In-season NBA news thread

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,111
A bizarre turn in San Antonio: they just released Josh Primo, who is 19 and seemed like a guy they were building around. I assume some unfortunate details are going to come out shortly - you don't waive a guy like Primo just because you're tanking.

Edit: Woj and Shams don't seem to have any idea what happened to cause this.
 
Last edited:

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
46,281
A bizarre turn in San Antonio: they just released Josh Primo, who is 19 and seemed like a guy they were building around. I assume some unfortunate details are going to come out shortly - you don't waive a guy like Primo just because you're tanking.
Wow. Something is going on there. Not even 20 years-old and clearly couldn’t find a trade partner.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
32,689
Primo's option was exercised like 2 weeks ago, so I assume something happened off-court, which is why they are giving vague statements and made no attempt to trade him
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
30,271
Obviously hard to guess given we don’t know what precipitated the release….but wouldn’t you think LeBron wants to claim him? That’s a team in desperate need of talent.

most likely no one does, though KPJ seems like an analogies potentially
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
28,902
Primo's option was exercised like 2 weeks ago, so I assume something happened off-court, which is why they are giving vague statements and made no attempt to trade him
It really must be horrific for them to release him as opposed to fine/suspend. This is going to be bad I’m afraid.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,111
What do people think about owners going for a hard cap in next CBA?
It's preposterous and I'm sure they know it's preposterous. They propose this every time the CBA is negotiated so moving off of that seems like a concession. The thing that's so crazy is that the owners are all pissed at the Warriors and none of the players who they're paying a lot right now were signed as FA -- they traded for Wiggins and their other big contracts are Curry, Klay, Draymond and Poole. Do you really want to create a situation where teams can't re-sign homegrown players due to a hard cap?
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
45,961
The league is going to be awash in cash from the new television deal. Why would the players ever agree to a hard cap?

I would love a look at the true economics of these franchises. The money is probably absurd.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
685
The league is going to be awash in cash from the new television deal. Why would the players ever agree to a hard cap?

I would love a look at the true economics of these franchises. The money is probably absurd.
A hard would have no impact on the amount the players as whole take home. The CBA guarantees the players a fixed % of BRI. The players and the league effectively settle up at year end (a portion of players salaries are escrowed in the event that player salaries exceed their allotted share). It would impact team building and who among the players get paid.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
45,961
A hard would have no impact on the amount the players as whole take home. The CBA guarantees the players a fixed % of BRI. The players and the league effectively settle up at year end (a portion of players salaries are escrowed in the event that player salaries exceed their allotted share). It would impact team building and who among the players get paid.
Thank you - I recall seeing the % of BRI now.

That said, it might negatively impact a significant portion of the NBAPA - the cap (re) allocation you referenced is likely to cost someone, right?
 

Lazy vs Crazy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
6,298
A hard would have no impact on the amount the players as whole take home. The CBA guarantees the players a fixed % of BRI. The players and the league effectively settle up at year end (a portion of players salaries are escrowed in the event that player salaries exceed their allotted share). It would impact team building and who among the players get paid.
This discussion is about creating a new cba though, so that could change.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
685
This discussion is about creating a new cba though, so that could change.
There has not been any reporting suggesting either side has proposed moving away from the BRI model.

The guaranteed percentage of revenue has been in place since the 1983 CBA. Simply changing the percentage of BRI more than a percent or two, would probably require a work stoppage. Scrapping the framework upon which CBA has rested for nearly 40 years, would mean (at least) one lost season.

That is not going to happen. The league is generally in a great place financially - you do not blow up a collective bargaining relationship when franchise valuations and revenue are soaring. They are going to tinker at the edges.

I would be surprised if the league actually really pushes for a hard cap (there is not going to be sufficient uniformity among the owners to go to the mat for it). Early stages of collective bargaining negotiations always start with wish lists. Some of the items on those list are real asks/demands, others are fluff/moonshots and some are signals as to areas where is a concern, but the party knows the proposed solution, is not a realistic get - but you want to stake out a position as an anchor. My guess is the ask for a hard cap falls in the last bucket.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
32,689
I think there is a lot of support for a hard cap among owners, it's basically there to target the Warriors and Clippers question will be how high
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,440
The league is going to be awash in cash from the new television deal. Why would the players ever agree to a hard cap?

