The lockout is coming people

[mjs34]

Sterling was turning a profit almost every year in the NBA, so according to the players, he was running a good business!

I do find it funny that everyone keeps referring to the 2 billion Sterling got as if that is the norm. I think the owners should continually harp on contracts like Amare, and Arenas during the meetings. The simple truth is that all of them are overpaid, but I have a hard time faulting the owners when most have shelled out hundreds of millions of dollars to be where they are. How come Lebron's endorsements aren't counted in all of this. The guy is clearing over 70 mil this season in salary and endorsements, and none of that is there without the NBA.

I think they need a hard cap or a waiver for re-signing players you drafted and minimizing their hit against the cap. Maybe they should setup salary slots, with 2 deals over 18 mil, and then the next between 12 and 14, or something like that. At least that would throw a wrench into the collusion the Heat players pulled. I also think they should set limits on the lottery. When Cleveland hits the #1 they should be banned from getting a top three pick for the next five years. That way they might eliminate some of the tanking (Philly) that is going on.

[TheGrey08]

I want to see the owners give a concession on the max contract, but only on the 1 designated player. I think all contracts should be up to 5 years while the player designation should give that 1 player up to an extra 10-15% of the cap space. IE: (rough idea) max contracts of say 25-30% for all players, but 1 guy makes like 40-45% or something like that. If the player is traded they lose that designation unless the acquiring team has that designation available to give them. Maybe this would finally get us away from having "big 3s".

I want to see the max removed for any player you draft or sign/trade for pre-bird/early bird rights, basically just for RFA level players. If the NBA was really concerned about parity and wanting franchises to have the ability to keep their guys this would be the way to do it. This is the only way that the small franchises could really compete.

I wouldn't mind something like that either, but at the same time I wouldn't want to see a team completely tank for 4-5 years, get top picks that end up being stars and then eventually dominating. Granted that would take first luck with the lotto, then good selections and coaching/training, but it would still game the system. However that could be solved with a change in the lotto system too. Either way, stars/superstars should benefit a lot from staying with their team or joining a team w/o another franchise guy.

[alexftbl8181 [enjin:6648741]]

keeping star players has nothing to do with money anymore. If your owner and front office stink and put garbage around the star player, then they'll leave. Nobody's dying to play to LA or New York because they suck. In fact, the only real superstar player both of those teams have sign combined in like 20 years is Melo (and to a lesser extent Amare) and Melo's legacy is probably hurt because of it

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

I'd like to see them institute cap percentages so the middle class doesn't get grossly overpaid with the new deal. Nobody bats an eye when the stars get paid, but it doesn't sit well with me when guys like Hayward and Parsons get max deals when they aren't all-star caliber players. They are good, but not that good. I think you get 1 contract that is unlimited (starting at 30% of the cap) for 4-5 years depending if they are your FA or another team's. Then you get 2 max deals be it off of rookie deals or veteran deals at 30% of the cap a piece. Then drop it 10 percent for the rest of the roster so in theory your 4th best player can only make 20% of the cap, but in reality they won't be able to in a true big 3 situation because the 3 max deals would take up a minimum of 90% of the cap. That would make it tough to keep big 3's together, but would get the stars of the league very well paid while keeping everyone else from getting deals they don't deserve. RFA's would not be able to qualify for the unlimited percentage though because in some instances the team literally wouldn't be able to match which is the point of restricted free agency.

Think if the Cavs had to offer Lebron 50 million of their 90 million cap. That wouldn't leave enough to keep Love and Kyrie at max deals at 30% a piece so somebody would have to go and who knows, somebody might offer Kyrie or Love 35+% of the cap that the Cavs wouldn't be able to match with Lebron already taking up the lone 30+% exception. It would give small market teams a chance to steal away a max player by offering him a deal his current team could potentially not be able to match if they already gave away their unlimited exception. It would give small markets a fighting chance to keep at least 1 star and potentially steal one if they aren't able to draft one. A true big 3 in reality would be extremely tough to keep together in that situation with a limited amount of true stars in the league and the amount of teams that would be willing to pay them quite well to try to steal them away from another team. I think player turnover is much better for the league as a whole than dynasties as it gets more fan bases interested because they now have a chance rather than seeing the same 5 teams dominate the league every year. The league never got more publicity than Lebron's decisions to go to different teams so why not increase the likelihood of that type of turnover in the league from the stars?

[foye2smith [enjin:6593248]]

It's going to be great when they miss games and accomplish nothing. Anyone think the owners will relinquish their 50/50 split on basketball related income? No?

Then the raising or eliminating of a maximum contract is only going to help the 5-10% of players who are worth more than the current max. And you know the owners will just move money around, "fine we'll pay 'Blake Griffin' 30 million a year but slash the 'Jamal Crawfords', 'JJ Redicks', and 'Spencer Hawes' of the league in half."

It'll happen and I think the players have to take a stand just for pride sake, but I just don't see them outlasting the owners. All they remember is getting their ass handed to them last time and are ignoring that all this good happening to the league in general is going to add to their piece of pie just through the raising of the cap.

It's just going to be funny to see them futilely raise their portion of BRI, then when that fails 90% of the players will advocate against themselves to remove the maximum contract and possibly give way to non-guaranteed contracts.

"We did it! We got rid of the max salary for LeBron, Durant, Paul, etc.! All we had to do was give up our good contracts, the guarantee of those contracts, and incoming players will have to be two years removed from High Scho... wait a second. They fucked us again!" The non-superstar players.