was good for the team is not the same as showing no interest.
That is an interesting and difficult scenario because Wallace is good but not great. A pace that puts us at 50 is good but not great. But by then KP and Nate would know if Bayless and Outlaw are major contributors and also if Webster an Batum are. If none of them are I think KP would make the trade in a heart beat. But I am hoping for something better than Wallace.
We wouldn't get Chris Paul for free. They would trade him to the Lakers for Luke Walton, Shannon Brown and a retiring Derek Fisher.
But why do we have to be "good enough" this season? Even if we let this group play together with only minor changes, we'll be "good enough" in the 2010/2011 season and well beyond. If we start screwing around too much we may very well take ourselves out of a title window.
Because the calculation for the luxury tax (some percentage of Basketball Related Income or BRI) is defined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The last I checked the LT was either at 61.11% or 63.33% of BRI.
If there is any one section of the CBA that needs changing, this is it. In what other business are you punished for investing in your own product/company? "Parity" is a buzz-word for "cheat the fans by doing a half-assed job." Here's an off-the-wall notion: teams that reach a certain threshold in wins are immune from the luxury tax. If a team falls *below* a certain threshold in both wins and payroll, there would be penalties. Maybe just have a "luxury tax" on losses! Every loss beyond 52 results in a loss of TV revenue (since you aren't doing your fair share to earn it).