I would love a look at the true economics of these franchises. The money is probably absurd.
If there were a hard cap this year it would be north of the present luxury tax line. Because BRI is divided per a formula the hard cap numbers would just be a lot higher than the current one. Most teams wouldn’t be impacted, just those on long term spending sprees.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
685
I think there is a lot of support for a hard cap among owners, it's basically there to target the Warriors and Clippers question will be how high
Caveat that (as far as I know) no one here has access to the actual proposals, so we are all relying on what Woj and Stein have reported.

I think there is a desire among many owners to reign in spending by the Warriors/Nets/Clippers of the world. I doubt there is strong support to do what is necessary to institute "the upper spending limit."

According to the reporting, the league has proposed an "upper spending limit" which would replace the luxury tax and the NBPA has indicated this is a non-starter and would lead to a lockout. Sides, of course, posture during collective bargaining negotiations. That being said, it is not common to invoke the prospect of a work stoppage for an issue you don't care much about.

Given that 1) things are very good now 2) it will cost a lot to obtain (either a work stoppage or concessions in other areas), 3) a small number of owners like free spending and 4) a larger number of owners like getting a share of the luxury tax payments (which would cease under the upper spending limit proposal) - my thought is that the league will eventually move on to an alternative measure to address the issue. But we shall see.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
45,961
If there were a hard cap this year it would be north of the present luxury tax line. Because BRI is divided per a formula the hard cap numbers would just be a lot higher than the current one. Most teams wouldn’t be impacted, just those on long term spending sprees.
Helpful, thank you. However it almost has to affect the salary structure of the league - I believe the thinking is that superstars have a fair bit of upside but mid tier and below would be negatively impacted over time.

Also, if you are a player, you want teams that are trying to spend for rings like Golden State (understood that they have a rather unique situation). Its a favorable market dynamic for them as a group.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
32,689
Caveat that (as far as I know) no one here has access to the actual proposals, so we are all relying on what Woj and Stein have reported.

I think there is a desire among many owners to reign in spending by the Warriors/Nets/Clippers of the world. I doubt there is strong support to do what is necessary to institute "the upper spending limit."

According to the reporting, the league has proposed an "upper spending limit" which would replace the luxury tax and the NBPA has indicated this is a non-starter and would lead to a lockout. Sides, of course, posture during collective bargaining negotiations. That being said, it is not common to invoke the prospect of a work stoppage for an issue you don't care much about.

Given that 1) things are very good now 2) it will cost a lot to obtain (either a work stoppage or concessions in other areas), 3) a small number of owners like free spending and 4) a larger number of owners like getting a share of the luxury tax payments (which would cease under the upper spending limit proposal) - my thought is that the league will eventually move on to an alternative measure to address the issue. But we shall see.
Yeah, I think what they'll end up on is just a hard cap a certain amount above the current LT. Should have little effect on the players and keep the ultra-spenders in line.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,440
Helpful, thank you. However it almost has to affect the salary structure of the league - I believe the thinking is that superstars have a fair bit of upside but mid tier and below would be negatively impacted over time.

Also, if you are a player, you want teams that are trying to spend for rings like Golden State (understood that they have a rather unique situation). Its a favorable market dynamic for them as a group.
Assuming that the NBA were serious about it (which I doubt), the result would likely look like the NHL’s, with salary floors and ceilings. The selling point for the players would be that the OKCs of the league would be forced to spend more of the money they were taking in on player salaries. Unless the structure of max contracts was changed (and I don’t see why owners would want that to change) a hard cap/floor system would drive middle class wages up.

Again, if they were selling this in earnest, they would have to concede to closing the loopholes in the current soft floor (e.g. teams taking on dead salary mid season in order to dodge the salary floor with phantom payroll), which would mean more spending all around.

