It's not really shot down yet.  Owners agreed to take it out, if players were willing to lower their cut of Basketball related income substantially (to a number players will never agree to).  This is just the owners trying to make it look like they are willing to make concessions, in a PR fight.  However, until they figure out the breakdown of basketball related income all of that stuff is still very much on the table.

Once they figure out the percentages, then they will work out those minor details, such as guaranteed contracts.

BTW, there is still a middle-ground, like the NHL found, where longterm contracts don't necessarily kill a team's cap, because there will be ways to get them off the cap, while the player still gets paid (although ussually over an extended number of years).   

Quote from: Chris on June 20, 2011, 09:34:32 AM

It's not really shot down yet.  Owners agreed to take it out, if players were willing to lower their cut of Basketball related income substantially (to a number players will never agree to).  This is just the owners trying to make it look like they are willing to make concessions, in a PR fight.  However, until they figure out the breakdown of basketball related income all of that stuff is still very much on the table.

Once they figure out the percentages, then they will work out those minor details, such as guaranteed contracts.

BTW, there is still a middle-ground, like the NHL found, where longterm contracts don't necessarily kill a team's cap, because there will be ways to get them off the cap, while the player still gets paid (although ussually over an extended number of years).   

I hope so.


I think team rosters need to be more fluid.  There just isn't the space to have to many issue players. 


And I don't care about the money for the owner.  I don't care about the money for the player. 


I only care about the level of play each team can bring.

Quote from: wdleehi on June 20, 2011, 09:42:42 AM

Quote from: Chris on June 20, 2011, 09:34:32 AM

It's not really shot down yet.  Owners agreed to take it out, if players were willing to lower their cut of Basketball related income substantially (to a number players will never agree to).  This is just the owners trying to make it look like they are willing to make concessions, in a PR fight.  However, until they figure out the breakdown of basketball related income all of that stuff is still very much on the table.

Once they figure out the percentages, then they will work out those minor details, such as guaranteed contracts.

BTW, there is still a middle-ground, like the NHL found, where longterm contracts don't necessarily kill a team's cap, because there will be ways to get them off the cap, while the player still gets paid (although ussually over an extended number of years).   

And I don't care about the money for the owner.  I don't care about the money for the player. 


I only care about the level of play each team can bring.

I agree.  I also don't want to see teams all start dumping players when a big superstar becomes a FA though so they can all have a shot to sign him.

Nothing sad here.

If GM's would learn to evaluate talent ; this would be a non-issue.  You don't see Riley or Presti signing below average players to long term deals.

Quote from: Marcus13 on June 20, 2011, 10:37:52 AM

Nothing sad here.

If GM's would learn to evaluate talent ; this would be a non-issue.  You don't see Riley or Presti signing below average players to long term deals.

Didn't Miami end up with a bad contract in Shaq?