2017 NBA offseason thread

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,695
Anyone who thinks adding Lebron to the Celtics (in any manner that works under the cap) creates a team that can seriously challenge the Warriors is delusional. The Celtics are currently inferior to the Warriors at every position and most by a significant margin. They are a really good team but the Warriors are probably the best collection of talent the sport has ever seen. Adding Lebron and, say, losing Horford puts this team in maybe a slightly better position to last year's Cavs, in other words, still not close to good enough without a Warriors injury.

Nobody is talking about this, but Houston is the best positioned team to pitch Lebron on having a real shot against the Warriors. They could repeat what they did to land Paul next off-season and add Lebron for Anderson, another contract, and enough picks to make it worth it to Cleveland to take on Anderson's contract. Lebron, Paul, and Harden would give them a true big 3 that might hope to be able to compete with the Warriors. It's a little hard to see how those three fit together, but the talent is undeniable.
(1) While GSW is a great team, one of the all-time best, let's not forget that the early 80s Lakers and Celtics teams had like four Hall of Famers on their teams each. In fact the 1987 World Championships featured 8 Hall of Famers, 7 guys on the original top 50 all-time list, 13 career league MVPs, and something like 10 players who made All-Star teams. I mean the Lakers of that year had two top 10 players of all time (Kareem and Magic), Worthy, AC Green, who was an All-Star in his own right, Michael Cooper, an 8-time all defensive player who never played in an All-Star game, and Mychael Thompson, Bryon Scott, and Kurt Rambis.

So greatest collection of talent ever to be assembled remains to be seen.

(2) I think LBJ, GH, IT4, Morris, and JB, with Smart, Tatum, Baynes, and Rozier being main bench options are a clear upgrade over what the Cavs put on the floor in the last championship. Granted GSW would be favored, but this team would give GSW more issues than the Cavs just because they have better and more versitile defenders than the Cavs do. I'd be more than happy to see the Cs take this to 6 games and see what happens.

Not that we're ever going to figure out but it's a dreamy kind of Monday, what with Devers being called up and everything else.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,133
New York, NY
Ryan Anderson and crappy picks starting in 2020 for LeBron? Now that's some real delusion.
My proposal is basically a sign and trade. The value isn't "for Lebron," it is for taking on the contracts to let Houston acquire him. And, a 2022 or 2024 Houston pick could certainly have real value in this scenario, especially if it had weak or no protection. Lebron is a free agent next year and can pick where he lands.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,211
My proposal is basically a sign and trade. The value isn't "for Lebron," it is for taking on the contracts to let Houston acquire him. And, a 2022 or 2024 Houston pick could certainly have real value in this scenario, especially if it had weak or no protection. Lebron is a free agent next year and can pick where he lands.
You think the NPV of a 2022 or 2024 pick from Houston is worth it to Cleveland to take on 2 years of Ryan Anderson at 2/42? Why would Cleveland do that when they could use their cap space in this scenario to acquire picks much sooner than 2022?
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
I'm sure it's been covered in other posts, but Kyrie's trade request makes no sense. He's been "the man" on a team before and they sucked. He got two coaches and one GM canned trying to find a winning formula. If he really wants to run his own team he can just wait a year when Lebron leaves. If he doesn't like that he's one more year from being a free agent. What exactly does a trade today accomplish? Is being the playmaker for a 45-win Miami team better than competing for a title?

As for what Cleveland should do, they basically have three options:

1. The three-quarters for a dollar trade: They can move Kryie for a two or three pieces to plug holes at other spots. Probably worst-case scenario for team and Lebron, but most likely scenario given other recent trades.
2. Star for star: Kryie just gets moved for another disgruntled star player like Wade or Carmelo. Bad for Cleveland but probably what Lebron wants.
3. Picks/young players: The best for Cleveland long-term, but does nothing for their chances this year and makes it unlikely Lebron stays.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
Also, one other thing on Lebron. He should be using his star power to influence the front office and get what he wants. He gave his first seven years to Cleveland and in the final five years they had him under a long-term deal with stable ownership, the same GM and the same coach. The grand return on that was one Finals appearance where they got decimated. In the past seven seasons he's used his star power, free agency and short-term deals to influence front office decisions on players and coaches and he's been the Finals seven straight seasons with three titles. He knows what's better for Lebron than the decision makers do. It's an inversion of the power structure and makes people uncomfortable but he absolutely should hold teams hostage to better his short-term success.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,729
I mean the Lakers of that year had two top 10 players of all time (Kareem and Magic), Worthy, AC Green, who was an All-Star in his own right, Michael Cooper, an 8-time all defensive player who never played in an All-Star game, and Mychael Thompson, Bryon Scott, and Kurt Rambis.
Four number 1 picks.

Edit: although I guess two of them would have gone second in the re-draft. Bird>Thompson; Wilkins>Worthy.
 
Last edited:

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,427
Oregon
Most teams, including the asset-rich Celtics, have placed the obligatory call letting Cleveland know they would like to be kept in the loop (re Irving), sources say. Boston could offer Isaiah Thomas, Jae Crowder and one of their golden picks -- Brooklyn's pick next season, or the Lakers/Kings pick they got from Philly in the Markelle Fultz deal. It's unclear if they would dangle all of that, but those picks could represent the young stud Cleveland needs. Regardless, a deal between the East's two best teams seems unlikely.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20144300/zach-lowe-kyrie-irving-cleveland-cavaliers-potential-trades-nba
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,597
Simmons is full of it. OKC doesn't have anything that the Knicks want.
It's the Knicks, so who knows, but if they expect anything of value for Melo at this point, then they might want to think again....
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
t's the Knicks, so who knows, but if they expect anything of value for Melo at this point, then they might want to think again....
Yeah but at the very least the salaries have to roughly match up and at least in my fiddling with the Trade Machine I can't see any reasonable deal for the Knicks without them taking a big contract back like Enes Kanter or Steven Adams, which defeats the purpose of the trade in the first place.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,591
This LeBron/Kyrie stuff is so great. Apparently Kyrie's camp is pissed because they think LeBron and his guys leaked this because it happened weeks ago no leaks, and it leaked when LeBron found out.
Then Woj saying that before the demand the Cavs were shopping Kyrie with LeBron's blessing. It's so petty on both sides.
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,427
Oregon
This LeBron/Kyrie stuff is so great. Apparently Kyrie's camp is pissed because they think LeBron and his guys leaked this because it happened weeks ago no leaks, and it leaked when LeBron found out.
Then Woj saying that before the demand the Cavs were shopping Kyrie with LeBron's blessing. It's so petty on both sides.
It almost makes up for Price v. Eck. Almost
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
Best case scenario from a C's perspective is that Cavs can't find a good trading partner and Kyrie plays out the season on the Cavs. Keeps the infighting/pettiness to a max and doesn't allow the Cavs to either (a) get back pieces that could be helpful to the Cavs this year for a (final?) championship run or (b) begin planning for the future by unloading deals, amassing draft picks, etc.

Edit: I suppose real best case scenario is Kyrie is traded for 25 cents on the dollar because he becomes such a distraction, but I'm assuming in the above that the Cavs would get back at least roughly equal value for him.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,591
Best case scenario from a C's perspective is that Cavs can't find a good trading partner and Kyrie plays out the season on the Cavs. Keeps the infighting/pettiness to a max and doesn't allow the Cavs to either (a) get back pieces that could be helpful to the Cavs this year for a (final?) championship run or (b) begin planning for the future by unloading deals, amassing draft picks, etc.

