New 7 Year CBA Deal Done

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,394
According to Woj, the deal is done.

Two important developments that affect Boston:

Teams more than $17M above the tax threshold will no longer have access to the MLE. So something almost like a true hard cap.

The maximum yearly increase for contract extentions has gone up from 20% to 40%, which means even if Brown doesn't make All-NBA, his max contract will still be huge.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,394
Also, the in-season tournament could happen as soon as next season. Selected regular season games will double as qualifying games, and the top 8 teams will play a single elimination tournament, with the top 4 being in Vegas.

Woj says the two finalists will end up playing 83 regular season games, which tells me the announced yearly schedule will have to have two open dates for each team that will have to be scheduled after they know which 8 teams are in the tourney. Also, the four teams who lose in the first round will have to play consolation games against each other, and that tournament games will count toward a team's regular season record.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
12,100
around the way
Woot. Reading that the deal is done is a nice way to start the day. Amazing how much more this league works together with its stakeholders than the NFL and MLB. Kudos to Silver and the PA.

If this increases the likelihood that Jaylen stays here, I'm even more happy.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
13,418
Imo this means that if Jaylen doesn't extend this summer, he will get traded this summer. No more room to play footsie, and I seriously doubt Brad will take that risk.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,962
Santa Monica
Great news! Creates much greater flexibility for Brad/Zarren and increases JB's trade value if his wish is to play/extend elsewhere. Obviously, option #1 is to retain JB long-term.

No MLE for super taxpayers raises the importance of development at the G-League to fill out the deep bench which Boston has addressed since Brad took over.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,962
Santa Monica
also, like these additions:

1. The deal will also have larger trade exceptions as a way to create more spending and trading opportunities for middle- and lower-spending teams.

2. The new CBA will also add a mandatory games played of 65 games (with conditions) in order to be eligible for postseason awards.

3. marijuana has been removed from the anti-drug testing program.

4. The agreement will also add a third two-way contract slot on team rosters. (love this and emphasizes the G-League even more)
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
13,418
Great news! Creates much greater flexibility for Brad/Zarren and increases JB's trade value if his wish is to play/extend elsewhere. Obviously, option #1 is to retain JB long-term.

No MLE for super taxpayers raises the importance of development at the G-League to fill out the deep bench which Boston has addressed since Brad took over.
Good point re JB being able to extend after a trade to preferred destination.

That would make trading him a lot cleaner if he doesn't want to extend, since the acquiring teams know for sure whether he'll extend, and the competing bidders don't get to wait until the next summer.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,962
Santa Monica
Good point re JB being able to extend after a trade to preferred destination.

That would make trading him a lot cleaner if he doesn't want to extend, since the acquiring teams know for sure whether he'll extend, and the competing bidders don't get to wait until the next summer.
It benefits Jaylen since he can pinpoint the teams he wants to play on with a 140% raise (in case he doesn't get Super MAX).

It also really benefits Boston if they don't want to pay JB the Super MAX if he qualifies (HRB's contention).

The teams Jaylen selects as desired locations would have to offer more assets with contract certainty (a win for Boston)
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,922
NYC
Nice. So … do the terms kick in right away? (Asking for a friend who wonders if the Warriors can offer DiVincenzo the full TPMLE this summer.)
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,706
Imaginationland
Nice. So … do the terms kick in right away? (Asking for a friend who wonders if the Warriors can offer DiVincenzo the full TPMLE this summer.)
I'd like that, as it would make Jaylen basically a lock for all-nba (no steph, Ja or Dame means they can call him a scoring guard all they want). But no, this starts next year.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
12,100
around the way
also, like these additions:

1. The deal will also have larger trade exceptions as a way to create more spending and trading opportunities for middle- and lower-spending teams.

2. The new CBA will also add a mandatory games played of 65 games (with conditions) in order to be eligible for postseason awards.

3. marijuana has been removed from the anti-drug testing program.

4. The agreement will also add a third two-way contract slot on team rosters. (love this and emphasizes the G-League even more)
Love all of these too. We're in such good hands as fans of this league.

I'm not a hockey guy anymore, but I remember the angst when everyone saw the CBA coming due in the early 2000s and the likely lockout. Baseball and football have had their share of horrible impasses too. This league seems to appreciate each other's perspectives and works shit out, at least under Silver's leadership. Shit that makes sense is just so novel.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,962
Santa Monica
Love all of these too. We're in such good hands as fans of this league.

I'm not a hockey guy anymore, but I remember the angst when everyone saw the CBA coming due in the early 2000s and the likely lockout. Baseball and football have had their share of horrible impasses too. This league seems to appreciate each other's perspectives and works shit out, at least under Silver's leadership. Shit that makes sense is just so novel.
It does seem like the players, owners, and Commish are all on the same page.

I laughed at the PLAY-IN at first but was very wrong about that. Even the mid-season tournament makes sense (which I was skeptical of working).

The NBA is extremely well managed
 

RorschachsMask

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2011
6,052
Lynn
What has surprised me a bit is that for the most part, players are in favor of the tournament. I really did not think that would be the case, but it makes me more excited for it.
 

koufax32

He'll cry if he wants to...
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2006
9,198
Duval
What has surprised me a bit is that for the most part, players are in favor of the tournament. I really did not think that would be the case, but it makes me more excited for it.
Next up for an FA Cup style tournament, the NHL and MLB.
 

Phil Plantier

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 7, 2002
3,431
I'm surprised the players agreed to the 65-game minimum for end-of-season awards. That seems like a high number to me.

The WNBA has tried an in-season tournament (the Commissioners Cup), I don't think it's seen as very prestigious. I hope the NBA can take some lessons from it (all of my suggestions are crazy ones - hopefully they have some better ideas than I do).
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,487
I'm surprised the players agreed to the 65-game minimum for end-of-season awards. That seems like a high number to me.
Not sure it is. It's about 80%. Someone that plays about 80% of an MLB schedule would play about 128 games. Which would put you about where you need to be for the minimum number of plate appearances to qualify for a batting title, give or take.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
705
2023-24... this summer, after the Finals end. Donte is gone, off to the Beam team...GS's new nemesis :eek:
At least with respect to the loss of the TPE for teams 17 million into the tax, the reporting was that "Those changes will be eased into the salary cap over a period of years."
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,706
Imaginationland
Not sure it is. It's about 80%. Someone that plays about 80% of an MLB schedule would play about 128 games. Which would put you about where you need to be for the minimum number of plate appearances to qualify for a batting title, give or take.
There isn't as much recent history compare against as I'd like (because 2021 and 2020 were cut short due to covid and 2012 because of the lockout), but here are the award winners who wouldn't have made the cut since 2010 due to playing less than 65 games:

2022: Ja (for MIP and all-NBA), Durant/Curry/Lebron (all-NBA)
2019: Embiid/Kawhi/Lebron (all-NBA)
2018: Gobert (DPOY), Embiid/Curry/Butler (all-NBA)
2017: Durant (all-NBA)
2016: None
2015: Kawhi (DPOY), Cousins (all-NBA)
2014: CP3 (all-NBA)
2013: None
2011: None
2010: None

Star players missing so many games is a really, really recent phenomenon (and there could easily be 4-5 all-NBA players this year who didn't hit 65 games). Anything that can help reverse that trend is a great thing IMO.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,962
Santa Monica
There isn't as much recent history compare against as I'd like (because 2021 and 2020 were cut short due to covid and 2012 because of the lockout), but here are the award winners who wouldn't have made the cut since 2010 due to playing less than 65 games:

2022: Ja (for MIP and all-NBA), Durant/Curry/Lebron (all-NBA)
2019: Embiid/Kawhi/Lebron (all-NBA)
2018: Gobert (DPOY), Embiid/Curry/Butler (all-NBA)
2017: Durant (all-NBA)
2016: None
2015: Kawhi (DPOY), Cousins (all-NBA)
2014: CP3 (all-NBA)
2013: None
2011: None
2010: None

Star players missing so many games is a really, really recent phenomenon (and there could easily be 4-5 all-NBA players this year who didn't hit 65 games). Anything that can help reverse that trend is a great thing IMO.
I should posted this list here
That would eliminate: LeBron, Durant, Kawhi, Paul George, Zion, Dame, Kyrie, Morant, Curry
Guys that are close to 65 games played: Giannis, Butler, Embiid, Luka

I wonder if voters will informally use 65 games this year as a basic rule of thumb for ALL-NBA
Going forward teams will probably have players hit the floor for a minute then walk off after the first whistle (they should have done 2000 minutes played total IMO)
At least with respect to the loss of the TPE for teams 17 million into the tax, the reporting was that "Those changes will be eased into the salary cap over a period of years."
Thanks

In a world where Grant Williams wants $20MM for multiple years in RFA, there has to be a spot for Donte DiVincenzo at a fraction of that in UFA
 

Five Cent Head

64th note
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2007
807
Seattle
Is the question of whether traditional positions should continue to be used for All-NBA and all-defense something that would be part of a collective bargaining agreement, or is that outside of its scope?
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,962
Santa Monica
Is the question of whether traditional positions should continue to be used for All-NBA and all-defense something that would be part of a collective bargaining agreement, or is that outside of its scope?
with the 140% hike, I'm dismantling the Jaylen Brown is a FORWARD PR campaign ;)

At this point the Players Agent can earn their commish with large gift baskets to the voters
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,567
I'm surprised the players agreed to the 65-game minimum for end-of-season awards. That seems like a high number to me.

The WNBA has tried an in-season tournament (the Commissioners Cup), I don't think it's seen as very prestigious. I hope the NBA can take some lessons from it (all of my suggestions are crazy ones - hopefully they have some better ideas than I do).
Me too.

I like all the changes I've seen so far except for this one.

Seems really dumb that a superstar could play 63 games and be ineligible for all-NBA, but you could vote for a worse player that played in 67 games.
 

Just a bit outside

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2011
8,324
Monument, CO
Me too.

I like all the changes I've seen so far except for this one.

Seems really dumb that a superstar could play 63 games and be ineligible for all-NBA, but you could vote for a worse player that played in 67 games.
I’m surprised the players agreed but I certainly understand the NBA perspective. It sucks for fans to spend hundreds of dollars on tickets and have guys take the night off They can’t make guys stop taking games off and this was one of the few tools they have to try and lessen the issue.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,962
Santa Monica
Me too.

I like all the changes I've seen so far except for this one.

Seems really dumb that a superstar could play 63 games and be ineligible for all-NBA, but you could vote for a worse player that played in 67 games.
it's a feeble attempt to stop load-managing the superstars

the players will go around it by stepping on the court for 10 seconds

J'rue did it the other night triggering a GP clause in his contract

If the NBA was serious it would have been a minutes hurdle instead of games played
 

Brand Name

make hers mark
Moderator
SoSH Member
Oct 6, 2010
4,599
Moving the Line
The games played minimum I'm in favor of but surprised to see it that high, at nearly 80%. Love the in-season tournament, and as has been said, if the players like it, I like it even more. I'd say they both add quite a bit of nice value to regular-season ball. But. Won't the games played min be subverted by some teams playing the stars they want to load manage for like a few seconds during garbage time, or like to end the first half?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,520
I'm honestly baffled by what is in this for the players? Basically every change is a benefit for owners, particularly cheap owners who don't want to spend
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
64,928
Rotten Apple
View: https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1642305569343111170

ESPN Reporting with @BobbyMarks42: In new CBA, high-spending teams above a second-apron of luxury tax aren’t allowed to send cash in deals, trade first-round picks seven years away or sign players in the buyout market.
ESPN also reported those second-apron teams -- $17.5M above the tax level – will not have use of the taxpayer mid-level exception. There’s been an average of three teams in that range in recent years.
As a counter to those spending limitations, the new CBA focuses largely on increasing opportunities for the vast majority of teams – both above and below the salary cap.
There will be new spending and trade opportunities for teams at the middle and lower spectrum of payrolls, including larger trade exceptions and new and expanded exceptions to the salary cap, sources said.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,706
Imaginationland
I'm honestly baffled by what is in this for the players? Basically every change is a benefit for owners, particularly cheap owners who don't want to spend
They can now smoke weed. Additionally, I think teams able to re-sign their own players for up to 140% of their current salary (instead of 120%) is also a benefit to players, albeit one that owners can get behind as well.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,706
Imaginationland
I'm surprised the players agreed to the 65-game minimum for end-of-season awards. That seems like a high number to me.

The WNBA has tried an in-season tournament (the Commissioners Cup), I don't think it's seen as very prestigious. I hope the NBA can take some lessons from it (all of my suggestions are crazy ones - hopefully they have some better ideas than I do).
It's really not, unless we want the last few years to be representative of how stars and teams treat the regular season going forward. Go back more than 8-9 years, and the number of guys who made 1st or 2nd team all-NBA and wouldn't hit the 65 game threshold is incredibly low. In the 30 years prior to 2014, the only 1st or 2nd team guys to play fewer than 65 games (in a full 82 game season) were Yao Ming (2007), Shaq (2006), Webber (2002), Shaq again (1998) and Bernard King (1985).

Additionally, I think removing the positional requirement for all-NBA voting will help here. Inevitably someone like Embiid will play 62 games, and instead of being replaced with a center like KAT or Gobert, an actual star level player can take his spot.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,520
It's really not, unless we want the last few years to be representative of how stars and teams treat the regular season going forward. Go back more than 8-9 years, and the number of guys who made 1st or 2nd team all-NBA and wouldn't hit the 65 game threshold is incredibly low. In the 30 years prior to 2014, the only 1st or 2nd team guys to play fewer than 65 games (in a full 82 game season) were Yao Ming (2007), Shaq (2006), Webber (2002), Shaq again (1998) and Bernard King (1985).

Additionally, I think removing the positional requirement for all-NBA voting will help here. Inevitably someone like Embiid will play 62 games, and instead of being replaced with a center like KAT or Gobert, an actual star level player can take his spot.
It's pretty high for All-NBA I think. For MVP, etc. it makes sense, but this is the list of guys who would be ineligible for All-NBA this year:
Lillard, Booker, Durant, LeBron, Curry, Morant, Kyrie, Davis, George, and more.

At a certain point basically any 2 week injury knocks you out of All-NBA consideration, and the teams aren't representative of who the best players in the league were that year.
I don't think guys missing All-NBA because they played 63 and sprained an ankle is a good strategy, particularly when salaries are tied to spots on the team. Deserving guys will miss, and undeserving guys will be eligible for mega contracts, all because a couple guys got hurt.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,706
Imaginationland
It's pretty high for All-NBA I think. For MVP, etc. it makes sense, but this is the list of guys who would be ineligible for All-NBA this year:
Lillard, Booker, Durant, LeBron, Curry, Morant, Kyrie, Davis, George, and more.

At a certain point basically any 2 week injury knocks you out of All-NBA consideration, and the teams aren't representative of who the best players in the league were that year.
I don't think guys missing All-NBA because they played 63 and sprained an ankle is a good strategy, particularly when salaries are tied to spots on the team. Deserving guys will miss, and undeserving guys will be eligible for mega contracts, all because a couple guys got hurt.
That's just not the case. Players will need to miss 18+ games in order to not qualify for these honors, which is far more than a 2 week injury (it takes about 5 weeks to play 18 games). If it was that big of a deal, why (before the age of load management) would it have impacted so few? I wrote above that it was just 5 guys in a 30 year stretch from 1984-2013 who would have been eliminated from 1st or 2nd team. That's 300 players who were voted to an all-NBA team, 1.7% of whom wouldn't qualify under the new minimum. Star players missing this much time is a VERY new problem, I'm 100% in favor of the league taking a crack at fixing it in this manner.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
21,629
It's pretty high for All-NBA I think. For MVP, etc. it makes sense, but this is the list of guys who would be ineligible for All-NBA this year:
Lillard, Booker, Durant, LeBron, Curry, Morant, Kyrie, Davis, George, and more.

