Adam Silver Not Happy About The KD Signing

[Primetime21]

The warriors about to bring u billions of dollars this coming season with arenas pack , people glued to their tv for them to lose or win...

Don't be mad lacob and crew know how to work your system the nba and other owners put together to try to stopped all star teams

How about silver take his ass somewhere and change the playoff settings and eliminate east and west and we see more competitive games without having bum ass teams like the hawks in the playoffs

I was with you until the last point. Playoffs last year would've been majority eastern conference teams, including the Hawks

 

[Optimus Prime]

maybe they will get rid of the "max" salary if they want to try to stop this. I'm sure the players wouldn't fight that. Make it hard for players to leave if their team is offering them $50 mil a year to stay

 

[UserNameless]

Well brethren ... sounds like some shyt's a brewin' ...


Despise golden state, but I wouldn't want the kd move there to be the catalyst to snatch this growing player power among superstars , stars and even b list players now ...


Smells like some shyt's in the works .

 

[Osmar]

maybe they will get rid of the "max" salary if they want to try to stop this. I'm sure the players wouldn't fight that. Make it hard for players to leave if their team is offering them $50 mil a year to stay

Yeah they made this system possible by Capping salaries.

For someone like Durant or Lebron who make over 50 million a year (salary + endorsements) the difference in salary isn't enough to stay with the teams who drafted them.

 

[CSquare43]

The same they had with heat, Warriors will have to most likely part ways with Draymond or Klay in the future

Here's a good post about how the salaries for the Dubs could work out and like @FaTaL said we've got bird rights on Klay/Dray/Steph. Also, Klay is already signed through the 2019 season and Dray is signed through the 2020 season.

How the Warriors can sign both Durant and Curry next summer and many more non-hysterical answers to hyper-ventilating questions - Talking Points

But three things to remember in this case, as Curry and Durant both come up for new deals next summer:

1) The Warriors do have Curry’s Bird rights, so they can pay everybody whatever they have to under the cap, keeping Curry at his $16.4M cap hold, and after everybody else is signed–including Durant–THEN give Curry the max above and beyond the cap number.

You can always pay your own Bird rights players whatever it takes… so smart teams add the salary they have to under the cap… and then extend their Bird rights players above and beyond the cap line.

The Warriors might go into the luxury tax by doing this (as they did last season, but won’t in this coming season), but they’ve made a ton of money in the last two seasons.

I think Joe Lacob and Peter Guber can afford going into the luxury tax if that’s how they keep Curry and Durant.

2) If there’s a huge cap jam up next July and the Warriors can’t fit a Durant max, they can always give Durant a 20% raise from his current $26.5M max salary as a non-Bird free agent above and beyond the cap-line.

That’s not quite his max, but pretty good… and if they paid him that way, they would not need to fit it under cap space.

Under this scenario, Durant could opt-out next July and get $31.8M for the following season in another 1 + 1 deal, opt-out again, get another 20% raise to $38.2M and then build 7.5% raises off of that in a new four-year deal starting in July 2018.

That’s complicated. But none of it would have to fit under the cap, and that’s important.

If the Warriors don’t have to fit Durant under the cap next July, they can–for instance–keep Andre Iguodala’s and Shaun Livingston’s cap holds… or negotiate new contracts for beyond 2017 without much concern.

This summer, the Warriors haven’t signed any deals (other than Durant) beyond 2017 specifically because they don’t want to cut into their potential space for Durant’s new contract.

But if they don’t have to worry about that… many other things are possible.

If these projections are correct, Durant’s max next July would be $33.6M.

If he opted-out again, that max number isn’t projected to go much higher… in other words, there wouldn’t be a large
difference between his true max (which would necessitate cap space) and the 20% raise (which doesn’t use cap space).

Maybe it comes to this for Durant: The Warriors might need to either sacrifice Livingston or Iguodala to give Durant the full max (with cap space)… or he could take a little bit less (with the 20% raise not using cap space) and they could keep both.

3) Warriors management just figured out how to add Durant to their core four group by opening up a max slot and moving a handful of players while everybody else in the league looked on.

You think the Warriors couldn’t figure out a way to fit Durant next July? They would. They’re already planning for this. They’re good at planning.

 

[Rekkapryde]

3 of their core 4 were all drafted, so who's fault is that?

Stop hiring incompetent GMs.

And what's to stop players from taking pay cuts to play together? Ain't shyt you can do about it.

 

[Azul]

Light years ahead is not players texting a free agent all year on some "wyd big head" shyt all season

 

[tremonthustler1]

maybe they will get rid of the "max" salary if they want to try to stop this. I'm sure the players wouldn't fight that. Make it hard for players to leave if their team is offering them $50 mil a year to stay

1. They'd leave anyway.

2. If you're another team you'd have to question offering it since you wouldn't have the means to surround that player with talent.

 

[CSquare43]

Light years ahead is not players texting a free agent all year on some "wyd big head" shyt all season

And yet, the Warriors still ended up with KD.

 

[CSquare43]

That TK article I just posted has some really good info in it regarding what could happen with a new CBA...

–Question: Back to the big picture–what might the owners do to prevent this from ever happening again?

–Answer: I don’t know. Certainly nothing that’s logical over the long-term, but these owners have proven regularly that they don’t know how to look at things like this over the long-term.

The Warriors will have a lower payroll this season WITH DURANT than they would’ve had without him (and re-signing their free agents like Barnes and Ezeli).

How do you legislate against a team that is lowering it’s payroll? That’s the point I don’t get and won’t ever get.

–Question: Will the owners try to break up the Warriors limiting teams to only one “max” player at a time as a way to try to force them to choose between Curry and Durant and try to deny them the chance to extend Klay in 2019 and Draymond in 2020?

–Answer: The other owners could theoretically set up a “only one max” rule, but then all Durant or Curry would have to do is take $1 or $100 less, and one of them doesn’t have a “max.”

Also, there are always unintended consequences to any move like that.

For instance, if there’s an “only one max” rule, well… Memphis just maxed out Mike Conley Jr. because Memphis had to, as a smaller-market team that has to overpay a bit to keep stars.

Oh, and Memphis also just maxed-out Chandler Parsons. That’s two max deals–so if the “only one max” rule was in effect this summer, a small-market team like Memphis very likely would’ve not been able to do this.

And probably would’ve been worse for it. There are other Memphis-like teams out there that could and should plan to do this into the future, though I imagine their owners right now don’t even know it and might vote to prevent themselves from doing it.

Which is dumb.
The market is not about “superstars,” it’s about timing and availability.

And if you limit the salary spectrum, more players will go to the larger, more attractive markets. I mean, I’m not a
Nobel Prize economist, but even I can see that.
So if you try to break up the Warriors by instituting a “only-one-max” rule, you are then actually hurting teams like Memphis or Minnesota (which has a bunch of young players who eventually will command the max) and any good team that can accumulate young talent.

Like OKC in past years, by the way.

Also: Cleveland has three max players–LeBron, Kyrie Irving, and Kevin Love. And Tristan Thompson is very close to the max.

Also, also: The Warriors currently only have one max player: Durant. (Klay Thompson took just less than the literal max in his extension two summers ago, Draymond took less than the max in his extension last summer.)



–Question: Still, what if the owners gang up and institute a hard cap to keep the Warriors from keeping all of these stars? Or get rid of salary limits so it’ll be hard to keep two or three stars of this magnitude in an open market with a hard cap?

–Answer: Sure, the owners could do all of those thing, but every one of those things–and other issues like possibly giving teams greater rights to re-sign their own guys–will have unintended consequences that will be about what’s happening next, not about what just happened.

The owners demanded shorter-term deals. The owners demanded salary limits. The owners demanded minimizing of sign-and-trade advantages.

All those things helped lead to the Warriors adding Durant and putting together a payroll that will be less than it would’ve been without him.

If owners allowed longer-term deals, Durant probably would still be signed in OKC. But they did away with them, because they were afraid.
And guess who just figured out how the last set of unintended consequences (from the last CBA re-do) could be used to their advantage… to land Durant?
Bad executives want to legislate backwards, because they couldn’t see what was about to happen and they don’t know how to adapt and when someone else takes advantage of it the bad executives can’t believe that what just happened isn’t the only thing that could ever happen.



Good executives look forward–and to the unintended openings created by bad executives who want to legislate backwards.

 

[G.O.A.T Squad Spokesman]

Light years ahead is not players texting a free agent all year on some "wyd big head" shyt all season

Light years ahead is other owners willing to shutdown the league because they can't do what you're doing.

 

[Rekkapryde]

fukk any owner complaining about this shyt. Those pieces of shyt vetoed the Chris Paul trade. I don't want to hear anything about a "fair playing field" or any other nonsense.

Every single owner in the league would have signed KD if he wanted to go to their team. Sick of this sour grapes bullshyt when things don't go their way.

Exactly. Ole take the ball and wanna leave ass nikkaz.