Edit: I suppose real best case scenario is Kyrie is traded for 25 cents on the dollar because he becomes such a distraction, but I'm assuming in the above that the Cavs would get back at least roughly equal value for him.
Only to the West. He goes to MIL for a steal for example and that's suddenly a long term challenger.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Only to the West. He goes to MIL for a steal for example and that's suddenly a long term challenger.
Greg Monroe and one of Thon/Brogdon works contract wise. You'd have to think there is enough interest in Irving around the league for Cleveland to get full value.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,211
This LeBron/Kyrie stuff is so great. Apparently Kyrie's camp is pissed because they think LeBron and his guys leaked this because it happened weeks ago no leaks, and it leaked when LeBron found out.
Then Woj saying that before the demand the Cavs were shopping Kyrie with LeBron's blessing. It's so petty on both sides.
And now Rose to Cleveland has happened. Kyrie is 100% gone for sure.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
And now Rose to Cleveland has happened. Kyrie is 100% gone for sure.
He may or may not be a goner, but I don't think we should draw too many conclusions from the Rose signing as he is not a starting-caliber PG anymore. If he's starting on opening night Cleveland is in a world of trouble.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,591
Oh man, I hope the Cavs start Rose. He's just a terrible fit for when LeBron is on the floor. Useless without the ball, and can't shoot.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,211
He may or may not be a goner, but I don't think we should draw too many conclusions from the Rose signing as he is not a starting-caliber PG anymore. If he's starting on opening night Cleveland is in a world of trouble.
So, you don't think Kyrie's rumored departure had much of an impact on Rose's desire to take a minimum deal I take it?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,591
So, you don't think Kyrie's rumored departure had much of an impact on Rose's desire to take a minimum deal I take it?
I don't. His only other real offer was a small money 1 year deal w/ the Lakers. Might as well be on a good team to try and rebuild value.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,571
Haiku
I don't. His only other real offer was a small money 1 year deal w/ the Lakers. Might as well be on a good team to try and rebuild value.
Derrick Rose has come down in the world, and playoff shares go a long way for the working-class NBA veteran.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,591
How do you know what his offers were?
Ok, I guess hypothetically his agent might have had a super secret double probation offer that nobody leaked to the press and where he had his meeting in secrecy and also nobody told anyone.

I know what his other offers were because no free agent meets with a bad team like the Lakers who have little cap space as their only other meeting unless the well is truly dry.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
So, you don't think Kyrie's rumored departure had much of an impact on Rose's desire to take a minimum deal I take it?
Maybe it played into his decision, but what were his other options? Go to a bad Lakers team for slightly more than the minimum? We're past the point of NBA teams being interested in Derrick Rose.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,211
Maybe it played into his decision, but what were his other options? Go to a bad Lakers team for slightly more than the minimum? We're past the point of NBA teams being interested in Derrick Rose.
The ESPN article said that he also met with Milwaukee and the Clippers. And if he's willing to sign for the minimum, I highly doubt his options were limited to Cleveland and LA. Rose may not be a quality starter anymore but he just came off a season where he averaged 18ppg while shooting 47%. It's not like he's Colin Kaepernick - he can still play a little bit and at $2M, he could have signed almost anywhere. I'm sure many teams weren't interested but there were probably some where the reverse was true.

My overall point, which is certainly fine to disagree with, is that Kyrie's situation likely played a role. It's certainly not the only reason or even the primary one but I think it's a reasonable assumption to make.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,023
My overall point, which is certainly fine to disagree with, is that Kyrie's situation likely played a role. It's certainly not the only reason or even the primary one but I think it's a reasonable assumption to make.
Sure, but that's a slightly different take than thinking it means Kyrie is "100% gone".
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,211
Sure, but that's a slightly different take than thinking it means Kyrie is "100% gone".
Kyrie is gone. This is only one of the indications, imo, but relevant nonetheless. Should I use 95% instead? The guy is getting traded.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,023
Kyrie is gone. This is only one of the indications, imo, but relevant nonetheless. Should I use 95% instead? The guy is getting traded.
Look, I don't have a dog in the fight, so whatever. I think what he was saying was that Rose may have ended up in Cleveland even if this didn't happen with Kyrie and if Rose had gone elsewhere, Kyrie still might be gone.