At a certain point basically any 2 week injury knocks you out of All-NBA consideration, and the teams aren't representative of who the best players in the league were that year.
I don't think guys missing All-NBA because they played 63 and sprained an ankle is a good strategy, particularly when salaries are tied to spots on the team. Deserving guys will miss, and undeserving guys will be eligible for mega contracts, all because a couple guys got hurt.
I don't have a good answer for your broader point, but LeBron and KD are both on pace to play in the low-50's this season (I think KD is at 44 and LeBron at 50 right now). Maybe 65 is too high of a cutoff, but giving them All NBA slots with that number of games played feels almost more like a career achievement award?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,520
As a side note, the new "totally not a hard cap, but really a hard cap" is terrible for the Celtics looking at it selfishly. If it had been in place last year they couldn't have added Brogdon. And it will make it very difficult to add anyone going forward. Wouldn't be surprised if this is a factor in them deciding to let Grant walk. Real teeth in terms of transactions from the new rules.
 

Smokey Joe

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2001
1,229
One of the difficulties of voting for all NBA now is that it can have a direct effect on players salaries. Zach Lowe has been complaining about this on his podcast because the votes are public. He does not want to be in the position of contributing to a decision that may cost a player millions of dollars. There is also a subtext to this that this might also effect a writers access to star players based on their vote.
To me, anything that provides them cover so they can say to LeBron “Oh I would of voted for you but the league tied my hands” is a good thing.

BTW, any player who “plays” in games for a few minutes in a transparent attempt to become eligible for post season awards risks getting so much ridicule from other players that it becomes a deterrent. Can you imagine what Pat Beverly would do with that?
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,706
Imaginationland
One of the difficulties of voting for all NBA now is that it can have a direct effect on players salaries. Zach Lowe has been complaining about this on his podcast because the votes are public. He does not want to be in the position of contributing to a decision that may cost a player millions of dollars. There is also a subtext to this that this might also effect a writers access to star players based on their vote.
To me, anything that provides them cover so they can say to LeBron “Oh I would of voted for you but the league tied my hands” is a good thing.

BTW, any player who “plays” in games for a few minutes in a transparent attempt to become eligible for post season awards risks getting so much ridicule from other players that it becomes a deterrent. Can you imagine what Pat Beverly would do with that?
Exactly. This isn't the same thing as a player checking in for a few minutes to fill a contract incentive (which is noted humorously for a minute, then everyone moves on because it's a minor thing that only hurts their own team). If a player did this for multiple games, in a blatant attempt to take a spot (and potentially millions of dollars, and the honor of a postseason award) away from someone else, I don't think the media or opposing players would take it very well.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,394
The inseason tournament is a great opportunity for title contenders to rest their players.
They will count towards regular season records. Players will have exactly the same incentive to rest those games as every other regular season game.

In addition, the two teams that play in the final will have an 83rd game in the regular season. Imagine the #1 and #2 seed in a conference being decided by 1/2 a game.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,567
I’m surprised the players agreed but I certainly understand the NBA perspective. It sucks for fans to spend hundreds of dollars on tickets and have guys take the night off They can’t make guys stop taking games off and this was one of the few tools they have to try and lessen the issue.
I can't imagine it making much of a difference, if any at all.

The load management guys are mostly, maybe all?, players that already have ten years of experience and are already qualified for any salary bump all-NBA would get them. So they'd have to play more games just to be named all-NBA, but get no monetary benefit from it?

I'd be surprised if any of those dudes would give up the rest during the regular season just to get to 65 games.

Right now, Milwaukee has 5 games left and Giannis has played 61 games. Everyone has him as first team all-NBA and a top 3 MVP candidate. If Milwaukee locks up the #1 seed early, it would make sense for Milwaukee to sit Giannis in their second game of their back-to-back, and their last game of the season leaving him at 64 games. Would it make any sense at all to not put him on all-NBA?

It's crazy to me.
 
Last edited:

Tudor Fever

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2004
3,713
Maine
In addition, the two teams that play in the final will have an 83rd game in the regular season. Imagine the #1 and #2 seed in a conference being decided by 1/2 a game.
Accroding to the ESPN summary, the 83rd game doesn’t count in the standings. The winning team gets prize money.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,520
Ah. As more details come out, an answer to @Cellar-Door's question about why the players agreed to this may become clearer.
yep that's a big incentive, particularly the gaming companies.