However it’s almost certainly a moot point as I expect that the owners’ goal is a bigger slice of the pie and hoping to tempt the players into granting it in order to hold on to the soft cap.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
45,961
Assuming that the NBA were serious about it (which I doubt), the result would likely look like the NHL’s, with salary floors and ceilings. The selling point for the players would be that the OKCs of the league would be forced to spend more of the money they were taking in on player salaries. Unless the structure of max contracts was changed (and I don’t see why owners would want that to change) a hard cap/floor system would drive middle class wages up.

Again, if they were selling this in earnest, they would have to concede to closing the loopholes in the current soft floor (e.g. teams taking on dead salary mid season in order to dodge the salary floor with phantom payroll), which would mean more spending all around.

However it’s almost certainly a moot point as I expect that the owners’ goal is a bigger slice of the pie and hoping to tempt the players into granting it in order to hold on to the soft cap.
This isn't consistent with analysis I've seen but admittedly the stuff I read was speculative and the details for the structure/ceilings/floors matter too. In the pieces I've seen, superstars get paid while those at the bottom see their wages reallocated to the top of the food chain. Again, this may be completely incorrect.

That said, if this were to pass (and I know its unlikely) you have to think teams will eliminate max contracts. A hard cap will obviously constrain teams but the owners would likely waive the max to foster more flexibility. The superstars would be for this as well. Imagine the Warriors being forced to pay Curry his true value.

Again, I can't see the players ever going for it even when accounting for the % BRI. If I had to guess, the players believe they still have more of the pie to claim. If that's the case, its hard to disagree.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,440
This isn't consistent with analysis I've seen but admittedly the stuff I read was speculative and the details for the structure/ceilings/floors matter too. In the pieces I've seen, superstars get paid while those at the bottom see their wages reallocated to the top of the food chain. Again, this may be completely incorrect.

That said, if this were to pass (and I know its unlikely) you have to think teams will eliminate max contracts. A hard cap will obviously constrain teams but the owners would likely waive the max to foster more flexibility. The superstars would be for this as well. Imagine the Warriors being forced to pay Curry his true value.

Again, I can't see the players ever going for it even when accounting for the % BRI. If I had to guess, the players believe they still have more of the pie to claim. If that's the case, its hard to disagree.
Again, assuming that the owners are serious about this (and I don’t think that they are, I think that this is a way to either maintain their current share of BRI or get even more), it’s not the top 20-25 guys that you need to sell the plan on, it’s the other 400 or so guys. No matter how well a theoretical CBA works for the Giannises, Jaysons, and Lukas of the NBA, it’s the 400 plus ham & eggers that are going to decide the vote. So any hard cap proposal has to convince those guys that they have a shot at a better payday as a result. So the current 25/30/35 max structure would likely remain in place.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
685
Assuming that the NBA were serious about it (which I doubt), the result would likely look like the NHL’s, with salary floors and ceilings. The selling point for the players would be that the OKCs of the league would be forced to spend more of the money they were taking in on player salaries. Unless the structure of max contracts was changed (and I don’t see why owners would want that to change) a hard cap/floor system would drive middle class wages up.

Again, if they were selling this in earnest, they would have to concede to closing the loopholes in the current soft floor (e.g. teams taking on dead salary mid season in order to dodge the salary floor with phantom payroll), which would mean more spending all around.

However it’s almost certainly a moot point as I expect that the owners’ goal is a bigger slice of the pie and hoping to tempt the players into granting it in order to hold on to the soft cap.
The NBA already has a hard salary floor. Teams are required to spend 90% of the cap. If they do not, the team has to make a seperate payment to the players on its roster to hit the floor. The loophole you referenced was already closed.

From Coon's CBA FAQ:

For minimum team salary purposes the salary of a player who changes teams through trade or waivers is divided among the teams for which he played. For example, if a $10 million player is traded exactly 60% of the way through the season, then the player's original team counts $6 million of the player's salary for minimum team salary purposes, and the player's new team counts $4 million of the player's salary for minimum team salary purposes.

