Tatum and the All NBA Team

[Moranis]

Can someone remind me of the salary cap imprecations of Tatum making all NBA this season vs not. I recall hearing he'd get a bigger salary having made a couple all NBA teams.

25% of cap with no team, 30% of cap with team.

I'm just going to keep saying this ... this is really, really stupid.

I don't mind they reward the players, but maybe those super contracts they could still count it against the cap as if the player didn't earn it.  So anyone that gets the boost from 25 to 30 or 30 to 35 will still count at 25 or 30 instead of 30 or 35 for salary cap purposes.  That way you reward the player without harming the team.

[Ogaju]

Can someone remind me of the salary cap imprecations of Tatum making all NBA this season vs not. I recall hearing he'd get a bigger salary having made a couple all NBA teams.

25% of cap with no team, 30% of cap with team.

I'm just going to keep saying this ... this is really, really stupid.

I don't mind they reward the players, but maybe those super contracts they could still count it against the cap as if the player didn't earn it.  So anyone that gets the boost from 25 to 30 or 30 to 35 will still count at 25 or 30 instead of 30 or 35 for salary cap purposes.  That way you reward the player without harming the team.

You are right, the present system creates and fosters a conflict of interest.

[jambr380]

Can someone remind me of the salary cap imprecations of Tatum making all NBA this season vs not. I recall hearing he'd get a bigger salary having made a couple all NBA teams.

25% of cap with no team, 30% of cap with team.

I'm just going to keep saying this ... this is really, really stupid.

I don't mind they reward the players, but maybe those super contracts they could still count it against the cap as if the player didn't earn it.  So anyone that gets the boost from 25 to 30 or 30 to 35 will still count at 25 or 30 instead of 30 or 35 for salary cap purposes.  That way you reward the player without harming the team.

Yeah, one major reason for the current system was to give small market teams a better chance to keep their star players. It is fine with the absolute top stars in the league, but you otherwise end up with a John Wall situation where it totally handicaps the team, or a Kemba situation where the team is forced not to sign their player because of financial implications.

Tatum is luckily not in that 30%/35% bracket so it isn't quite as devastating, but seems to me like they should at least leave out All-NBA 3rd Team in the super-max debate. It's too easy for very good, but not great players, to slide into that slot in a contract year.

[tazzmaniac]

Can someone remind me of the salary cap imprecations of Tatum making all NBA this season vs not. I recall hearing he'd get a bigger salary having made a couple all NBA teams.

25% of cap with no team, 30% of cap with team.

I'm just going to keep saying this ... this is really, really stupid.

I don't mind they reward the players, but maybe those super contracts they could still count it against the cap as if the player didn't earn it.  So anyone that gets the boost from 25 to 30 or 30 to 35 will still count at 25 or 30 instead of 30 or 35 for salary cap purposes.  That way you reward the player without harming the team.

Yeah, one major reason for the current system was to give small market teams a better chance to keep their star players. It is fine with the absolute top stars in the league, but you otherwise end up with a John Wall situation where it totally handicaps the team, or a Kemba situation where the team is forced not to sign their player because of financial implications.

Tatum is luckily not in that 30%/35% bracket so it isn't quite as devastating, but seems to me like they should at least leave out All-NBA 3rd Team in the super-max debate. It's too easy for very good, but not great players, to slide into that slot in a contract year.

There are only 15 All-NBA spots and it definitely is not easy to get 3rd team All-NBA.  Nothing obligated the Celtics to offer Tatum the full 30% for making any All-NBA team.  I can't recall any team doing that before.  Most teams offer something like 26% for 3rd, 28% for 2nd and 30% for 1st team All-NBA.     

[PhoSita]

Can someone remind me of the salary cap imprecations of Tatum making all NBA this season vs not. I recall hearing he'd get a bigger salary having made a couple all NBA teams.

25% of cap with no team, 30% of cap with team.

I'm just going to keep saying this ... this is really, really stupid.

I don't mind they reward the players, but maybe those super contracts they could still count it against the cap as if the player didn't earn it.  So anyone that gets the boost from 25 to 30 or 30 to 35 will still count at 25 or 30 instead of 30 or 35 for salary cap purposes.  That way you reward the player without harming the team.

I'm 100% in favor of rewarding players for performance. It just shouldn't count against the cap.

[celticsclay]

2nd - Embiid, Kawhi, Lebron, Paul, Curry

Missed too many games - Davis, Durant, Harden

Lebron and Harden have both only played in 43 games this season.  Durant 33, Davis 34.

But he likes lebron

[celticsclay]

1st
Jokic
Giannis
Kawhi
Doncic
Curry

2nd
Embiid
Randle
Butler
Paul
Lillard

3rd
Gobert
Adebayo/Lebron/George/Tatum
Zion
Kyrie
D. Mitchell/Beal/Young/Harden/Booker

The last 3rd team guard will be the most contested spot in years. I think D. Mitchell is one of the best and most underappreciated players in the league and he'd be on my ballot, but I think Beal takes it. The positional versatility will give the edge to Adebayo.

