Wow. Something is going on there. Not even 20 years-old and clearly couldn’t find a trade partner.
It really must be horrific for them to release him as opposed to fine/suspend. This is going to be bad I’m afraid.
Hopefully not some kind of Aaron Hernandez situation but giving me the same vibes.
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?
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.
There has not been any reporting suggesting either side has proposed moving away from the BRI model.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Much like the Ime situation makes sense to
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.
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.
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.
I see a lot of words to describe Primo in this post. Here’s another one. Adult.
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.
When making their picks as tonights was starting, one of them chose, “Team Dysfunction.”
