re: Giving a huge contract to BI doesn’t sound so bad anymore

quote:

---

BI averages over 20 points, 5 rebounds and 5 assists and actually enjoys basketball and seems like he wants to be a part of the city and organization. I’ll take a very good player with a good attitude over whatever the frick Zion is.

---

Honestly, how do you know any of this? Is it just a gut feeling or your impression from watching interviews with him?

He's a good player and very talented. I do not think he's especially dedicated to his craft or developing himself as a player. He's not a leader, injury prone, physically weak, and has no mass appeal or charisma, so the team can't market him at all. All that being said..

You say that he loves the city and wants to be here, right? So, why would it take a max deal for him to stay? Why isn't he cutting us a deal to stay? I mean, he wants to be here and be the star. So, what is the hold up?

quote:

---

20 points, 5 rebounds and 5 assists

---

Sounds like a good player… not a franchise, cornerback stone, all star, all nba, super max contract player

quote:

---

My issue is we've never seen what this team can do.

I'd really like to see it.

---

Me too. This season has just been insane, due to our health curse.

quote:

---

Sounds like a good player… not a franchise, cornerback stone, all star, all nba, super max contract player

---

It's a top 40-50 player

I don't think anyone has ever suggested he's getting a super max. It's more a discussion of a contract around the regular max.

And the regular max is for guys in the 15-40 range by default. The super max should be much bigger so legit elite guys get closer to their FMV, which would have the downstream effects of guys like BI getting less. However, since the supermax is so absurdly low, that leaves hundreds of millions of dollars that have to be spent on guys like BI, raising their FMV within the confines of this CBA-created inefficient paradigm.

All of this makes sense, on a larger scale. But it's not practically implemented. If you look at spending, it is way over the allotted range. The salary floor is around 120M. That is where 80% of the teams should be. As of now, there are 28 teams over 150M this season. There is over 1B extra dollars flowing to the players, that is not necessary. If you look at the shared revenue, from the general funds, the players are way over the scheduled 50%. They are making out like bandits. The owners, and their desperation, are to blame for this.

The fact is we are going to waste over 50M this season. It's bad, bad business. The economic model does not work this way. It would be different if that money was going to grow the infrastructure and better the fan experience. Instead, it's going to players that aren't invested in the team's future. It very sad and will reap negative consequences in the years to come. They are killing all good will.

Specifically, about Ingram, his value is whatever someone is willing to give him. If another team wants to give him a max, then he's a max player. I just wouldn't do it. The debate that it is just common practice isn't a persuasive argument, to me. But I have never seen a "max" player with a depressed or negative trade market. If he was truly a top 40-50 player, it would be easy to move him, even expiring. That is why I just don't see him being that guy..

The team was always at their best when Zion was playing and BI was out. They are a worse team with BI on the court with Zion, than Zion by himself.

BI is not that guy.

Zion should be clowned for his immaturity, but I think he does this shite to try and force a trade without just asking for it. I won't be surprised if he asks out after a few more games.

Golden State should try to find a 3rd team that could send NO something valuable and they should put their all into getting Zion while sending Wiggins and Kuminga elsewhere. A Lavine could work with Chicago and I think Kuminga and Wiggins fit there perfectly. But I'm sure NO would probably pass on Lavine.

It's time to just send Zion somewhere else. No team will trade for him until he's been in the court for 5-6 straight games though.

quote:

---

Do you believe that the players are being short changed?

---

No I believe they are guaranteed between 49-51% of basketball related income every season. If teams don't spend that much on salaries, the players get a pro-rated check, IIRC.

Here is an interesting thread I saw on Reddit looking up CBA information.

It's applicable to us, especially with Ingram, b/c of the impacts on teams hoarding cap space elsewhere

quote:

---

Under the previous CBA, teams were gently encouraged to spend up to 90 percent of the cap (a line known as the salary floor) by the very last day of the regular season, without any meaningful repercussions if they failed to. The new CBA moves that deadline to the first day of the season and gives it real teeth—erasing any unused cap space up to the salary floor, withholding luxury tax payouts for teams that fall short, and preventing them from making any transactions throughout the season that would decrease their total team salary. There’s no longer a point to those sorts of austerity measures. Not only will every organization have to spend up to the salary floor one way or another, but those that fail to reach that ledge will cost themselves more money and real team-building opportunities in the process.

---

It's from tihs Ringer article

quote:

---

It has long been common practice for clubs with younger, lottery-bound rosters to pinch pennies for as long as possible, in part because it’s easier for a club with low expectations to get away with it. Before this new CBA, there was no real incentive for a team to spend before it was ready to win, creating an environment where a handful of organizations would roll into the season well below the salary cap in hopes of farming out that space to desperate teams at the trade deadline—while also picking up some draft picks for their trouble.

No more. The Pistons are currently slated to have the most cap space of any team in the field when the 2023-24 season begins: a sultan’s ransom of $315,000. In NBA terms, that’s a rounding error. A performance bonus. A far cry from the tens of millions in cap space that teams have operated under in recent seasons—because with this new CBA, not spending isn’t really an option.

Just look at the Rockets, who went from having the youngest roster in the league and tying the Spurs for the second-worst record last season to flexing as one of the biggest spenders in free agency. There are some organic reasons Houston would push to accelerate its timeline: The Rockets’ young talent could certainly use the structure and guidance that playing with real pros provides; the team already owes its 2024 first-round pick to Oklahoma City (albeit with some protections) as a remnant of the Russell Westbrook–Chris Paul trade; and the lack of a steady point guard, in particular, started to have real developmental costs for the most exciting prospects on the roster. Yet under this new collective bargaining agreement, it also just wasn’t viable for a team like Houston—which entered into the summer with almost $60 million in cap space—to do anything but spend.

---

It's from last year so I need to go look at the impacts last offseason.