I guess what I'm saying is Suck it Cleveland.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,211
Look, I don't have a dog in the fight, so whatever. I think what he was saying was that Rose may have ended up in Cleveland even if this didn't happen with Kyrie and if Rose had gone elsewhere, Kyrie still might be gone.

I guess what I'm saying is Suck it Cleveland.
Of course he could have. He signed for the minimum after all but what I'm saying is that I think Kyrie's situation played a role, that's all. There were clearly other interested teams as he had additional visits outside of Cleveland and LA. I'm sure they were all offering minimum type deals because the money has dried up for everyone.

But, yes, Cleveland can suck it.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,242
Kyrie is gone. This is only one of the indications, imo, but relevant nonetheless. Should I use 95% instead? The guy is getting traded.
Yes he's definitely gone. The players and agents run this league and when a star players requests a trade it is a done deal. That's how these things work. It will likely be to a WC team.....that's also how they work.
 

Sox and Rocks

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2013
5,852
Northern Colorado
I beg you to stop telling us this every few weeks, you said it all season, endlessly, and then the playoffs were absolute dogshit (I'd also argue that the regular season was way more boring than you thought, since the end was inevitable, but people can differ on that). You're super into the NBA right now, great. Personally the NBA has been my favorite league/sport since I was a kid, and I'd argue that the meaninglessness of most of the regular season (especially in the East the last few years) and the inevitability of the two Finalists (especially this past season) makes it in a way the dullest it's been in a while (despite having tons of exciting young players), but there's no need for me to say that except to counter this macro statement you keep making.

This isn't meant to be nearly as hostile as it might come off, it's a post I almost made 20 times this season but decided to let it play out. It's an attempt to be preemptive going into next season.
Amen. I like the offseason discussion and debating possible moves, and the size of this thread proves many others do, too, but the actual games are often without intrigue. Ultimately, it's a bad sign for the league that offseason discussion and speculation is more entertaining than the actual product.
 

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
959
Connecticut
Amen. I like the offseason discussion and debating possible moves, and the size of this thread proves many others do, too, but the actual games are often without intrigue. Ultimately, it's a bad sign for the league that offseason discussion and speculation is more entertaining than the actual product.
Sorry to get off topic. ...
And I would argue the cause for the predictability is, to a large extent, NBA's max salary. So by artificially limiting salaries of the top players, the NBA has created a situation where teams can sign 2 and 3 stars instead of these players getting the 70+ million a year the market would bear. Eliminating the max salary would make it much more likely to distribute the best players among all the teams, with each making salaries of 60-100 million per year. The average player salary would take a hit, but the result would be a league with much more parity. Currently the GSW are 10/17 to win the championship and all but 6 teams have 40-1 or longer (compared to roughly half of NFL teams have odds that level or longer). Sooner or later this issue needs to be addressed or one would think interest will wane in the 80% of NBA cities where they have very little chance to win a championship.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,023
Stephen A Smith (I know) said someone in Lebron's camp told him that if Lebron was in same room of Kyrie right now he'd punch him in face.