Edit- also just saw that non-max rookie extensions can be 5 years now too, that never really made sense that only max guys could get 5 years.
 
Last edited:

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,962
Santa Monica
Exactly. This isn't the same thing as a player checking in for a few minutes to fill a contract incentive (which is noted humorously for a minute, then everyone moves on because it's a minor thing that only hurts their own team). If a player did this for multiple games, in a blatant attempt to take a spot (and potentially millions of dollars, and the honor of a postseason award) away from someone else, I don't think the media or opposing players would take it very well.
FWIW. The quick check-in/check-out to run up games played would also hurt their PPG and other counting stats
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,706
Imaginationland
I can't imagine it making much of a difference, if any at all.

The load management guys are mostly, maybe all?, players that already have ten years of experience and are already qualified for any salary bump all-NBA would get them. So they'd have to play more games just to be named all-NBA, but get no monetary benefit from it?

I'd be surprised if any of those dudes would give up the rest during the regular season just to get to 65 games.

Right now, Milwaukee has 5 games left and Giannis has played 61 games. Everyone has him as first team all-NBA and a top 3 MVP candidate. If Milwaukee locks up the #1 seed early, it would make sense for Milwaukee to sit Giannis in their second game of their back-to-back, and their last game of the season leaving him at 64 games. Would it make any sense at all to not put him on all-NBA?

It's crazy to me.
It's not just the money, these guys like the status of being all-NBA. Three things that I'm confident of, to varying degrees:

1. Giannis will make all-NBA again this year, regardless of how many games he plays. It's no use getting fired up over a situation that, even if we apply the minimum games rule retroactively over NBA history, rarely happens. If this rule had been applied during the last CBA in December 2016, absolutely no one would be worried about the situation you're describing above.

2. Giannis (and other healthy stars in their prime) will make a greater effort going forward to hit that 65 game minimum for EOY honors (and barring serious injury they'll make it easily, as NBA players have done for generations before the last few seasons). These things matter more to some players than others (obviously younger guys want that super max eligibility, and players a few years older are looking for the recognition that comes along with winning MVP or 1st team all-NBA), but with a handful of exceptions, I think it's just gonna be the older guys who have already made their names, money and legacy in this league who won't attempt to hit this threshold. Lebron, Durant, Curry, and the handful of guys still in their primes who are legitimately injury prone (Kawhi, AD) are going to be the only ones who are likely to completely ignore this.

3. It's better for the game for the regular season to have star players playing more often. MAYBE it leads to more injuries down the line, but the last few seasons still feel like that standard war of attrition that the playoffs always end up being.

How is the investing thing not illegal? Conflict of interest hello?
I'm very curious about the mechanics of this. Investing in teams is fine (I don't see that being any different than employees owning stock in their own company or a competitor. This is highly regulated and scrutinized, but very legal), but investing in sports betting seems like the kind of things that all sports (including the NBA) have been pushing their players away from forever, even as sports betting becomes more and more entwined with individual leagues and telecasts.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,539
I can't imagine it making much of a difference, if any at all.

The load management guys are mostly, maybe all?, players that already have ten years of experience and are already qualified for any salary bump all-NBA would get them. So they'd have to play more games just to be named all-NBA, but get no monetary benefit from it?

I'd be surprised if any of those dudes would give up the rest during the regular season just to get to 65 games.

Right now, Milwaukee has 5 games left and Giannis has played 61 games. Everyone has him as first team all-NBA and a top 3 MVP candidate. If Milwaukee locks up the #1 seed early, it would make sense for Milwaukee to sit Giannis in their second game of their back-to-back, and their last game of the season leaving him at 64 games. Would it make any sense at all to not put him on all-NBA?

It's crazy to me.
Yes, the best thing about the new All-NBA voting rules is that it opens up slots for the younger stars who are much more likely to hit the threshold. I don't really care if veterans having a great season playing 60% of their team's games miss out on All-NBA.

As an example, Tatum played in 64 of the Celtics' 72 games in 2020-21, the equivalent of 72 games over an 82 game season. LeBron James (45 GP, or 51 equivalent games) would not have taken a slot, and Tatum would have gotten paid. LeBron would have lost $0 missing out on All-NBA honors that season.