So the Thunder only gave their first round pick 80% of the rookie scale...

[23Barrettcity]

Al Jefferson won't bring anyone to the box office. You're right. Them winning more games might, and if that's the result of overpaying Al, then it's money well spent.

Continuing to suck for a #1 pick and then not getting it leads to fan apathy, to where even if you went and got that top pick, who would care?

Watch this season. You're gonna see a lot of teams tank, NOT get Wiggins, still suck, and then get talked up on getting Okafor or Towns or someone else. Nothing will change when that happens. Teams just get hooked on rebuilding and fans won't sit for that.

If you knew your team actually would get a top 5 pick if they sucked as opposed to somehow the cavs getting multiple picks teams would care . The lottery has to go and the bobcats winning 30 games won't bring in a damn fan breh this isn't the nfl. The spurs and thunder are both successful teams yet last CBA the spurs were complaining about revenue sharing and not making enough money , the thunder are becoming cheap now that they had to pay their big 3 nonrookie contracts . The real thing is the nba is a superstars league they only have a few to go around. They either need to contract teams or accept that everyone can't be good at one time

 

[tremonthustler1]

We went from a basement team to a playoff contender breh. Within 2 years we went from a basement team to a team that I feel will be contending for a title next season. It's all about management which is what I told @tremonthustler1 months ago. If your team's management is smart your team will thrive regardless of market. The Orlando Magic were smarter than the Lakers, Nuggets and 76ers which is why they came out on top of the Howard/Bynum/Iggy trade. If the Lakers were smart as Orlando then they would've moved Bynum for Vucevic knowing then what we know now.

But like I told you, it's deeper than just management. Who hires management? Ownership. If your ownership doesn't give a damn or makes the wrong hires, then it doesn't matter what kind of management you have.

Sam Presti is viewed as an NBA golden child GM. Ownership though is the one not trying to pay the tax. That's gonna make Presti look bad. The Bucks are told by everyone to go ahead and blow it up rebuild. Herb Kohl doesn't wanna do that, therefore, Hammond has to keep trying to win even if it's against the team's best interest. Kahn wasn't around to give Corey Brewer $15 millon. Flip Saunders did. Who hired him? That's right, the owner.

The CBA simply highlighted that some owners wanna win. Other owners wanna make money. The owners don't have the same goal in mind, so if you're on a team where money's the main focus, you're in deep shyt. The owners that go out and try to win, won't give a fukk, which is why you're enamored by the Brooklyn's and Golden State's and Miami's of the league.

 

[cfountain]

he's gets paid 120% each following year tho. He was a projected 2nd round pick at most. They gave his agent a promise that they would take him in the 1st round if he took 80% this year. Adams is getting the full 120% this year I believe. Nobody thought it was surprising that he was there in New York.

George Hill took a deal like that with the Spurs too(80% in the 1st).

 

[FTBS]

The new CBA does help small market teams more since you're have these bigger market teams unable or worrying about signing guys and paying the luxury tax penalties up to an extent. Look at how the Knicks can't really sign anyone

Who would they have been able to sign before though? The Knicks and other big market squads are far less concerned with the luxury tax than smaller markets like OKC. You think any of those squads woulda traded a guy of Harden's caliber out of fear of the luxury tax? The luxury tax is not the issue. Giving teams a real advantage when it comes to re-signing their own guys is the only way to truly help the small markets. Anything else is just window dressing.

 

[G.O.A.T Squad Spokesman]

But like I told you, it's deeper than just management. Who hires management? Ownership. If your ownership doesn't give a damn or makes the wrong hires, then it doesn't matter what kind of management you have.

Sam Presti is viewed as an NBA golden child GM. Ownership though is the one not trying to pay the tax. That's gonna make Presti look bad. The Bucks are told by everyone to go ahead and blow it up rebuild. Herb Kohl doesn't wanna do that, therefore, Hammond has to keep trying to win even if it's against the team's best interest. Kahn wasn't around to give Corey Brewer $15 millon. Flip Saunders did. Who hired him? That's right, the owner.

The CBA simply highlighted that some owners wanna win. Other owners wanna make money. The owners don't have the same goal in mind, so if you're on a team where money's the main focus, you're in deep shyt. The owners that go out and try to win, won't give a fukk, which is why you're enamored by the Brooklyn's and Golden State's and Miami's of the league.

I lumped ownership and management into the same category. There is a disparity between good ownership and good management. There are smart GM's that aren't given the OK to go out and acquire assets because they don't want to pay. Up until the 50 50 split between players and owners on BRI that was the case with Donald Sterling's GM's.

You can't lump Golden State in with the Brooklyn's or Miami's yet because we've never paid a cent towards luxury tax which is where smart management comes into play. Despite our deep roster we're still under the lux tax.

 

[23Barrettcity]

You've got people saying that MIA will break up the big 3 because they won't be able to afford all three, so a big market team might not automatically resign players. Al Jefferson (albeit not a superstar) might not sign with the Bobcats if better bigger market teams were not caution in their money.