That is why you no longer see teams (like the Sixers used to during the Process) seeking to acquire salary at the deadline.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,440
Yeah, Philly and OKC were each good for one of those deals a year. I’m glad they locked off that slimy loophole.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
685
Not sure why the Spurs didn't just suspend Primo and let him get some mental health help.
Much like the Ime situation makes sense to

1) withhold any firm judgement until more facts available and
2) assume the team is acting rationally and in its own self interest.

There is no reason to take Primo's statement at face value. It was almost certainly crafted by his agency's lawyers and crisis management folks. It may be 100% true, partially true or complete BS, but we have no way to ascertain that. But we do know what his/his agency's incentives are.

There is no reason to assume the Spurs would waive a high lottery pick, whose contract they just guaranteed, if they felt there was a viable alternative under the circumstances.
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
6,724
The back of your computer
There is no reason to assume the Spurs would waive a high lottery pick, whose contract they just guaranteed, if they felt there was a viable alternative under the circumstances.
Probably so, but Udoka was an adult in a position of power within the organization, and Primo is a 19 YO kid barely two years out of high school. I don't think the two situations are necessarily the same, but the Spurs could have similarly suspended Primo indefinitely. I'm not sure why that wouldn't have been a viable alternative.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
30,271
In theory you want the roster spot, but given the Spurs are tanking I doubt that is a factor here
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
685
Did the Spurs cut him (as opposed to suspension/leave of absence) to minimize their legal liability?
Legal exposure, would not have been a significant consideration. If the reported allegations are true, the dollars associated with those claims are not significant enough to drive decision making in the context of a NBA franchise (different story if we are talking about the assistant manager at Burger King ) The impact on the bottom line in continuing to retain Primo would have come from other vectors.

A few other considerations: A suspension would be subject to the grievance process. In addition, he would remain an employee and his status would be an ongoing distraction. By waiving him, you cauterize the wound. Pop et al can shut down any questions now, in a way that is no possible if he remains on the roster.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
32,689
Legal exposure, would not have been a significant consideration. If the reported allegations are true, the dollars associated with those claims are not significant enough to drive decision making in the context of a NBA franchise (different story if we are talking about the assistant manager at Burger King ) The impact on the bottom line in continuing to retain Primo would have come from other vectors.

A few other considerations: A suspension would be subject to the grievance process. In addition, he would remain an employee and his status would be an ongoing distraction. By waiving him, you cauterize the wound. Pop et al can shut down any questions now, in a way that is no possible if he remains on the roster.
Meh, you have a guy exposing himself to other employees (at least 1 but exposing himself in a pattern to women) you need to fire him, not for this claim, but for the future ones when he does it again after you knew he was doing it. It's not just the money either, it's the bad press. The Spurs aren't the Mavs, they're a smaller market team, and their owner is the least rich in the NBA by a large margin, they really don't want to deal with a front office scandal.
 

Caspir

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,773
Probably so, but Udoka was an adult in a position of power within the organization, and Primo is a 19 YO kid barely two years out of high school. I don't think the two situations are necessarily the same, but the Spurs could have similarly suspended Primo indefinitely. I'm not sure why that wouldn't have been a viable alternative.
I see a lot of words to describe Primo in this post. Here’s another one. Adult.

You’re right that the Ime and Primo situations are not the same. As far as we know, Ime hasn’t committed any crimes that would land him on the sex offender registry.

Maybe the Spurs didn’t see a viable alternative to cutting him because he’s exposing himself to women that work for the team and they’re terrified of the poor boy barely two years out of high school that’s 6’6 almost 200 lbs and enjoys pulling his prick out to unsuspecting women. Maybe cutting him was to keep those people safe?

The posts saying he should be anything other than cut are insane. This isn’t nuanced. The guy is committing sex crimes, including against women that work for the team. What the fuck?
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
28,902
Not sure why the Spurs didn't just suspend Primo and let him get some mental health help.
I’d have to assume we’ve only been given vague details….and probably don’t want to hear the full story such as his verbal exchanges. Speculation of course but I’d guess it was closer to rape than it was to “hey look at this” as a goof. Removing this individual from your organization would be the only viable option imo.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
13,275
Is this the correct place to put the way too early "if the playoffs started today here would be what they would like"?