Availability will have the perennial All NBA players missing it altogether, and Harden and Lebron missing close to 60% will put them on the edge for the majority of voters.

This is a lot more realistic than the other lists I have seen here

[footey]

Can someone remind me of the salary cap imprecations of Tatum making all NBA this season vs not. I recall hearing he'd get a bigger salary having made a couple all NBA teams.

25% of cap with no team, 30% of cap with team.

I'm just going to keep saying this ... this is really, really stupid.

I don't mind they reward the players, but maybe those super contracts they could still count it against the cap as if the player didn't earn it.  So anyone that gets the boost from 25 to 30 or 30 to 35 will still count at 25 or 30 instead of 30 or 35 for salary cap purposes.  That way you reward the player without harming the team.

I'm 100% in favor of rewarding players for performance. It just shouldn't count against the cap.

I understand your thinking, but really doesn't that risk the teams with the most top end talent (Lakers, Nets) gaining the biggest advantage, assuming they have similar bump up clauses in their contracts? Basically it would give them a larger cap on a regular basis, which seems unfair. 

Probably best to eliminate incentive salary bumps.  Because it does stink to route for our own guy (Tatum) not to get awarded to save cap space for the team.

[Big333223]

I don’t care at all about the cap implications. If Tatum earns his spot, I want to see my team’s players rewarded, always. But the way the C’s stumbled down the stretch was disappointing. I want Tatum to look back at the end of the season and say, I would’ve made it if we’d won more games.

I want his personal successes tied to the team’s success as much as possible.

[Moranis]

Can someone remind me of the salary cap imprecations of Tatum making all NBA this season vs not. I recall hearing he'd get a bigger salary having made a couple all NBA teams.

25% of cap with no team, 30% of cap with team.

I'm just going to keep saying this ... this is really, really stupid.

I don't mind they reward the players, but maybe those super contracts they could still count it against the cap as if the player didn't earn it.  So anyone that gets the boost from 25 to 30 or 30 to 35 will still count at 25 or 30 instead of 30 or 35 for salary cap purposes.  That way you reward the player without harming the team.

I'm 100% in favor of rewarding players for performance. It just shouldn't count against the cap.

I understand your thinking, but really doesn't that risk the teams with the most top end talent (Lakers, Nets) gaining the biggest advantage, assuming they have similar bump up clauses in their contracts? Basically it would give them a larger cap on a regular basis, which seems unfair. 

Probably best to eliminate incentive salary bumps.  Because it does stink to route for our own guy (Tatum) not to get awarded to save cap space for the team.

It would actually probably help the smaller market teams more because you can only give this to a player you draft and those players aren't often on the Lakers of the world.  Now sure the Lakers could trade for said player at some point after that first year of the new deal, but the smaller market team would at least get something in the trade.

[footey]

Can someone remind me of the salary cap imprecations of Tatum making all NBA this season vs not. I recall hearing he'd get a bigger salary having made a couple all NBA teams.

25% of cap with no team, 30% of cap with team.

I'm just going to keep saying this ... this is really, really stupid.

I don't mind they reward the players, but maybe those super contracts they could still count it against the cap as if the player didn't earn it.  So anyone that gets the boost from 25 to 30 or 30 to 35 will still count at 25 or 30 instead of 30 or 35 for salary cap purposes.  That way you reward the player without harming the team.

I'm 100% in favor of rewarding players for performance. It just shouldn't count against the cap.

I understand your thinking, but really doesn't that risk the teams with the most top end talent (Lakers, Nets) gaining the biggest advantage, assuming they have similar bump up clauses in their contracts? Basically it would give them a larger cap on a regular basis, which seems unfair. 

Probably best to eliminate incentive salary bumps.  Because it does stink to route for our own guy (Tatum) not to get awarded to save cap space for the team.

It would actually probably help the smaller market teams more because you can only give this to a player you draft and those players aren't often on the Lakers of the world.  Now sure the Lakers could trade for said player at some point after that first year of the new deal, but the smaller market team would at least get something in the trade.

Valid point. TP.

[blink]

1st
Jokic
Giannis
Kawhi
Doncic
Curry

2nd
Embiid
Randle
Butler
Paul
Lillard

3rd
Gobert
Adebayo/Lebron/George/Tatum
Zion
Kyrie
D. Mitchell/Beal/Young/Harden/Booker

The last 3rd team guard will be the most contested spot in years. I think D. Mitchell is one of the best and most underappreciated players in the league and he'd be on my ballot, but I think Beal takes it. The positional versatility will give the edge to Adebayo.

Availability will have the perennial All NBA players missing it altogether, and Harden and Lebron missing close to 60% will put them on the edge for the majority of voters.

This is a lot more realistic than the other lists I have seen here

Is Zion really better than Tatum THIS YEAR?  I don't think so.  I'm not even sure Randle is better than Tatum this year.

Randle had a great year, and so did Zion.  But I think Tatum was better.  Randle probably gets a push because the Knicks over performed, which isn't all him, but a fair share.  So I get the take that he might be on before Tatum.