The amount of dumb ass moves and picks these GMs faciliate are rediculous.

OKC gonna be alright since Presti isn't a moron. I'm sure he tried to encourage their cheap ass owner at the time to just pay the luxury tax in order to keep Harden, but he didn't want to.

Owners probably gonna try for a franchise tag, but the players would be moronic to take it. Owners can't try and weasle more of a percentage of revenue since they are already at 50/50.

 

[CSquare43]

Light years ahead is other owners willing to shutdown the league because they can't do what you're doing.

Good executives look forward–and to the unintended openings created by bad executives who want to legislate backwards.

 

[Optimus Prime]

1. They'd leave anyway.

2. If you're another team you'd have to question offering it since you wouldn't have the means to surround that player with talent.

1. They could modify the Bird rights to make a big contract count less against the cap if its your own player
2. There will still be players who would just take the money and be the king of their own situation like Melo and Derozan

 

[Rekkapryde]

That TK article I just posted has some really good info in it regarding what could happen with a new CBA...

–Question: Back to the big picture–what might the owners do to prevent this from ever happening again?

–Answer: I don’t know. Certainly nothing that’s logical over the long-term, but these owners have proven regularly that they don’t know how to look at things like this over the long-term.

The Warriors will have a lower payroll this season WITH DURANT than they would’ve had without him (and re-signing their free agents like Barnes and Ezeli).

How do you legislate against a team that is lowering it’s payroll? That’s the point I don’t get and won’t ever get.

–Question: Will the owners try to break up the Warriors limiting teams to only one “max” player at a time as a way to try to force them to choose between Curry and Durant and try to deny them the chance to extend Klay in 2019 and Draymond in 2020?

–Answer: The other owners could theoretically set up a “only one max” rule, but then all Durant or Curry would have to do is take $1 or $100 less, and one of them doesn’t have a “max.”

Also, there are always unintended consequences to any move like that.

For instance, if there’s an “only one max” rule, well… Memphis just maxed out Mike Conley Jr. because Memphis had to, as a smaller-market team that has to overpay a bit to keep stars.

Oh, and Memphis also just maxed-out Chandler Parsons. That’s two max deals–so if the “only one max” rule was in effect this summer, a small-market team like Memphis very likely would’ve not been able to do this.

And probably would’ve been worse for it. There are other Memphis-like teams out there that could and should plan to do this into the future, though I imagine their owners right now don’t even know it and might vote to prevent themselves from doing it.

Which is dumb.
The market is not about “superstars,” it’s about timing and availability.

And if you limit the salary spectrum, more players will go to the larger, more attractive markets. I mean, I’m not a
Nobel Prize economist, but even I can see that.
So if you try to break up the Warriors by instituting a “only-one-max” rule, you are then actually hurting teams like Memphis or Minnesota (which has a bunch of young players who eventually will command the max) and any good team that can accumulate young talent.

Like OKC in past years, by the way.

Also: Cleveland has three max players–LeBron, Kyrie Irving, and Kevin Love. And Tristan Thompson is very close to the max.

Also, also: The Warriors currently only have one max player: Durant. (Klay Thompson took just less than the literal max in his extension two summers ago, Draymond took less than the max in his extension last summer.)



–Question: Still, what if the owners gang up and institute a hard cap to keep the Warriors from keeping all of these stars? Or get rid of salary limits so it’ll be hard to keep two or three stars of this magnitude in an open market with a hard cap?

–Answer: Sure, the owners could do all of those thing, but every one of those things–and other issues like possibly giving teams greater rights to re-sign their own guys–will have unintended consequences that will be about what’s happening next, not about what just happened.

The owners demanded shorter-term deals. The owners demanded salary limits. The owners demanded minimizing of sign-and-trade advantages.

All those things helped lead to the Warriors adding Durant and putting together a payroll that will be less than it would’ve been without him.

If owners allowed longer-term deals, Durant probably would still be signed in OKC. But they did away with them, because they were afraid.
And guess who just figured out how the last set of unintended consequences (from the last CBA re-do) could be used to their advantage… to land Durant?
Bad executives want to legislate backwards, because they couldn’t see what was about to happen and they don’t know how to adapt and when someone else takes advantage of it the bad executives can’t believe that what just happened isn’t the only thing that could ever happen.



Good executives look forward–and to the unintended openings created by bad executives who want to legislate backwards.

Church. There is nothing they can realistically do without fukking themselves even more. You'd think that these billionaire businessmen would see this. They institute something for the short term and fukk themselves long term.

Draft and develop better.