Deron Williams traded to the Nets

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by niners94:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by TheGoldenState:

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by TheGoldenState:

Originally posted by JiksJuicy:
Anyone know of a decent trade scenario's of us (Jazz) getting rid of AK, and one of our now 3 PF's, for a SG? I don't know what to think of this trade quite yet. Get rid of derron for another PF, and a downgrade at PG. Draft picks I guess, but they are going to be middle of the pack picks.

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=4fh23rw

or

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=4hcvje3

why the f**k is Kirlenko getting paid 18 mill ?

I keep hearing that the NBA is unfairly slanted in favor of large market teams, but maybe if teams like Utah & Orlando weren't grossly overpaying they'd have a better shot at winning titles.

Rashard Lewis = $20.5M in Washington
Michael Redd = $18.3M in Milwaukee
Andrei Kirilenko = $17.8M in Utah
Gilbert Arenas = $17.7M in Orlando
Vince Carter = $17.3M in Phoenix
Zach Randolph = $17.3M in Memphis
Kenyon Martin = $16M in Denver
My Sympathy = 0

You honestly think these players would go to these small market teams if they didn't over pay? No.

Players are gonna go where the money is, and that's dictated by where the cap space is. There are maybe 3-4 teams in a normal year that have the cap space to get things done. If the choice is between giving $20M to Rashard Lewis and keeping the money and not getting a player....keep the money. You never ever see teams like San Antonio or Oklahoma City participating in this kind of stupidity, despite their market size.

How many of these cases are carried because the contract may be expiring?

I don't understand your question.

Don't some teams trade for a player with a large contract if that contract expires soon. They give up multiple players to free up cap space sooner.

Gotcha. Yes, but in this case the only guy that fits that description is Vince Carter in Phoenix, but he was still signed to a vastly overpaid deal with Orlando in the first place.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by niners94:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by TheGoldenState:

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by TheGoldenState:

Originally posted by JiksJuicy:
Anyone know of a decent trade scenario's of us (Jazz) getting rid of AK, and one of our now 3 PF's, for a SG? I don't know what to think of this trade quite yet. Get rid of derron for another PF, and a downgrade at PG. Draft picks I guess, but they are going to be middle of the pack picks.

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=4fh23rw

or

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=4hcvje3

why the f**k is Kirlenko getting paid 18 mill ?

I keep hearing that the NBA is unfairly slanted in favor of large market teams, but maybe if teams like Utah & Orlando weren't grossly overpaying they'd have a better shot at winning titles.

Rashard Lewis = $20.5M in Washington
Michael Redd = $18.3M in Milwaukee
Andrei Kirilenko = $17.8M in Utah
Gilbert Arenas = $17.7M in Orlando
Vince Carter = $17.3M in Phoenix
Zach Randolph = $17.3M in Memphis
Kenyon Martin = $16M in Denver
My Sympathy = 0

You honestly think these players would go to these small market teams if they didn't over pay? No.

Players are gonna go where the money is, and that's dictated by where the cap space is. There are maybe 3-4 teams in a normal year that have the cap space to get things done. If the choice is between giving $20M to Rashard Lewis and keeping the money and not getting a player....keep the money. You never ever see teams like San Antonio or Oklahoma City participating in this kind of stupidity, despite their market size.

How many of these cases are carried because the contract may be expiring?

I don't understand your question.

Don't some teams trade for a player with a large contract if that contract expires soon. They give up multiple players to free up cap space sooner.

Gotcha. Yes, but in this case the only guy that fits that description is Vince Carter in Phoenix, but he was still signed to a vastly overpaid deal with Orlando in the first place.

New Jersey.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by niners94:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by TheGoldenState:

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by TheGoldenState:

Originally posted by JiksJuicy:
Anyone know of a decent trade scenario's of us (Jazz) getting rid of AK, and one of our now 3 PF's, for a SG? I don't know what to think of this trade quite yet. Get rid of derron for another PF, and a downgrade at PG. Draft picks I guess, but they are going to be middle of the pack picks.

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=4fh23rw

or

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=4hcvje3

why the f**k is Kirlenko getting paid 18 mill ?

I keep hearing that the NBA is unfairly slanted in favor of large market teams, but maybe if teams like Utah & Orlando weren't grossly overpaying they'd have a better shot at winning titles.

Rashard Lewis = $20.5M in Washington
Michael Redd = $18.3M in Milwaukee
Andrei Kirilenko = $17.8M in Utah
Gilbert Arenas = $17.7M in Orlando
Vince Carter = $17.3M in Phoenix
Zach Randolph = $17.3M in Memphis
Kenyon Martin = $16M in Denver
My Sympathy = 0

You honestly think these players would go to these small market teams if they didn't over pay? No.

Players are gonna go where the money is, and that's dictated by where the cap space is. There are maybe 3-4 teams in a normal year that have the cap space to get things done. If the choice is between giving $20M to Rashard Lewis and keeping the money and not getting a player....keep the money. You never ever see teams like San Antonio or Oklahoma City participating in this kind of stupidity, despite their market size.

But, there is no question a small market team has to over-pay to get the stars. San Antonio and Oklahoma have done a great job in the draft, therefore they didn't have to go get their stars from the FA.

Also, even when San Antonio was winning titles - I didn't see an all-star player saying that they want to go play for San Antonio. That makes things difficult for small market teams - even when they are a damn good team.

Teams like Spurs and Oklahoma are an exception, not a norm in my opinion. A small market team has to have great management to be contender. Whereas, a team in a market doesn't have to have great management. They can get by as long as they don't shoot themselves in the foot.

Thankfully, there will be a restructuring of the CBA so that those horrible contracts won't be possible again.

Non-guaranteed contracts hopefully.

Originally posted by crzy:
Thankfully, there will be a restructuring of the CBA so that those horrible contracts won't be possible again.

Non-guaranteed contracts hopefully.

That should also improve player production rather than someone only lighting it up during a contract year.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by crzy:
Thankfully, there will be a restructuring of the CBA so that those horrible contracts won't be possible again.

Non-guaranteed contracts hopefully.

That should also improve player production rather than someone only lighting it up during a contract year.

What exactly do you see the owners giving up to get the players to agree to non-guaranteed contracts? I can't think of something big enough that could get them to do that.

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by crzy:
Thankfully, there will be a restructuring of the CBA so that those horrible contracts won't be possible again.

Non-guaranteed contracts hopefully.

That should also improve player production rather than someone only lighting it up during a contract year.

What exactly do you see the owners giving up to get the players to agree to non-guaranteed contracts? I can't think of something big enough that could get them to do that.

Extending the roster size...

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by crzy:
Thankfully, there will be a restructuring of the CBA so that those horrible contracts won't be possible again.

Non-guaranteed contracts hopefully.

That should also improve player production rather than someone only lighting it up during a contract year.

What exactly do you see the owners giving up to get the players to agree to non-guaranteed contracts? I can't think of something big enough that could get them to do that.

Extending the roster size...

Uhh......what?


"Kobe, Lebron, Dwight..............we want you guys to agree with non guaranteed contracts, and in return, we will allow your teams to have more scrubs on the bench."


This is how you picture this going?

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by crzy:
Thankfully, there will be a restructuring of the CBA so that those horrible contracts won't be possible again.

Non-guaranteed contracts hopefully.

That should also improve player production rather than someone only lighting it up during a contract year.

What exactly do you see the owners giving up to get the players to agree to non-guaranteed contracts? I can't think of something big enough that could get them to do that.

Extending the roster size...

Uhh......what?


"Kobe, Lebron, Dwight..............we want you guys to agree with non guaranteed contracts, and in return, we will allow your teams to have more scrubs on the bench."


This is how you picture this going?

They aren't just dealing with Kobe, Lebron, Dwight, but the whole union. This will make the union bigger, and unions love that. Also, this is one of the things they can offer, but not the only thing. Another thing that can be offered is the length of a contract. A new rule could prohibit teams from signing anyone for more than 3/4 years.

I'm not sayin' this is what they will offer - but there are quite a few things the league can offer.

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by crzy:
Thankfully, there will be a restructuring of the CBA so that those horrible contracts won't be possible again.

Non-guaranteed contracts hopefully.

That should also improve player production rather than someone only lighting it up during a contract year.

What exactly do you see the owners giving up to get the players to agree to non-guaranteed contracts? I can't think of something big enough that could get them to do that.

Extending the roster size...

Uhh......what?


