What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

*NBA THREAD* Abe will be missed (15 Viewers)

Summary of deal:https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B_JqVMjKAfLYNzU3YzVlNDAtMDBlOS00Y2UwLWE5ZTItM2RkZTdjN2FmMzI4
That looks pretty much exactly what was proposed about a month ago. Nice job players association.
Considering that the owners had threatened to cancel the season and/or reduce the offer (to 53-47), I'd say that the players association made some decent lemonade here.
Think the 6-year opt out is what put this over the top. If you can renegotiate in six years then missing a season's worth of pay was not going to happen.
 
The extend and trade and the use of the MLE for tax paying teams are also huge...basically the players saved the salary structure under a new hardish (in 2 years) cap. The previous owner offer basically was trying to save themselves from the MLE, so that is a pretty big point for the players.

 
I have a better understanding now. Hoping the Mavs can at least sign Chandler. If they can't sign him, they have no chance of a repeat. I'm just glad the season is starting.

 
So can you offer amnesty to just one player, or as many as you like? The Magic have a few guys they could clear off the books.

 
At first I thought that a shortened season would be a good thing for older teams like the Lakers. A smaller season should equal more rest for veterans, right?

But now I think its the opposite. The problem is that they will be condensing 66 games into a time frame that normally would have around 53 games. That means an additional game per week.

 
At first I thought that a shortened season would be a good thing for older teams like the Lakers. A smaller season should equal more rest for veterans, right?But now I think its the opposite. The problem is that they will be condensing 66 games into a time frame that normally would have around 53 games. That means an additional game per week.
If I'm a Lakers fan, this is probably the least of my worries. Shame it won't be as easy to just throw money at roster problems anymore.
 
Mavs have a good contract for amnesty in Haywood, but some believe they are going to wait a year or two before using it. Don't see the use in that, but I don't know how it all works either.

 
At first I thought that a shortened season would be a good thing for older teams like the Lakers. A smaller season should equal more rest for veterans, right?But now I think its the opposite. The problem is that they will be condensing 66 games into a time frame that normally would have around 53 games. That means an additional game per week.
If I'm a Lakers fan, this is probably the least of my worries. Shame it won't be as easy to just throw money at roster problems anymore.
More money to spend on defense lawyers for the rape trials.
 
How does amnesty work, if say Nets use it on Outlaw which they will, does he get any of the remaining money and it just not count against nets cap or he gets nothing and is a fa

 
Here's Bill Simmons's amnesty article from a few months ago. I'm not sure it works like he proposes, but this might give you some idea of who teams should/will get rid of.

 
I believe the amnesty just means the contract doesn't count against the cap and you cut the guy. I could very well be wrong. I haven't spent enough time looking at it yet.

 
Is there an amnesty clause for sure? Haven't read anything yet about the amnesty clause since the handshake agreement.

 
From his Twitter:

Leandrinho Barbosa: Dude, I received the news from my wife. I was sleeping and she was in the hairdresser. She called me and woke me up already crying. It was shocking. We weren't waiting for it. We were planning a big Christmas with our family and I dont think it'll happen anymore. Still not oficial, but it's unfortunate.

 
'Good said:
'timschochet said:
At first I thought that a shortened season would be a good thing for older teams like the Lakers. A smaller season should equal more rest for veterans, right?But now I think its the opposite. The problem is that they will be condensing 66 games into a time frame that normally would have around 53 games. That means an additional game per week.
If I'm a Lakers fan, this is probably the least of my worries. Shame it won't be as easy to just throw money at roster problems anymore.
Oh, I'm quite confident we'll find a way. The system might change, but everyone still wants to play for the Lakers (and that includes every player on whatever team you root for.)10 years from now you Laker haters will still be complaining that they get all the breaks, and we Laker fans will be celebrating at least a few more championships...
 
'Good said:
'timschochet said:
At first I thought that a shortened season would be a good thing for older teams like the Lakers. A smaller season should equal more rest for veterans, right?But now I think its the opposite. The problem is that they will be condensing 66 games into a time frame that normally would have around 53 games. That means an additional game per week.
If I'm a Lakers fan, this is probably the least of my worries. Shame it won't be as easy to just throw money at roster problems anymore.
Oh, I'm quite confident we'll find a way. The system might change, but everyone still wants to play for the Lakers (and that includes every player on whatever team you root for.)10 years from now you Laker haters will still be complaining that they get all the breaks, and we Laker fans will be celebrating at least a few more championships...
UCLA got raped 50-0 last night.
 
Every team will have one to three "back to back to back" games? Talk about squeezing these suckers in. Potential gamblers dream season.