So, this is fun.
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,065
Chelmsford, MA
Sorry to get off topic. ...
And I would argue the cause for the predictability is, to a large extent, NBA's max salary. So by artificially limiting salaries of the top players, the NBA has created a situation where teams can sign 2 and 3 stars instead of these players getting the 70+ million a year the market would bear. Eliminating the max salary would make it much more likely to distribute the best players among all the teams, with each making salaries of 60-100 million per year. The average player salary would take a hit, but the result would be a league with much more parity. Currently the GSW are 10/17 to win the championship and all but 6 teams have 40-1 or longer (compared to roughly half of NFL teams have odds that level or longer). Sooner or later this issue needs to be addressed or one would think interest will wane in the 80% of NBA cities where they have very little chance to win a championship.
I'd add onto this the probably obvious point that the max salary putting a cap on player earnings is resulting in this college recruiting style "team up with my friends and win" thing that we're seeing as well. When the players literally can't make significantly more and only in a handful of places, it makes sense to instead focus on best chance to win from both a personal and financial perspective. Either the max needs to be increased while the salary cap remains flat or they need to abolish it altogether because while I think its heart is in the right place it's not playing out well at all.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,703
Zach Lowe proposed a Middleton + Brogdon deal.
That would be a pretty good deal for the Cavs and make it easier for them to move Love to New York for Carmelo, although they'd need the deal to look something like Love/Smith for Anthony/filler.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,405
That would be a pretty good deal for the Cavs and make it easier for them to move Love to New York for Carmelo, although they'd need the deal to look something like Love/Smith for Anthony/filler.
Lowe also proposed a Jamal Murray/Gary Harris/Wilson Chandler and a 1st. Out of the proposed offers. Out of the Lowe proposals, I think that's the best fit for the Cavs.

I really don't understand why Melo is talked about as a fit next to Bron. I don't think he could even be on the court at the same time against Golden State unless James is playing the 5.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,211
I'd add onto this the probably obvious point that the max salary putting a cap on player earnings is resulting in this college recruiting style "team up with my friends and win" thing that we're seeing as well. When the players literally can't make significantly more and only in a handful of places, it makes sense to instead focus on best chance to win from both a personal and financial perspective. Either the max needs to be increased while the salary cap remains flat or they need to abolish it altogether because while I think its heart is in the right place it's not playing out well at all.
Why exactly do we want parity? The NBA has never had this and it's served the league quite well. I want to watch a great teams play - I don't want to watch a bunch of seasons where a decent but unspectacular 53 win team is getting a #1 seed (no offense to these Celtics). There are 16 playoff spots - plenty for fans to remain interested. Sure, only a handful of teams are legit contenders but that's always been the case. The 1980s, which many consider to be the golden era of hoops, saw 2 teams dominate it. The 90s saw one dominant team.

The Warriors are certainly a great team but I think it's far more fun to watch teams try to slay the giant than watch a couple of 55 win teams play mediocre basketball. To me, the biggest problem in the NBA is the imbalance in the conferences. Most of the elite talent is out West. If LeBron goes to LA, then that gets even worse. As a Celtics fan, I'm perfectly fine with this but the league is at it's best when there's better balance but there's obviously not much you can do about it.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Why exactly do we want parity? The NBA has never had this and it's served the league quite well. I want to watch a great teams play - I don't want to watch a bunch of seasons where a decent but unspectacular 53 win team is getting a #1 seed (no offense to these Celtics). There are 16 playoff spots - plenty for fans to remain interested. Sure, only a handful of teams are legit contenders but that's always been the case. The 1980s, which many consider to be the golden era of hoops, saw 2 teams dominate it. The 90s saw one dominant team.

The Warriors are certainly a great team but I think it's far more fun to watch teams try to slay the giant than watch a couple of 55 win teams play mediocre basketball. To me, the biggest problem in the NBA is the imbalance in the conferences. Most of the elite talent is out West. If LeBron goes to LA, then that gets even worse. As a Celtics fan, I'm perfectly fine with this but the league is at it's best when there's better balance but there's obviously not much you can do about it.
Besides giving playoff seeds by record and ignoring conference. As a Celtics fan, I don't want that. As a fan of the NBA, I do.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,695
I'd add onto this the probably obvious point that the max salary putting a cap on player earnings is resulting in this college recruiting style "team up with my friends and win" thing that we're seeing as well. When the players literally can't make significantly more and only in a handful of places, it makes sense to instead focus on best chance to win from both a personal and financial perspective. Either the max needs to be increased while the salary cap remains flat or they need to abolish it altogether because while I think its heart is in the right place it's not playing out well at all.
But if there was no max and KD made $80MM one year and went 32-50, why wouldn't he forego so money next year to "play with his friends"?