Miami isn't a big market really you realize that right ?? But anyway the heat most likely won't break up though unless they fall apart this season . If they get to another finals you think they'll break up ? And al Jefferson isn't a superstar so my point stands . When it comes down to it a big market team will pay the tax for a championship caliber team and apparently small market teams won't ... The NBA can't fix that without a hard tax

 

[tremonthustler1]

If you knew your team actually would get a top 5 pick if they sucked as opposed to somehow the cavs getting multiple picks teams would care . The lottery has to go and the bobcats winning 30 games won't bring in a damn fan breh this isn't the nfl. The spurs and thunder are both successful teams yet last CBA the spurs were complaining about revenue sharing and not making enough money , the thunder are becoming cheap now that they had to pay their big 3 nonrookie contracts . The real thing is the nba is a superstars league they only have a few to go around. They either need to contract teams or accept that everyone can't be good at one time

As someone who hasn't seen the playoffs in nearly a decade, no you wouldn't. The Cavs are lucking out, but at some point, the tanking has to end. That time has come for them. Start winning, otherwise, those players you tanked for won't stick around.

The Bobcats have to start somewhere. You don't just get the #1 pick and shoot up to 50 wins perennially. There will be growing pains. If they win 30, that's a step up for them and that means the guys they ARE picking are making progress. That's all you can ask. Losing 60 games every year until you finally win the lottery hurts more, because what do you do if you don't win the lotto. You can't sell that to fans. Sometimes, a team knows they won't win a title, but at least TRY to get better if you can't land one of the few transcendent talents.

 

[trick]

Why did Roberson sign that deal?

He wasn't even supposed to be drafted.

 

[tremonthustler1]

I lumped ownership and management into the same category. There is a disparity between good ownership and good management. There are smart GM's that aren't given the OK to go out and acquire assets because they don't want to pay. Up until the 50 50 split between players and owners on BRI that was the case with Donald Sterling's GM's.

You can't lump Golden State in with the Brooklyn's or Miami's yet because we've never paid a cent towards luxury tax which is where smart management comes into play. Despite our deep roster we're still under the lux tax.

I separate the two because ownership is the one constant. You can fire a GM. You can't fire an owner, so if you have a crappy owner, all you can hope for is that he either sells the team or dies. If you've reached that point (like I have), there's little to no point in sticking around.

 

[cfountain]

He wasn't even supposed to be drafted.

yep, 2nd rounder at best. thats getting glossed over tho. nobody mentioning that the other 1st round pick has signed for the normal 120%

 

[G.O.A.T Squad Spokesman]

I separate the two because ownership is the one constant. You can fire a GM. You can't fire an owner, so if you have a crappy owner, all you can hope for is that he either sells the team or dies. If you've reached that point (like I have), there's little to no point in sticking around.

I agree. Ownership is everything to a franchise, just ask a Bobcat or Raider fan. I remember the Cohan era, thank goodness he did the humane thing and sold the team to someone who actually gave a shyt and was a fan of the franchise.

 

[23Barrettcity]

I lumped ownership and management into the same category. There is a disparity between good ownership and good management. There are smart GM's that aren't given the OK to go out and acquire assets because they don't want to pay. Up until the 50 50 split between players and owners on BRI that was the case with Donald Sterling's GM's.

You can't lump Golden State in with the Brooklyn's or Miami's yet because we've never paid a cent towards luxury tax which is where smart management comes into play. Despite our deep roster we're still under the lux tax.

No no no lol because curry was hurt and took a Lawson type extension . How about when you have to pay Barnes , klay and them ??

 

[G.O.A.T Squad Spokesman]

No no no lol because curry was hurt and took a Lawson type extension . How about when you have to pay Barnes , klay and them ??

I have a feeling David Lee will be off the books by then. And Bogut will have to take a pay cut obviously.

 

[Momentum]

nikkas' agents ain't doing they job this week.

It's a new day hit up KD

 

[23Barrettcity]

As someone who hasn't seen the playoffs in nearly a decade, no you wouldn't. The Cavs are lucking out, but at some point, the tanking has to end. That time has come for them. Start winning, otherwise, those players you tanked for won't stick around.

The Bobcats have to start somewhere. You don't just get the #1 pick and shoot up to 50 wins perennially. There will be growing pains. If they win 30, that's a step up for them and that means the guys they ARE picking are making progress. That's all you can ask. Losing 60 games every year until you finally win the lottery hurts more, because what do you do if you don't win the lotto. You can't sell that to fans. Sometimes, a team knows they won't win a title, but at least TRY to get better if you can't land one of the few transcendent talents.

barring getting competent ownership
The only chance the bobcats have of becoming a contender not a fringe treadmill playoff team is by signing a superstar or drafting a superstar.... Which possibility is more likely ,? I'm not sure how your advocating being a treadmill team . The only reason the wolves have any hope is love Rubio and pek if he's still there . A team full of al Jefferson's does nothing . Some teams aren't appealing to stars and they have to be creative in getting them