Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 38

Thread: OMG: Derrick Rose 90% paycut to join Lebron's superteam

  1. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by south bender View Post
    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.

  2. #17
    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.

  3. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by tim94501 View Post
    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.

  4. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by concordtom View Post
    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.

  5. #20
    Parity sucks. People want to watch great teams.

  6. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by GB54 View Post
    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

  7. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by concordtom View Post
    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

  8. #23
    True Blue Golden Bear sycasey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Oakland
    Posts
    15,752
    Quote Originally Posted by GB54 View Post
    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?

  9. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by sycasey View Post
    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.

  10. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by grandmastapoop View Post
    In many of those years, the playoffs felt like a true crapshoot.


    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.

  11. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by BearNecessities View Post


    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.
    Last edited by grandmastapoop; 07-28-2017 at 03:58 PM.

  12. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by grandmastapoop View Post
    Yeah, thanks for the confirming link, though it's unclear why you're laughing.
    Because you weren't even close to being right.

    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.

  13. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by BearNecessities View Post
    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.
    Last edited by grandmastapoop; 07-28-2017 at 04:12 PM.

  14. #29
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by concordtom View Post
    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.

  15. #30
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by philbert View Post
    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.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •