The small markets are doomed

Newsflash:

Gordon Hayward is white.

 

Why do you say that? Kd did it. Cp3 did it. Lma did it.
Isn't it obvious that joining a Winning team means more than that the money???

 

Throwing out a number like that is incorrect. You aren't comparing apples to apples.
You're including the 5th year that OKC can offer that the other teams can't. Unless he comes down with a medical issue that requires him to retire - he's going to get another contract after the 4 years.
More than likely the difference between the 5 year contracts will be about $10M. Still a lot of money, but easy to recover with marketing opportunities.

 

KD and LMA both left before the current CBA and the veteran designated player exception. In fact, it was created in response to Durant leaving OKC. At the time those guys left, they only left $10 - $20 million to change teams. Because of the DPE, Westbrook could get $70 - $80 million more from OKC than from anyone else. Plus, he would be THE highest paid player in the league. In Westbrook's case, I that no that letters more to him than winning.

Paul has over 10 years experience, so he can get as much from HOU as he would have gotten from LAC

BNM

 

Don't forget about George, he is leaving a Indiana to eventually become a (dirty) Laker.

 

Because he did not make one of the all NBA teams, he was not eligible to sign a DPE super max extension this summer. That ended any hope of him staying in IND.

BNM

 

Westbrook is currently eligible to sign a $217 million five year extension with OKC, and supposedly one has been offered. That would give him the largest contract in the NBA - bigger than Steph Curry's $201 million extension. I think that's something that appeals to Westbrook's ego, just like winning the MVP did.

BNM

 

Can anyone tell me why the league decided to make sign-and-trades almost impossible?

It wasn't a perfect situation, but in years past, when a disgruntled player wanted to force a trade, even if he was a free agent, the two teams worked out some kind of sign-and-trade package where the star got his money and the team losing the star at least got something in return. The team getting the star, usually "won" the trade, but at least the team losing the star wasn't left holding their dicks and nothing else.

Remember when Garnet forced his way to BOS and Carmelo forced his way to the Knicks? In both cases, there were significant assets going to the team losing the star player. Maybe not equal value, but a LOT better than flat out NOTHING which is what we got for Aldridge and UTA got for Hayward.

Even in the case of IND, if a decent sign and trade would have been possible next summer, they would have held onto George and squeezed the Lakers for whatever they could get in return.

So, bring back the good old fashioned sign and trade so teams losing a star player at least have a way to get something of value, even if not equal value, in return.

BNM

 

This league gives zero fucks about parity

 

We like u Mr. Robot BUT... u r not getting any "likes" for ^

 

They should. The lack of competitiveness during the playoffs cost everyone, the players, the owners and the TV networks money. All those sweeps meant fewer games, meant less $$$. That's why the cap is so much lower than expected ($99 million, was originally projected to be $108 and was revised downward 4 times).

This an over simplification, but assuming that the lack of parity cost each team $9 million in their share of BRI, that comes out to $9 million x 30 x 2 (50% BRI to the players, 50% to the owners) = $540 million, over half a billion dollars of lost basketball related income for the first year of the new TV deal.

OK, fine. Not all of that lost revenue was likely related to the lack of parity. Maybe only half of it was. That's still a quarter of a billion dollars. Maybe only 1/4 of it was, that's still over $130 million.

At the VERY least, we know the last cap reduction from $101 million to $99 million was directly attributed to the lower than expected revenue during the playoffs. That's still $2 million x 30 x 2 = $120 million. That may not seem like a lot, with players getting $100+ million contracts, but that's just the direct result of revenue lost during the playoffs due to the lack of competitiveness. If some of those 4-game series went 5 or 6 games, they would have met their projections. In a super competitive league where most series go 6 or 7 games, they would make a LOT more.

If they don't care about parity yet, they should start. They just finished the first season of their huge new TV contract and they are already making substantially less than they projected a year ago. This is where that $540 million figure has merit. That's how much less BRI there was in the first year of the contract than was projected a year ago when the deal went into effect. If that continues for 9 more years, no way will their next big TV contract be nearly as lucrative as this one.

BNM

 

I don't accept the primise though. Everyone says they leave that on the table, but that's only if they retire or have a severe slip in production at the end of the contract. Otherwise, they will be signing another major deal and recoup the bulk of that loss as tester stated earlier. The money is not that big of a deal to these guys compared to winning. $10-$20 mill? They are already making over $100 mill or more....

 

The DPE changes that somewhat, especially in Westbrook's case. He can sign a record $217 million extension this summer, and supposedly it's been offered. He gets to the max one year sooner by signing that extension. They basically tear up his existing contract and they give him a new one starting at almost $35 million a year with 8% annual raises for 5 years.

He could keep his current contract, which means he'll lose about $7 million this year, and then opt out next summer. At that point, he will be eligible for the super max anywhere (10 years in the league), but only over 4 years. So, he'd also lose out on the fifth year at nearly $50 million. Yes. he will be able to sign another extension at that point, but he will be 34 years old. Would you be willing to sign a 34-year player whose game is almost 100% dependent on his athleticism a contract starting at $50 million a year?

BNM

 

That money would mean a lot to me even if I had $100 mill in the bank. And in the case of Westbrook making $60 mill more if he stayed in OKC, would anyone here turn that down? I sure as hell wouldn't.

 

I think another year at 29 at maximum contract is a big incentive. You are not that likely to get a $50M deal at 33 or 34 unless there's a situation like last year when the cap goes up by $25M in a year.

 

Honestly I think Portland could quadruple it's population and still produce crappy TV ratings for nationally televised games. Just because of the way the country was populated there are plenty of West Coast people with East Coast ties and rooting interests, but the same can't be said in reverse. The only way they overcome this sort of obstacle is to have a truly transcendent player who people across the country are fascinated by.

STOMP

 

Are you trying to give me ideas for the Jusuf Nurkic Fact Thread ?

 

Yeah, but we got Meyers to re-sign here.

Too bad we didn't get him to resign here.