The NBA's problem (if you want to call it that) isn't the salary structure, the problem is that 10 guys (or less sometimes) will determine the fate of a season. And if 2 or 3 of those 10 guys want to band together to win a championship - even for a year, the money is so incredibly huge that it will happen.

Given up $200K when you're making $1MM dollars will generally impact someone's decision. Giving up $20MM when you've made $100MM maybe doesn't.
 

Hagios

New Member
Dec 15, 2007
672
But if there was no max and KD made $80MM one year and went 32-50, why wouldn't he forego so money next year to "play with his friends"?
I tend to believe athletes when they say "it's not about the money, it's about the respect." Money is the measuring stick used to set the pecking order. A 200 million dollar guy is better than a 128 million dollar guy. If a team offers you 90 million then they're telling you they don't think your as good as the 128 million dollar guy.

Athletes do take discounts. Maybe Bryce Harper will turn down a 400 million dollar contract to play with friends. Maybe Kirk Cousins will turn down whatever market-setting contract he is offered next year to play with his friends. But generally athletes go for the money and their discounts tend to be pretty modest.

I think people have a skewed vision of NBA free agency precisely because of the max contract. If every team in the league with cap space is willing to offer LeBron a max contract then of course he's going to choose to play with friends. Why make 30 million alone in Minnesota when you make 30 million in sunny LA playing with your buddies? But the list of teams that can offer him 80 million is a lot smaller. "Playing with your friends" is going to seem a lot less important once the dollar differences grow.
 

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
959
Connecticut
But if there was no max and KD made $80MM one year and went 32-50, why wouldn't he forego so money next year to "play with his friends"?

The NBA's problem (if you want to call it that) isn't the salary structure, the problem is that 10 guys (or less sometimes) will determine the fate of a season. And if 2 or 3 of those 10 guys want to band together to win a championship - even for a year, the money is so incredibly huge that it will happen.

Given up $200K when you're making $1MM dollars will generally impact someone's decision. Giving up $20MM when you've made $100MM maybe doesn't.
However, it would not be giving up 20 MM, because with the tax level at ~120 MM (Cap ~ 100 MM), a team could pay 1 superstar 80-100 MM and then the 2nd superstar would have to sacrifice 60-70 MM of their potential 80-100 MM. That is quite a financial sacrifice and maybe a few players would do it for 1 year, but I doubt many would sacrifice so much for multiple years.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
I think Hagios is right. So far we've seen guys turning down ~10% of their annual salary to pick their own destination. We haven't seen much in the way of guys taking 50% paycuts on the other hand. It's possible that the amount of money that star players are getting in the NBA will change that dynamic, and prime-age stars really will turn down $60M to play for $30M somewhere else, just cause it's "generational wealth" either way, but I don't think we can assume that either.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,591
Some of it is also how bird rights changed. Owners shortened the max by 2 years and slashed the raises from 12.5% down to a point where the difference between leaving and staying with a team is negligible.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,242
I think Hagios is right. So far we've seen guys turning down ~10% of their annual salary to pick their own destination. We haven't seen much in the way of guys taking 50% paycuts on the other hand. It's possible that the amount of money that star players are getting in the NBA will change that dynamic, and prime-age stars really will turn down $60M to play for $30M somewhere else, just cause it's "generational wealth" either way, but I don't think we can assume that either.
The guys who come to mind are Nowitzki and Duncan who did forfeit around 50% of their contract to stay with their original team which imo was brilliantly handled by ownership over the final several years leading up to these deals. There are several non-stars who took DEEPLY discounted deals to play for winners the most recent being David West and Pachulia, who took a minimum deal in one of the best offseason markets ever for rotational centers.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
71,087
I think the problem isn't a ceiling on max salaries but more the salary cap to begin with. For instance It's ridiculous that Carmelo Anthony is almost impossible to move because of how his salary fits into the cap, when it's in his best interest and both teams' best interest for him to go elsewhere. I'd much prefer a MLB-type salary structure, no salary cap but big penalties if you go over a number.