"Kobe, Lebron, Dwight..............we want you guys to agree with non guaranteed contracts, and in return, we will allow your teams to have more scrubs on the bench."


This is how you picture this going?

They aren't just dealing with Kobe, Lebron, Dwight, but the whole union. This will make the union bigger, and unions love that. Also, this is one of the things they can offer, but not the only thing. Another thing that can be offered is the length of a contract. A new rule could prohibit teams from signing anyone for more than 3/4 years.

I'm not sayin' this is what they will offer - but there are quite a few things the league can offer.

so more benchwarmers?

Hope the owners destroy the player's association. Even if there is a year-long lockout.



In the NFL i root for the players, but in the NBA...f**k the players. f**k them all.

More than half of the NBA teams are broke and generate little to no profit, teams are trying to move all over the place, the salary structure is so screwed up that any one who is 7 foot tall can get $10 million per year easily.


Not to mention, this BS about formation of superteams makes being a fan of a small-market team completely pointless.




In the NFL, those owners are greedy a*****es who are trying to get more money when their sport is already king. The only problem with the NFL is the lack of a rookie salary scale, otherwise, everything else is bulls**t.

You know that there's nothing that requires owners to give out guaranteed contracts, right?

The current CBA is the deal that the owners wanted in '99. No one's forcing them to guarantee contracts or to grossly overpay players. Stop trying to save the poor owners from themselves.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:
You know that there's nothing that requires owners to give out guaranteed contracts, right?

The current CBA is the deal that the owners wanted in '99. No one's forcing them to guarantee contracts or to grossly overpay players. Stop trying to save the poor owners from themselves.

Word. If anything, the formation of superteams (which is overblown anyway) is the players' way of avoiding dumb management and just doing it themselves, which I don't see a problem with.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:
You know that there's nothing that requires owners to give out guaranteed contracts, right?

The current CBA is the deal that the owners wanted in '99. No one's forcing them to guarantee contracts or to grossly overpay players. Stop trying to save the poor owners from themselves.

The structure of the league prevents non-guaranteed contracts due to competition. A team that offers players non-guaranteed contracts would never be able to sign a player because their competition would offer guaranteed contracts. Case in point: Memphis tried that s**t on Xavier Henry and failed miserably.


4 teams have won 23 of the past 30 championships.

If the NBA wants to keep the current system in place, they should just end the charade and eliminate every single team except the Lakers, Heat, Bulls, Celtics, Spurs, and Knicks, etc.

Why not just make it an 8 team league, because the rest of the teams have no hope of competing anyways.

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:
You know that there's nothing that requires owners to give out guaranteed contracts, right?

The current CBA is the deal that the owners wanted in '99. No one's forcing them to guarantee contracts or to grossly overpay players. Stop trying to save the poor owners from themselves.

The structure of the league prevents non-guaranteed contracts due to competition. A team that offers players non-guaranteed contracts would never be able to sign a player because their competition would offer guaranteed contracts. Case in point: Memphis tried that s**t on Xavier Henry and failed miserably.


4 teams have won 23 of the past 30 championships.

If the NBA wants to keep the current system in place, they should just end the charade and eliminate every single team except the Lakers, Heat, Bulls, Celtics, Spurs, and Knicks, etc.

Why not just make it an 8 team league, because the rest of the teams have no hope of competing anyways.

The structure of the league prevents non-guaranteed contracts due to "competition"? You mean one owner is willing to offer a more attractive deal to a prospective employee than another one is, therefore they're more likely to land a player? How exactly is that different than any other business or sport?

Every team has a chance for competing. The Warriors aren't perennial non-contenders because of some systemic issue, it's because they drafted Joe Smith when they had the chance to draft Kevin Garnett. It's because they drafted Todd Fuller when they had the chance to draft Kobe Bryant. It's because they sign or sign & trade for guys to contracts that are well beyond their actual value.

What systemic issue is there exactly? What strange idiosyncrasy allows teams like San Antonio and Oklahoma City to be competitive, but not other teams? I mean look at OKC...they tore it down to the ground after the '07 season, and it took them 3 seasons to become competitive, and a year later they look poised to be amongst the better teams in the league for quite a while now. And they're profitable too.

This isn't a systemic issue, it's a management competency issue. You can play in buttf**k, Idaho, but you can be a perennial contender that makes money if you run your team properly. No system can save you from yourself.