| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jonnybravo
Retired Number
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 30679
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lowest Merion wrote: | | Yep. The Spurs certainly know what they're doing. Is there a better front court than Duncan, LMA, and Leonard? I can't think of one better. |
Those are All-NBA guys. You'd have to go really, really far back to find one that matches it. TD still put up 14/9 and 2 blocks last year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
K28
Franchise Player
Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 10038
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Is Duncan going to sign for the vet min? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jonnybravo
Retired Number
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 30679
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kray28_ wrote: | | Is Duncan going to sign for the vet min? |
$5M a year. Two years, second year is player option.
They have their whole roster and LMA locked up. Wonder if Holt will reward Duncan after this year. He should imo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hawkins
Star Player
Joined: 14 May 2003
Posts: 1171
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jonnybravo wrote: | | kray28_ wrote: | | Is Duncan going to sign for the vet min? |
$5M a year. Two years, second year is player option.
They have their whole roster and LMA locked up. Wonder if Holt will reward Duncan after this year. He should imo. |
I have no doubt that an ownership percentage has been waiting for Tim by some means by Holt/PATFO whenever Tim hangs it up. DROB Got one. Tim and the Admiral at the games at times will probably put more fans in the stands than the team for decades to come. They crap gold bars in SA and will forever. Tim is the Spurs, they'd put his statue at the Alamo if he wanted (he wouldn't) don't worry about Tim Duncan except when he might retire as he's still exceptionally competitive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LHQ
Starting Rotation
Joined: 26 Jun 2005
Posts: 611
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Spurs bench could make the playoffs in the East.
_________________
Hymn for the Red October
-Hans Zimmer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HAWAIIGUY27
Star Player
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 2338
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In the Kobe vs. Duncan debate, how about the argument that Kobe didn't have to "sacrifice" or give up any part of his financial livelihood in order to get his 5 rings? Sure it seems respectable that Duncan has been taking less money than he could have for years in order to build and maintain competitive rosters, but in the game of "what ifs", Kobe could have done the same thing and could've arguably won 2-3 more championships. It's almost a testament to Kobe's greatness that he has won 5 in light of the fact that he's had to do it with arguably less talented rosters (or at least less higher paid players) overall than Duncan did.
_________________
In Rob I trust. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Telleris
Star Player
Joined: 28 May 2013
Posts: 2371
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HAWAIIGUY27 wrote: | | In the Kobe vs. Duncan debate, how about the argument that Kobe didn't have to "sacrifice" or give up any part of his financial livelihood in order to get his 5 rings? Sure it seems respectable that Duncan has been taking less money than he could have for years in order to build and maintain competitive rosters, but in the game of "what ifs", Kobe could have done the same thing and could've arguably won 2-3 more championships. It's almost a testament to Kobe's greatness that he has won 5 in light of the fact that he's had to do it with arguably less talented rosters (or at least less higher paid players) overall than Duncan did. |
For the majority of their careers, the cba was such that being $5 over the cap was the same as being $40m over the cap from a roster standpoint, the only issue was cost related. And there's no doubt the lakers had a lot more money to play with, the Spurs owner isn't even as wealthy as several nba players. Those last 2 championships, even if Kobe was paid $1 a year, it would have been a more expensive roster than the Spurs were while paying Duncan $15m or so at the time.
It's only really this last cba where discounts have made a profound effect as the cba was basically designed so that teams in the luxury tax aren't really able to improve their rosters faster than attrition will hurt them.
_________________
I believe everything the media tells me except for anything for which I have direct personal knowledge, which they always get wrong |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wolfpaclaker
Retired Number
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 58336
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HAWAIIGUY27 wrote: | | In the Kobe vs. Duncan debate, how about the argument that Kobe didn't have to "sacrifice" or give up any part of his financial livelihood in order to get his 5 rings? Sure it seems respectable that Duncan has been taking less money than he could have for years in order to build and maintain competitive rosters, but in the game of "what ifs", Kobe could have done the same thing and could've arguably won 2-3 more championships. It's almost a testament to Kobe's greatness that he has won 5 in light of the fact that he's had to do it with arguably less talented rosters (or at least less higher paid players) overall than Duncan did. |
Kobe didn't play with less talent. He had just as much. The difference is ownership. Dr Buss paid the steep lux tax bills of the Bynum/Gasol/Odom/Ariza or Artest Lakers that helped Kobe win rings making max money. The Spurs ownership hasn't been as generous.
In a way you can say that's just the perk of being the man in LA.
The argument for Kobe is that for his 5 rings, he was a more dominant player in at least 2 of them than Duncan was in his 5. That's where Kobe's argument is strongest IMO. He was the league's best or 2nd best player in at least 4/5 championships, and top 5 in all 5. Duncan was the same in about 3 championships, but his last 2 he's been top 10, and top 20-30 caliber. This is where I think Kobe's strongest argument would be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HAWAIIGUY27 wrote: | | In the Kobe vs. Duncan debate, how about the argument that Kobe didn't have to "sacrifice" or give up any part of his financial livelihood in order to get his 5 rings? Sure it seems respectable that Duncan has been taking less money than he could have for years in order to build and maintain competitive rosters, but in the game of "what ifs", Kobe could have done the same thing and could've arguably won 2-3 more championships. It's almost a testament to Kobe's greatness that he has won 5 in light of the fact that he's had to do it with arguably less talented rosters (or at least less higher paid players) overall than Duncan did. |
I think what has happened to Duncan and Dirk should be a clear reminder to players that they should never sacrifice their own earning potential for an owner. It doesn't anything about them on the court or their career histories though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jonnybravo wrote: | | Lowest Merion wrote: | | Yep. The Spurs certainly know what they're doing. Is there a better front court than Duncan, LMA, and Leonard? I can't think of one better. |
Those are All-NBA guys. You'd have to go really, really far back to find one that matches it. TD still put up 14/9 and 2 blocks last year. |
And it was "only" 14/9/2 because he was saving himself for what really mattered -- the playoffs. That's where his minutes increased and he posted a very impressive 18/11 with 1.4 blocks per game. Granted, it was only one series, but this is Duncan's playoff MO for years now. 16/9 year before, 18/10 the year before that, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vanexelent wrote: | | HAWAIIGUY27 wrote: | | In the Kobe vs. Duncan debate, how about the argument that Kobe didn't have to "sacrifice" or give up any part of his financial livelihood in order to get his 5 rings? Sure it seems respectable that Duncan has been taking less money than he could have for years in order to build and maintain competitive rosters, but in the game of "what ifs", Kobe could have done the same thing and could've arguably won 2-3 more championships. It's almost a testament to Kobe's greatness that he has won 5 in light of the fact that he's had to do it with arguably less talented rosters (or at least less higher paid players) overall than Duncan did. |
I think what has happened to Duncan and Dirk should be a clear reminder to players that they should never sacrifice their own earning potential for an owner. It doesn't anything about them on the court or their career histories though. |
Except that's not really what happened. They didn't sacrifice their own earning potential for an owner.
They sacrificed their own earning potential to help put the team in a better position to improve the players around him. They wouldn't have done what they did in a no cap league. But the cap changes the game entirely.
It doesn't matter if the team owner is a multi-millionaire, a multi-billionaire, or a multi-trillionaire -- they cannot acquire free agents after X dollars have been allocated where X is equal to rostered player contracts. They took less not to hand it over to the owner, but to ensure the team stays below X.
Do you think the reason Karl Malone and Gary Payton came here on reduced contracts was to give Buss more money, or because the cap prevented the Lakers from signing free agents beyond the MLE/LLE exceptions that were available to them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | HAWAIIGUY27 wrote: | | In the Kobe vs. Duncan debate, how about the argument that Kobe didn't have to "sacrifice" or give up any part of his financial livelihood in order to get his 5 rings? Sure it seems respectable that Duncan has been taking less money than he could have for years in order to build and maintain competitive rosters, but in the game of "what ifs", Kobe could have done the same thing and could've arguably won 2-3 more championships. It's almost a testament to Kobe's greatness that he has won 5 in light of the fact that he's had to do it with arguably less talented rosters (or at least less higher paid players) overall than Duncan did. |
I think what has happened to Duncan and Dirk should be a clear reminder to players that they should never sacrifice their own earning potential for an owner. It doesn't anything about them on the court or their career histories though. |
Except that's not really what happened. They didn't sacrifice their own earning potential for an owner.
They sacrificed their own earning potential to help put the team in a better position to improve the players around him. They wouldn't have done what they did in a no cap league. But the cap changes the game entirely.
It doesn't matter if the team owner is a multi-millionaire, a multi-billionaire, or a multi-trillionaire -- they cannot acquire free agents after X dollars have been allocated where X is equal to rostered player contracts. They took less not to hand it over to the owner, but to ensure the team stays below X.
Do you think the reason Karl Malone and Gary Payton came here on reduced contracts was to give Buss more money, or because the cap prevented the Lakers from signing free agents beyond the MLE/LLE exceptions that were available to them? |
It's up to the owner and GM to build at competitive team. The burden should not be placed on the players to lower their earning potential in order for them to do so. I'm not saying the owners are lining their pockets with the savings.
There are no guarantees, as Payton and Malone found out. Duncan got swindled for $25 million, by some poor investing. You think he'd want that money he's given up back? Dirk took less for Cuban to build a contender around. Now he'll finish his career on a losing team. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
composite
Star Player
Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 3043
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vanexelent wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | HAWAIIGUY27 wrote: | | In the Kobe vs. Duncan debate, how about the argument that Kobe didn't have to "sacrifice" or give up any part of his financial livelihood in order to get his 5 rings? Sure it seems respectable that Duncan has been taking less money than he could have for years in order to build and maintain competitive rosters, but in the game of "what ifs", Kobe could have done the same thing and could've arguably won 2-3 more championships. It's almost a testament to Kobe's greatness that he has won 5 in light of the fact that he's had to do it with arguably less talented rosters (or at least less higher paid players) overall than Duncan did. |
I think what has happened to Duncan and Dirk should be a clear reminder to players that they should never sacrifice their own earning potential for an owner. It doesn't anything about them on the court or their career histories though. |
Except that's not really what happened. They didn't sacrifice their own earning potential for an owner.
They sacrificed their own earning potential to help put the team in a better position to improve the players around him. They wouldn't have done what they did in a no cap league. But the cap changes the game entirely.
It doesn't matter if the team owner is a multi-millionaire, a multi-billionaire, or a multi-trillionaire -- they cannot acquire free agents after X dollars have been allocated where X is equal to rostered player contracts. They took less not to hand it over to the owner, but to ensure the team stays below X.
Do you think the reason Karl Malone and Gary Payton came here on reduced contracts was to give Buss more money, or because the cap prevented the Lakers from signing free agents beyond the MLE/LLE exceptions that were available to them? |
It's up to the owner and GM to build at competitive team. The burden should not be placed on the players to lower their earning potential in order for them to do so. I'm not saying the owners are lining their pockets with the savings.
There are no guarantees, as Payton and Malone found out. Duncan got swindled for $25 million, by some poor investing. You think he'd want that money he's given up back? Dirk took less for Cuban to build a contender around. Now he'll finish his career on a losing team. |
I'm swimming in my crocodile tears for Dirk, Duncan, Payton and Malone and their forgone millions of dollars.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hawkins wrote: | | I have no doubt that an ownership percentage has been waiting for Tim by some means by Holt/PATFO whenever Tim hangs it up. DROB Got one. . |
They can't give him an ownership stake (that would be cap circumvention -- can't pay a player after he retires for what he did during his playing career). Most they could do is sell him an ownership stake at the going market rate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vanexelent wrote: | | It's up to the owner and GM to build at competitive team. The burden should not be placed on the players to lower their earning potential in order for them to do so. |
There is no burden on the players. It's very rare for a player to sacrifice money to allow his team more cap space to sign other players. And there is certainly no obligation for the player to do so.
But the reality in a cap system is if you take a lot of the pie, there is less pie for others. And that means people will go sit at other tables to eat.
Duncan simply made a decision to have less pie, because he wanted a better team around him to try to get another ring. That wasn't a burden: He was acting in his own self-interest. His self-interest was about increasing his chances to get another ring, rather than to add more money to his bank account.
| vanexelent wrote: | | There are no guarantees, as Payton and Malone found out. Duncan got swindled for $25 million, by some poor investing. You think he'd want that money he's given up back? Dirk took less for Cuban to build a contender around. Now he'll finish his career on a losing team. |
Everyone knows there are no guarantees. That's why most players take the money. Dirk and Duncan have each grossed about $250 million in salary alone in their careers, so they opted to take something else. Again, they didnt go it for the owners; they did it for themselves |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hawkins
Star Player
Joined: 14 May 2003
Posts: 1171
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | Hawkins wrote: | | I have no doubt that an ownership percentage has been waiting for Tim by some means by Holt/PATFO whenever Tim hangs it up. DROB Got one. . |
They can't give him an ownership stake (that would be cap circumvention -- can't pay a player after he retires for what he did during his playing career). Most they could do is sell him an ownership stake at the going market rate. |
All true but after he retires I have no doubt Tim will be a percentage owner if he wants it and nobody is going to bat an eye about it. The means after retirement are beyond any CBA scrutiny IMO. (And proving cap circumvention is another matter) anymore than if Kobe got some ownership deal. Nobody is going to object at any level because of who they are and what they did to make the team as valuable as they are. It's a win-win for the NBA, the teams, the fans as they are living legends for a long time to come....well worth it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