East
1 Bucks (5-0)

2 Cavs (5-1)

Play-in Teams
7 Zards (3-3)
8 Hornets (3-3)
9 76ers (3-4)
10 Bulls (3-4)

3 Celtics (4-2)
6 Raptors (3-3)

4 Hawks (4-2)
5 Knicks (3-3)

West
1 Blazers (5-1)

2 Suns (5-1)

Play-In Teams
7 Wolves (4-3)
8 Nuggets (4-3)
9 Thunder (3-3)
10 Mavs (3-3)

3 Spurs (5-2)
6 Grizzles (4-2)

4 Jazz (5-2)
5 Pels (4-2)

Womp Womp for Wemby Odds
1 Rockets (1-6) 14%
2 Magic (1-6) 14%
3 Nets (1-5) 13.25% (Rockets have unprotected swap rights - Harden trade - so if season ended today, Rockets have 27.25% Wemby odds)
4 Lakers (1-5) 13.25% (Pelicans have unprotected swap rights - AD trade)
5 Kings (1-4) 10.5%
6 Pistons (2-5) 8.25% (owed to Knicks if not top 18, otherwise decreasing protections - 18, 13, 11, 9, 2 2nds - the Knicks got this pick from the Thunder as part of their trade for #11 last year, Ousmane Dieng; the Thunder got this pick from the Rockets when the Rockets traded for #16 in 2021, Alperen Sengun; & the Rockets got the pick from the Pistons along with Christian Wood & a '21 2nd which ended up getting traded back to the Pistons a couple transactions later & they used to draft Luka Garza for the draft rights to Isaiah Stewart who was #16 in 2020, Trevor Ariza & a '27 2nd )
7 Heat (2-5) 8.25%
8 Clippers (2-4) 6% (Thunder have unprotected swap rights - Paul George trade)
9 Warriors (3-4) 2.75%
10 Pacers (3-4) 2.75%
11 Bulls (3-4) 2.75% (owed to Magic if not top 4, otherwise top 3 protected next year, then 2 2nds - Vuci trade)
12 76ers (3-4) 2.75% (this pick is part of a 3-way swap - Nets get it if it's better than the worst of Nets/Rockets picks, otherwise Jazz get it & Nets keep the worst of the Nets/Rockets picks - Harden trade)
13 Mavs (3-3) 0.75% (owed to Knicks if not top 10, otherwise protected top 10 for 2 more years then becomes 1 2nd - Porzingis trade)
14 Thunder (3-3) 0.75%
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
62,745
Rotten Apple
The Brunson Rule. Good luck enforcing this.

View: https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1587177922699337728

The NBA and NBPA are expected to revisit the rules that punish teams discovered to have had discussions with player agents on pending free agents ahead of free agency's official start, sources said. The practice is rampant, but hard to police and largely impossible to eliminate.
The NBA's investigation into early contact on the Knicks' signing of free agent Jalen Brunson remains ongoing, per sources.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
32,689
Maybe we should have a Nets dysfunction thread.
New bit is Cam Thomas putting #freeCT with a chains emoji as his Instagram bio, and liking a bynch of tweets about how the Nets should either play him or trade him.

If you're unfamiliar with Cam Thomas, he was their 1st round pick last year, he has played 15 minutes so far this year including 1 tonight as the 11th man.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
62,159
Maybe we should have a Nets dysfunction thread.
New bit is Cam Thomas putting #freeCT with a chains emoji as his Instagram bio, and liking a bynch of tweets about how the Nets should either play him or trade him.

If you're unfamiliar with Cam Thomas, he was their 1st round pick last year, he has played 15 minutes so far this year including 1 tonight as the 11th man.
When making their picks as tonights was starting, one of them chose, “Team Dysfunction.”