Wow! Former league MVP Rose played for the Knicks last season for $21.32M. He just signed a veterans minimum salary of $2.1 million with the Cavs.

His agent is BJ Armstrong. Who else thinks he's telling his client, "Yo, drop the salary and try and grab a ring. The aura of that winning 'legacy' will carry you further in life than one year of salary loss!"

This is exactly what I said would happen more and more, (endorsements income exceeding marginal salary loss) and threatens to blow up the league's wish for parity thru strict salary cap rules.

Now Lebron can trade Kyrie for whatever other piece he thinks the Cavs need. Maybe he should trade Love, too.

Could be an exciting 2018 rematch finals battle after all!

Derrick Rose is no Kyrie Irving.

GB54;842855813 said:

---

Derrick Rose is no Kyrie Irving.

---

That may be true, but with the $$ the Cavs save ($18.9M vs. $2.1M next year), they can probably pull in another better than decent star to bolster their roster.

85Bear;842855834 said:

---

That may be true, but with the $$ the Cavs save ($18.9M vs. $2.1M next year), they can probably pull in another better than decent star to bolster their roster.

---

They are so far over the cap/luxury tax, and they're already at 15 players. Looks like they have a 2.5M exception left, if they wanted to cut someone. But they're not getting a better than decent star at that amount.

http://www.spotrac.com/nba/cleveland-cavaliers/cap/

grandmastapoop;842855846 said:

---

They are so far over the cap/luxury tax, and they're already at 15 players. Looks like they have a 2.5M exception left, if they wanted to cut someone. But they're not getting a better than decent star at that amount.

http://www.spotrac.com/nba/cleveland-cavaliers/cap/

---

Rose's role will take spot of Deron Williams.... backup PG minutes... Luckily for Rose, he signed his sweetheart shoe contract with Adidas before he got hurt....and has not been able to get near his MVP skill level since then..

Good move for Rose to get back in spotlight... (did you ever watch JR Smith or Iman Shumpart when they were with Knicks??) and see if he can lock up better deal come 2018 summer.

goGSW
:gobears:

I'm thinking Kyrie to the Suns for a package including Bledsoe. Players just drafted can't get traded until December 15 so Kyrie may have to stick around in Cleveland for awhile.

grandmastapoop;842855846 said:

---

They are so far over the cap/luxury tax, and they're already at 15 players. Looks like they have a 2.5M exception left, if they wanted to cut someone. But they're not getting a better than decent star at that amount.

http://www.spotrac.com/nba/cleveland-cavaliers/cap/

---

I'm totally uneducated on the intricacies of the NBA salary rules so I stand corrected. I guess the Cavs mgmt can save the $$ for future moves then.

gobears;842855877 said:

---

Rose's role will take spot of Deron Williams.... backup PG minutes... Luckily for Rose, he signed his sweetheart shoe contract with Adidas before he got hurt....and has not been able to get near his MVP skill level since then..

Good move for Rose to get back in spotlight... (did you ever watch JR Smith or Iman Shumpart when they were with Knicks??) and see if he can lock up better deal come 2018 summer.

goGSW
:gobears:

---

Uh, wouldn't Rose be the starting PG after Cavs trade Kyrie for someone else?
What positions do they need upgrades to, in order to bear the W's?
Who can the Cavs realistically get in return?

If Cavs trade Irving, they must take back equal salary per NBA trade guidelines. They won't be banking anything, reducing luxury cap exposure, etc. with this. The reasons the timing is so poor for Cleveland:

1. Trade for Irving must be roughly equal from a salary perspective. With all teams close to complete for this upcoming season, a sign and trade contingency can't be used.
2. None of the free agents already signed this offseason can be included in a trade until December. This takes Minnesota out of the running for example (after signing Jeff Teague to play point guard a few weeks ago) unless they choose to have/pay 2 starting point guards.
3. Cavs need to take back roughly $19 million in salary, and optimally have their point guard of the future included.

85Bear;842855834 said:

---

That may be true, but with the $$ the Cavs save ($18.9M vs. $2.1M next year), they can probably pull in another better than decent star to bolster their roster.