 
'Good said:
'timschochet said:
At first I thought that a shortened season would be a good thing for older teams like the Lakers. A smaller season should equal more rest for veterans, right?But now I think its the opposite. The problem is that they will be condensing 66 games into a time frame that normally would have around 53 games. That means an additional game per week.
If I'm a Lakers fan, this is probably the least of my worries. Shame it won't be as easy to just throw money at roster problems anymore.
Oh, I'm quite confident we'll find a way. The system might change, but everyone still wants to play for the Lakers (and that includes every player on whatever team you root for.)10 years from now you Laker haters will still be complaining that they get all the breaks, and we Laker fans will be celebrating at least a few more championships...
I'm sure they'll stumble across a couple here and there, but the days of reeling off 2-3 in a row are, it appears, over. Players care about money, first and foremost. Very few players are going to take even 20% less to play for LA.Oh, and Phil's gone.
 
'Good said:
'timschochet said:
At first I thought that a shortened season would be a good thing for older teams like the Lakers. A smaller season should equal more rest for veterans, right?But now I think its the opposite. The problem is that they will be condensing 66 games into a time frame that normally would have around 53 games. That means an additional game per week.
If I'm a Lakers fan, this is probably the least of my worries. Shame it won't be as easy to just throw money at roster problems anymore.
Oh, I'm quite confident we'll find a way. The system might change, but everyone still wants to play for the Lakers (and that includes every player on whatever team you root for.)10 years from now you Laker haters will still be complaining that they get all the breaks, and we Laker fans will be celebrating at least a few more championships...
UCLA got raped 50-0 last night.
Really? I know nothing about that.
 
'Good said:
'timschochet said:
At first I thought that a shortened season would be a good thing for older teams like the Lakers. A smaller season should equal more rest for veterans, right?But now I think its the opposite. The problem is that they will be condensing 66 games into a time frame that normally would have around 53 games. That means an additional game per week.
If I'm a Lakers fan, this is probably the least of my worries. Shame it won't be as easy to just throw money at roster problems anymore.
Oh, I'm quite confident we'll find a way. The system might change, but everyone still wants to play for the Lakers (and that includes every player on whatever team you root for.)10 years from now you Laker haters will still be complaining that they get all the breaks, and we Laker fans will be celebrating at least a few more championships...
UCLA got raped 50-0 last night.
Really? I know nothing about that.
Plus their uniforms were ugly, their coach is about to get fired, you're probably the 9th best program in the 5th best conference and USC looks great again.
 
'Good said:
'timschochet said:
At first I thought that a shortened season would be a good thing for older teams like the Lakers. A smaller season should equal more rest for veterans, right?

But now I think its the opposite. The problem is that they will be condensing 66 games into a time frame that normally would have around 53 games. That means an additional game per week.
If I'm a Lakers fan, this is probably the least of my worries. Shame it won't be as easy to just throw money at roster problems anymore.
Oh, I'm quite confident we'll find a way. The system might change, but everyone still wants to play for the Lakers (and that includes every player on whatever team you root for.)10 years from now you Laker haters will still be complaining that they get all the breaks, and we Laker fans will be celebrating at least a few more championships...
UCLA got raped 50-0 last night.
Really? I know nothing about that.
Plus their uniforms were ugly, their coach is about to get fired, you're probably the 9th best program in the 5th best conference and USC looks great again.
They're going to find a way.
 
'Good said:
'timschochet said:
At first I thought that a shortened season would be a good thing for older teams like the Lakers. A smaller season should equal more rest for veterans, right?But now I think its the opposite. The problem is that they will be condensing 66 games into a time frame that normally would have around 53 games. That means an additional game per week.
If I'm a Lakers fan, this is probably the least of my worries. Shame it won't be as easy to just throw money at roster problems anymore.
Oh, I'm quite confident we'll find a way. The system might change, but everyone still wants to play for the Lakers (and that includes every player on whatever team you root for.)10 years from now you Laker haters will still be complaining that they get all the breaks, and we Laker fans will be celebrating at least a few more championships...
UCLA got raped 50-0 last night.
Really? I know nothing about that.
Plus their uniforms were ugly, their coach is about to get fired, you're probably the 9th best program in the 5th best conference and USC looks great again.
Yeah but we're divisional champions, and if we win on Friday we're headed to the Rose Bowl! :excited:
 
'Good said:
'timschochet said:
At first I thought that a shortened season would be a good thing for older teams like the Lakers. A smaller season should equal more rest for veterans, right?But now I think its the opposite. The problem is that they will be condensing 66 games into a time frame that normally would have around 53 games. That means an additional game per week.
If I'm a Lakers fan, this is probably the least of my worries. Shame it won't be as easy to just throw money at roster problems anymore.
Oh, I'm quite confident we'll find a way. The system might change, but everyone still wants to play for the Lakers (and that includes every player on whatever team you root for.)10 years from now you Laker haters will still be complaining that they get all the breaks, and we Laker fans will be celebrating at least a few more championships...
UCLA got raped 50-0 last night.
Really? I know nothing about that.
Plus their uniforms were ugly, their coach is about to get fired, you're probably the 9th best program in the 5th best conference and USC looks great again.
Yeah but we're divisional champions, and if we win on Friday we're headed to the Rose Bowl! :excited:
It'll be a victory for you guys if Oregon doesn't put 70 on you. It's possible.
 