---

CatFan;842855968 said:

---

If Cavs trade Irving, they must take back equal salary per NBA trade guidelines. They won't be banking anything, reducing luxury cap exposure, etc. with this. The reasons the timing is so poor for Cleveland:

1. Trade for Irving must be roughly equal from a salary perspective. With all teams close to complete for this upcoming season, a sign and trade contingency can't be used.
2. None of the free agents already signed this offseason can be included in a trade until December. This takes Minnesota out of the running for example (after signing Jeff Teague to play point guard a few weeks ago) unless they choose to have/pay 2 starting point guards.
3. Cavs need to take back roughly $19 million in salary, and optimally have their point guard of the future included.

---

Exactly.

If Irving is traded, the Cavs have almost zero chance. There's no one on the trade market good enough to make the Cavs competitive (against the dubs) without Irving.

If Irving stays, Rose will add much needed depth that the Cavs sorely lacked against the Dubs last year.

Regardless, the writing is on the wall. This is the last gasp for the Cavs and if they don't win next year, they'll probably have to wait another 100 years for their next title.

Some ESPN guy tweeted that the Suns would consider dealing Bledsoe, Josh Jackson, and some picks to Cleveland for Kyrie. That obviously couldn't happen immediately, since Jackson was just drafted, but the Cavs would have to consider this, if true. It's likely the best deal they could get. Would it be enough to get past the Dubs? Probably not until Jackson got more seasoning, which would mean Lebron would have to stay beyond this season.

Lol all to try and beat the Warriors

When will the League write rules disallowing stars accepting far below market salaries designed to create SuperTeams?

Why should it?

south bender;842856457 said:

---

Why should it?

---

When guys can make as much money thru projected lifetime endorsements as they can thru salary...
What if you could elevate your current and future endorsement earning by taking a paycut to go to a winner?
You could either toil away in loser-franchise, collect your full due, or take something less but with a chance to elevate your name brand.
Hmmm

The league has policies in place to create parity.

If rose plays more than 40 games I'll be floored he can't shoot a lick and his explosiveness has all but gone. They are gonna need a lot of help getting past Boston.

tim94501;842856493 said:

---

If rose plays more than 40 games I'll be floored he can't shoot a lick and his explosiveness has all but gone. They are gonna need a lot of help getting past Boston.

---

Yep, and he's an awful match up when going against the warriors. The Dubs have trouble against smaller, quicker guys who force their defenders to guard out to the perimeter, like Lillard/Irving, cause Klay has a little more trouble with those guys.

Klay will have no trouble defending a hobbled Rose. In fact, you may be able to get away with putting Curry on Rose.

concordtom;842856409 said:

---

When will the League write rules disallowing stars accepting far below market salaries designed to create SuperTeams?

---

And how exactly would that be enforced? If you make an All-Star team, your salary needs to be a certain amount? LOL. Yeah, good luck with that. That will be the rare instance when both ownership and the players union will be against such a rule.

Parity sucks. People want to watch great teams.

GB54;842856541 said:

---

Parity sucks. People want to watch great teams.

---

Sure, but right now I bet there are 28 pissed of owners who'd like to sell more season tickets

concordtom;842856835 said:

---

Sure, but right now I bet there are 28 pissed of owners who'd like to sell more season tickets

---

The playoffs remain motivation enough as does the health of the league and its stars. Plus everyone knows that dynasties these days are a 3-5 year window not a ten year

GB54;842856541 said:

---

Parity sucks. People want to watch great teams.

---

Also, please tell me when in NBA history the league has NOT been dominated by 1 or 2 superteams? When the Lakers won all the time? Or when the Bulls won all the time? Or when the Celtics won all the time?

sycasey;842856895 said:

---

Also, please tell me when in NBA history the league has NOT been dominated by 1 or 2 superteams? When the Lakers won all the time? Or when the Bulls won all the time? Or when the Celtics won all the time?

---

From 2002 until about 2015, the league had pretty good parity. Especially the stretch from about 2002-2011, when the Lakers, Kings, Spurs, Mavs, Pistons, Heat, Magic, Suns, and Celtics all either won a title, made the Finals, or had legitimate shots to do so. In many of those years, the playoffs felt like a true crapshoot.

grandmastapoop;842856910 said:

---

In many of those years, the playoffs felt like a true crapshoot.

---

:rollinglaugh:

Of all the professional American sports leagues, basketball is far and away (with no close 2nd) the least of a crapshoot in the playoffs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NBA_champions

Note the number of times that the conference's first or second seed was in the Finals.

If you want a real crapshoot playoff league, try hockey.

BearNecessities;842856918 said:

---

:rollinglaugh:

Of all the professional American sports leagues, basketball is far and away (with no close 2nd) the least of a crapshoot in the playoffs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NBA_champions

Note the number of times that the conference's first or second seed was in the Finals.

If you want a real crapshoot playoff league, try hockey.

---

Yeah, thanks for the confirming link, though it's unclear why you're laughing. From 2003 to 2007, one single 1-seed made the Finals. From 2008 to 2011, two 3-seeds and a 4-seed made the Finals. Moreover, I said they "felt" like a crapshoot. It wasn't like the last few years where the Finals matchups seemed written in stone. The teams varied widely over that time - 9 different teams made the Finals from 2003 to 2011. The context of my statement was in response to a question about when the NBA wasn't dominated by 1 or 2 super teams. You removed it from that context; how it compares to hockey is irrelevant.

grandmastapoop;842856972 said:

---

Yeah, thanks for the confirming link, though it's unclear why you're laughing.

---

Because you weren't even close to being right.

Quote:

---

The context of my statement was in response to a question about when the NBA wasn't dominated by 1 or 2 super teams. You removed it from that context; how it compares to hockey is irrelevant.

---

Because I wasn't disagreeing with that part, just the ludicrous notion that the NBA playoffs ever felt like a crapshoot.

BTW, I admire how you contorted everything so you could find a way to include the Kings in your list of teams.

BearNecessities;842856978 said:

---

Because you weren't even close to being right.



Because I wasn't disagreeing with that part, just the ludicrous notion that the NBA playoffs ever felt like a crapshoot.

BTW, I admire how you contorted everything so you could find a way to include the Kings in your list of teams.

---

-I was right, as I pointed out. Your link confirmed my feeling.

Again, you took my statement out of context. The NBA playoffs DID feel like a crapshoot. For example, in 2003, the Lakers/Kings/Spurs/Mavs all were serious contenders to come out of the West. It's not very often that the 2nd round of the playoffs has so many contenders.

-Yes, the Kings. They were arguably the best team in 2002 and they were the trendy pick in 2003 before Webber got hurt. Even though he was hurt early in Game 2 (I believe) of their series against the Mavs, the Kings took the Mavs to 7 games. The Mavs lost in the West Finals to eventual champion Spurs.

-I don't really know who you are, but I must have offended you at some point in the past because this is twice in the last month or so you've unnecessarily been a prick when you could just have a discussion. If so, I apologize. Or perhaps that's just who you are - which is fine. I just want to know if I offended you or not.

It's not exactly a 90% pay cut to join the Cavs. He was never going to get anything close to what his last contract paid, since that was an overpay to begin with and money for free agents dried up around the league this year. He's closer to a league minimum player than a $20M player at this point. He might have done better than this contract, money-wise, but I doubt he would have drawn any interest for more than a mid-level exception and maybe not even that. He's not a star. He's going to be a backup unless they don't get a starter PG back in an Irving trade. This deal means almost nothing in terms of league parity.

concordtom;842855795 said:

---

Wow! Former league MVP Rose played for the Knicks last season for $21.32M. He just signed a veterans minimum salary of $2.1 million with the Cavs.

His agent is BJ Armstrong. Who else thinks he's telling his client, "Yo, drop the salary and try and grab a ring. The aura of that winning 'legacy' will carry you further in life than one year of salary loss!"

This is exactly what I said would happen more and more, (endorsements income exceeding marginal salary loss) and threatens to blow up the league's wish for parity thru strict salary cap rules.