'Good said:
'timschochet said:
At first I thought that a shortened season would be a good thing for older teams like the Lakers. A smaller season should equal more rest for veterans, right?But now I think its the opposite. The problem is that they will be condensing 66 games into a time frame that normally would have around 53 games. That means an additional game per week.
If I'm a Lakers fan, this is probably the least of my worries. Shame it won't be as easy to just throw money at roster problems anymore.
Oh, I'm quite confident we'll find a way. The system might change, but everyone still wants to play for the Lakers (and that includes every player on whatever team you root for.)10 years from now you Laker haters will still be complaining that they get all the breaks, and we Laker fans will be celebrating at least a few more championships...
UCLA got raped 50-0 last night.
Really? I know nothing about that.
Plus their uniforms were ugly, their coach is about to get fired, you're probably the 9th best program in the 5th best conference and USC looks great again.
Yeah but we're divisional champions, and if we win on Friday we're headed to the Rose Bowl! :excited:
It'll be a victory for you guys if Oregon doesn't put 70 on you. It's possible.
They only put up 66 last year. I think that we can hold them to 65 this time around. IF we play hard on defense...
 
So if you're the Lakers do you use the amnesty on Walton, World Peace, or Blake?
If Luke retires, I would use it on Artest, then go after Tayshaun Prince to play SF. I don't think it would be smart to use it on Blake, even though he was terrible last year, his contract isn't bad and I have hopes for him outside of the triangle.
 
So if you're the Lakers do you use the amnesty on Walton, World Peace, or Blake?
Walton. MWP and Blake are overpaid but they've still got something to offer. Walton is done as an NBA player.
I know Walton has talked about possibly retiring. Not sure how things will work under the new agreement, but maybe there is a possibility for a buyout of Walton before the season. He may be agreeable to something less than his full contract if he doesn't want to play anymore. I think the health is a huge concern for him and he'd consider a reduced sum. Especially after growing up watching the problems his dad had with the abuse he did to his body.Then they could use the exemption on MWP or Blake. In that case I would assume Blake would get cut. I think they can use the exepemtion again before next season on anyone that is under contract right now. MWP may get cut before next season.The one problem with them cutting these guys is they will have to fill that spot. It only makes sense to cut them if they can fill that spot with someone for the same $ or less. Spending more just rings up that luxury tax even more.
 
So if you're the Lakers do you use the amnesty on Walton, World Peace, or Blake?
Walton. MWP and Blake are overpaid but they've still got something to offer. Walton is done as an NBA player.
I know Walton has talked about possibly retiring. Not sure how things will work under the new agreement, but maybe there is a possibility for a buyout of Walton before the season. He may be agreeable to something less than his full contract if he doesn't want to play anymore. I think the health is a huge concern for him and he'd consider a reduced sum. Especially after growing up watching the problems his dad had with the abuse he did to his body.Then they could use the exemption on MWP or Blake. In that case I would assume Blake would get cut. I think they can use the exepemtion again before next season on anyone that is under contract right now. MWP may get cut before next season.The one problem with them cutting these guys is they will have to fill that spot. It only makes sense to cut them if they can fill that spot with someone for the same $ or less. Spending more just rings up that luxury tax even more.
I'd like to see what Ebanks could do at the 3. I don't imagine he'll be a plus offensively but I think he could really help out with D, quickness and hustle, which the Lakers badly need.
 
i'M GOING ON STRIKE THIS SEASON. NO NBA FOR ME.
I'm really interested to hear how fans are feeling about the lock-out, shortened season, etc. Are a lot of fans that were big supports of the NBA now disenfranchised? Are people planning on staying away and not watching on TV? Most people I talk to are happy they are getting underway and not all that concerned about the cancelled games. If fact I think most look at it as they wouldn't have been interested until Christmas anyway. Just wondering how people here feel / what they are hearing from others.
 
i'M GOING ON STRIKE THIS SEASON. NO NBA FOR ME.
I'm really interested to hear how fans are feeling about the lock-out, shortened season, etc. Are a lot of fans that were big supports of the NBA now disenfranchised? Are people planning on staying away and not watching on TV? Most people I talk to are happy they are getting underway and not all that concerned about the cancelled games. If fact I think most look at it as they wouldn't have been interested until Christmas anyway. Just wondering how people here feel / what they are hearing from others.
Keep in mind that Portland only has 1 major pro team (and no BCS conference school in town) but I get the feeling here people are just happy it is back and won't be too great of a % of people making an effort to ignore the NBA. Maybe because the Beavers and Ducks are not too interesting but I did not see a bump in interest in college ball during the lockout for those just wanting basketball. Personally I was hoping to see an extra couple games this year if the secondary market was down and having trouble to unload games but not sure that will happen here. Just not enough sports in town to be picky.
 
i'M GOING ON STRIKE THIS SEASON. NO NBA FOR ME.
I'm really interested to hear how fans are feeling about the lock-out, shortened season, etc. Are a lot of fans that were big supports of the NBA now disenfranchised? Are people planning on staying away and not watching on TV? Most people I talk to are happy they are getting underway and not all that concerned about the cancelled games. If fact I think most look at it as they wouldn't have been interested until Christmas anyway. Just wondering how people here feel / what they are hearing from others.
I guess I'm indifferent. The NBA is just a blip on my radar screen until the NFL ends - way too many games. I think a 50 game season would be far more interesting but of course that wouldn't be financially feasilbe.
 
i'M GOING ON STRIKE THIS SEASON. NO NBA FOR ME.
I'm really interested to hear how fans are feeling about the lock-out, shortened season, etc. Are a lot of fans that were big supports of the NBA now disenfranchised? Are people planning on staying away and not watching on TV? Most people I talk to are happy they are getting underway and not all that concerned about the cancelled games. If fact I think most look at it as they wouldn't have been interested until Christmas anyway. Just wondering how people here feel / what they are hearing from others.
It happens in every sport these days, just part of the business. I'll spend the same amount on the NBA this year as I did last year which is $0 (unless work happens to take me to a city with a team). I'd love to see a boycott of every teams first home game.
 
I'm really interested to hear how fans are feeling about the lock-out, shortened season, etc. Are a lot of fans that were big supports of the NBA now disenfranchised?
I miss Laker games being on for sure. I'd imagine serious NBA fans missed it, most everybody else probably wouldn't have noticed until the NFL playoffs got down to just a couple of games.Swearing off a sport because the people who play it want to haggle about how they divide up the money is dumb. It's not some grand moral issue. It's just entertainment.
 
Condensed FA-frenzy window, shortened season and more games per week. Can't wait.

Stopping a season midway through like MLB is cause for a major backlash. Starting the NBA season six weeks late is nothing.

 
'Cliff Clavin said:
'This_Guy said:
'Ballstein said:
i'M GOING ON STRIKE THIS SEASON. NO NBA FOR ME.
I'm really interested to hear how fans are feeling about the lock-out, shortened season, etc. Are a lot of fans that were big supports of the NBA now disenfranchised? Are people planning on staying away and not watching on TV? Most people I talk to are happy they are getting underway and not all that concerned about the cancelled games. If fact I think most look at it as they wouldn't have been interested until Christmas anyway. Just wondering how people here feel / what they are hearing from others.
It happens in every sport these days, just part of the business. I'll spend the same amount on the NBA this year as I did last year which is $0 (unless work happens to take me to a city with a team). I'd love to see a boycott of every teams first home game.
Me too - it would make it a hell of a lot easier to get Mavs tickets for opening night since I don't have season tickets anymore.
 
Condensed FA-frenzy window, shortened season and more games per week. Can't wait.Stopping a season midway through like MLB is cause for a major backlash. Starting the NBA season six weeks late is nothing.
agreed - I like the NBA and dont even start watching until X-mas....no foul here
 
From Millman's ESPN blog, he doesn't say where he lifted them from:

Odds to win 2012 NBA titleTeam OddsHeat 2-1Bulls 6-1Mavericks 7-1Thunder 7-1Lakers 7-1Celtics 10-1Spurs 20-1Magic 20-1Knicks 20-1Blazers 25-1Nuggets 30-1Grizzlies 30-1Hornets 40-1Hawks 50-1Clippers 50-176ers 60-1Nets 60-1Warriors 75-1Rockets 100-1Bucks 100-1Pacers 100-1Jazz 100-1Suns 100-1Kings 100-1Bobcats 100-1Wizards 100-1Cavaliers 100-1Pistons 200-1Raptors 200-1Wolves 200-1
Seems weird to me to have a 2-1 team and then a 6-1 team from the same conference, especially since there's still a smattering of Eastern teams in the 10-1 to 20-1 range. Thinking the value, if there is any, is in the West. Nuggets maybe? Grizzlies? Thunder as the primary beneficiaries if the condensed schedule takes a toll on the older teams (Lakers and Mavs)?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top