---

I think it's more like the Cavs really want Jackson included and the Suns would be stupid to do that. It would be a good return for the Cavs, since it helps in the future which they will need since Lebron is going to leave. They totally blew this offseason and alienated their best player. Not that it isn't partially his own fault, but he'll have better options after this year.

philbert;842856004 said:

---

Some ESPN guy tweeted that the Suns would consider dealing Bledsoe, Josh Jackson, and some picks to Cleveland for Kyrie. That obviously couldn't happen immediately, since Jackson was just drafted, but the Cavs would have to consider this, if true. It's likely the best deal they could get. Would it be enough to get past the Dubs? Probably not until Jackson got more seasoning, which would mean Lebron would have to stay beyond this season.

---

The idea is unworkable, it doesn't help the league, and I'm really confused about why you bring it up in a thread about Rose.

concordtom;842856491 said:

---

When guys can make as much money thru projected lifetime endorsements as they can thru salary...
What if you could elevate your current and future endorsement earning by taking a paycut to go to a winner?
You could either toil away in loser-franchise, collect your full due, or take something less but with a chance to elevate your name brand.
Hmmm

The league has policies in place to create parity.

---

What he posted was completely factual.

BearNecessities;842856978 said:

---

Because you weren't even close to being right.



Because I wasn't disagreeing with that part, just the ludicrous notion that the NBA playoffs ever felt like a crapshoot.

BTW, I admire how you contorted everything so you could find a way to include the Kings in your list of teams.

---

bluesaxe;842857137 said:

---

I think it's more like the Cavs really want Jackson included and the Suns would be stupid to do that. It would be a good return for the Cavs, since it helps in the future which they will need since Lebron is going to leave. They totally blew this offseason and alienated their best player. Not that it isn't partially his own fault, but he'll have better options after this year.

---

Yeah, the initial tweet was wrong. Suns aren't offering Jackson at this time.

bluesaxe;842857138 said:

---

The idea is unworkable, it doesn't help the league, and I'm really confused about why you bring it up in a thread about Rose.

---

Action: player A decides he faces two options:
1. Play for noncontender for $5M
2. Play for contender for $2M and collect avg of $100k in endorsementssannually for next 50 years, get invited to Chanpions events forevermore.
Which would you take?

Reaction: multiply this by many players making same decision, creating a handful of super teams.

Reaction: certain franchises become effectively permanently shut out of chance to be a contender. By league vote, owners choose to base salaries on some 'market demand' formula, rather than allow individual parties to negotiate their own deals.

That's what I was getting at. And Rise went from $20+M to $2M. Pretty severe.
Why did he do that?

concordtom;842857557 said:

---

Action: player A decides he faces two options:
1. Play for noncontender for $5M
2. Play for contender for $2M and collect avg of $100k in endorsementssannually for next 50 years, get invited to Chanpions events forevermore.
Which would you take?

Reaction: multiply this by many players making same decision, creating a handful of super teams.

Reaction: certain franchises become effectively permanently shut out of chance to be a contender. By league vote, owners choose to base salaries on some 'market demand' formula, rather than allow individual parties to negotiate their own deals.

That's what I was getting at. And Rise went from $20+M to $2M. Pretty severe.
Why did he do that?

---

I do not buy the 50 years/100k annuity for being on part of a championship team. (role players) With that said, David West opted out of his Pacers contract to go sign with Spurs to try to make serious run for his ring. (1.5 m vs 12 m) At time of move, he had already has over 85 m of career salaries. You really think David West is getting 100k in sponsorship 40 years from now? Yes, he will get more personal satisfaction as he reflects back on his career with his ring (or rings). West, felt he had set enough aside not to worry about earning an incremental 10 m when he did decide to opt out of his contract.

Some states do not have income tax, do those team have salary cap adder to take that into consideration? Some cities have higher living costs, does that go into the cap calculation. One can keep adding rules/regulations to the salary cap to take all variables into consideration so it looks like the IRS tax code.

Not going to worry about fact KD took less than market to re-sign with GSW. Just going to enjoy the upcoming season and the team GSW puts on the court in their quest to repeat and run for 3 out of 4.

:gobears: