Trueblood

1. FLEX CAP or MID LEVEL EXCEPTION THRESHOLD The owners want to get rid of the mid level exception while the players not only want to keep it but add a 2nd one with more penalties heaped on teams that utilize a 2nd one. I’ve always maintained that I support the concept and existence of the MLE but that it had to be limited so that the big markets don’t take advantage of it and create a league where competitive balance and parity gets tossed to the side. With the luxury tax in place during the just expired collective bargaining agreement, my thinking was that if you limited the MLE to the teams whose payroll fell in the window of the soft cap of $58 million and the lux tax threshold of $70 million and disallowed it for big market teams who were already well above the threshold, you would have a league with much more parity. Towards the end of June, when the league and players were trying to come to an agreement, the league made a proposal to the players that included something called a “flex cap” which sounded very similar to what I wrote in the previous paragraph. While details were somewhat sketchy, the rough draft idea was that teams could slightly exceed the soft cap in order to sign MLE players or resign a player using their early bird or bird rights but that they could only exceed it to a certain extent before hitting a hard cap. The players countered that they don’t want any form of a hard cap and that since the “flex cap” still used a hard cap above the flex cap, it would be considered a hard cap and thus, a non starter. Since this is a compromise oriented article, my solution is to meet halfway. I like the idea of a hard cap as long as you have the layers of a flex cap/midlevel exception threshold cap then a soft cap and a minimum cap where at least 75% of the soft cap must be spent by owners on player payroll. Since current payrolls are so high, you would have to phase this in over a 3 year period. For me, it would look something like this… 2011-12 season……$95 million hard cap followed by a $68 million flex cap and then a $55 million soft cap. 2012-13 season……$88 million hard cap followed by a $65 million flex cap and then a soft cap of $53 million. 2013-14 season…….$78 million hard cap followed by a $62 million flex cap and then a cap of $51 million. 2014-15 season……League would finally get to a hard cap of $70 million, $60 million flex cap and a $50 million soft cap. Adjustments from here on out would be based on whether revenue is increased or decreased as a whole for the league. The concept of how this works is simple. Like it is now, teams who want to sign a free agent to a contract exceeding the MLE would have to get below the soft cap. Teams could exceed the soft cap by resigning their own free agents AND using the MLE or any portion of it as long as their payroll falls below the flex cap level. For example, if they have $3 million below the threshold and the MLE is $4 million, a concept I’ll get into later, they would only be able to spend $3 million of the MLE instead of the full $4 million. Teams could then only exceed the flex cap up to the hard cap by signing their own free agents. The owners could then decide if they want the flex cap/mid level threshold to also act as a luxury tax threshold depending on if revenue sharing solves their in house problems or not. In summation, I think the players would be wise to accept a hard cap but not at the ridiculously low number of $45 million. Get it up to $70 million with the possibility of going up or down based on league revenue and you have a legitimate middle ground. Example on how this would effect the rest of the league: The hard cap numbers of $95 million for the first year and $88 million for the 2nd year are derived from contracts already on the books for players. $95 million represents the largest payroll, this case being the Lakers and since the owners aren’t allowed to terminate any guaranteed deals YET, another concept that I’ll get into later, we have to set a cap where the largest payroll is. In year 2 of the deal, the Lakers have options on both Lamar Odom and Andrew Bynum. The thinking behind the $88 million is another compromise. They would have room to keep one but have to get rid of the other. On the flip side, the Lakers wouldn’t be able to improve their roster beyond signing their 2nd rounders to minimum deals since they would already be up against the hypothetical hard cap and wouldn’t be able to improve their roster via the MLE since they are also well above the hypothetical flex cap number of $68 million. Not only the Lakers but world champion Dallas, Boston, Orlando and Miami would be at a disadvantage due to being too close to or over the flex cap number. Dallas would be limited to concentrating on their own free agents like Caron Butler, Tyson Chandler and J.J. Barea, Boston with Big Baby and Jeff Green while it would be James Jones and Mario Chalmers or bust for the Heat. On the other hand, teams on the cusp like New York, Chicago, New Orleans and Milwaukee would be far enough under to sign an MLE level player and thuse create a level of parity and competitive balance that the league has stated that it’s looking for. 2. ALLOW THE OWNERS TO TERMINATE ONE GUARANTEED DEAL OVER THE FIRST FIVE YEARS OF THE CBA AND THEN ONE MORE DURING THE 2ND FIVE YEARS. This is one I could actually do without but with public pressure to limit or get rid of guaranteed contracts at an all time high, I concede this to the spirit of compromise. Plus, with a hard cap in place, teams are going to need to be able to get out from under mistakes and allowing for this clause makes that an easier task. The thinking behind limiting it to one per five years or two over the course of a hypothetical, league proposed 10 year deal is that the public outcry from hard line fans and owners is for the most part, overblown. If you look at the history of team payrolls, it’s rare that a team has more than 1 or 2 horrible contracts that limit their ability to improve. Being able to get rid of just one of the them would usually put a team below the cap or at least in position to better the team via the MLE or portion of it. If a team needs to get rid of more than one deal then I place the blame at the feet of management. At that point, they need to look themselves in the mirror as opposed to just trying to find ways to get more money back from the players. I also add a phase in for this concept as well, only this time for the players benefit. We can point our fingers all we want and laugh at how much the players spend but at the end of the day, it’s their money and they can spend it how they see fit. They signed their contracts with the thinking that they would see every penny of it and have bought houses, cars and various goods for family members and friends, financing all of it based on their respective contracts. The phase in would make it so the owners would not be able to terminate any deals during the first 5 years of the cba until the summer of 2013. That gives players time to re-finance or prepare for the possibility of their contract being voided. Another benefit to the players is that while someone will most likely get their contract terminated, that means that there is an available opening for someone else to get a well deserved contract whereas had the opening not existed in the first place, said player would most likely have to play for the minimum or in Europe as opposed to getting the MLE or contract created by cap space due to the outgoing contract. In short, the good players get paid while the overpaid jake loses out. Owners, fans and players win. Overpaid chump who didn’t live up to his deal gets tossed. I don’t see how you can argue with that. I will also add that the concept of rollbacks is a no go as well due to what I pointed out above. A contract is a contract and you can’t just go back on what has been signed. Giving the Gilbert Arenas’, Brandon Roy’s and Mike Miller’s of the world a 2 year warning is a good compromise. Also, make it so that not only is there a 2 year phase in period from the time the cba is ratified but also allow for all players to have completed 2 years on their deal before it’s eligible for termination. This protects players who get hurt in the first year. At least now, they have a 2nd year to fall back on and when you get down to it, injury isn’t their fault but the result of unfortunate circumstances so they shouldn’t be punished in full. For those of you who want more and think the players are lazy, I will disagree with you but comfort you with the knowledge that nobody knows in advance who will be terminated. Therefore, it adds incentive to ALL players to play hard, team oriented ball despite the fact that only one can be terminated and should help improve the on court product all the more. Also, BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR!! For those of you who want all contracts to be non guaranteed, we would actually be thrown back to a situation where this is less parity in the league. Big, attractive market teams could just terminate as many contracts as they need during a summer in which there are a number of big time free agents and just build more super teams. And trust me, it would happen. If the Heat could do it despite not being able to terminate guaranteed deals, imagine what the Lakers could do if they had that at their disposal. How this effects teams around the league: Teams like Orlando can take advantage of this after 2 years since they will still have 2 horrible contracts in Hedo Turkoglu and Gilbert Arenas on the books. By getting rid of one of them, they can better convince Dwight Howard that changes are coming and that the team can improve if he’s patience. 3. NATIONAL TV SLIDING SCALE Revenue sharing is a big source of controversy. As mentioned before, the players believe that the majority of the league’s problems are a result of the lack of revenue sharing and that if the league could install a system of more revenue sharing, the players wouldn’t have to give back as much. This is true to a certain extent but as we’ve seen in Major League Baseball, it doesn’t stop the big spenders from spending more on talent. They can write a luxury tax bill that allows the little guy to be profitable but at the expense of the fans. You see, the small market owners just keep the money instead of spending on free agent talent to make the team better. If they keep their payroll low enough, they can be profitable but then wind up losing 100 games or so. This is why a cap is necessary so the combination of a hard cap to go along with revenue sharing makes everyone a winner in this mess. The question now becomes, how do we go about implementing a system of revenue sharing that’s fair for the small market but doesn’t take away too much from the large market? You see, new owners in Detroit, Phoenix, Brooklyn and Golden State can say that they spent as much on their respective teams with the knowledge that they would get a large return on their investment due to being in a large or succesful NBA market. Having to give away too much to the little guy will make their investment a long term loser or so they project. I actually agree with this sentiment to a certain extent. Some will argue that there is something fundamentally wrong with forcing large markets to share and that it’s borderline communist and un American. While I think that’s going too far, a good solution would be for the league to disperse their national tv money differently. Teams wouldn’t be forced to share their earned revenue but rather the LEAGUE itself would be deciding that for the good of the game, the gap needs to be closed so we’ll take it upon ourself to decide how to disperse the money that WE NEGOTIATED. As it stands now, teams get roughly $32 million per season as a result of the national tv deal that Stern inked with Disney and Turner. Despite this equal dispertion, there is still a wide gap dividing the haves and have nots. Some teams are very profitable while others lose money in the eight figure range. In order to rectify this situation, the league should be able to disperse this money depending on how much revenue the teams bring in on an individual basis for the previous season. I will use the 2008-09 season as an example. The Lakers led the league in revenue earned, followed by the Knicks, then Detroit, then Chicago, Houston, Cleveland and Dallas. At the bottom of the league, you had Memphis in last, followed by Milwaukee, New Jersey, New Orleans and then Minnesota at #26. My system would then pay the top grossing team, the Lakers in this case, $17.5 million. The #2 team would get $18.5 million, followed by #3 at 19.5 million and so on, adding one million to each team in the ranking order. By the time you get to #26 Minnesota, you have $42.5 million, then $43.5 million to New Orleans, $44.5 to Jersey/Brooklyn then $45.5 and finally $46.5 to the lowest ranking team. To some, this is an ugly form of welfare. My counter argument is that it’s not welfare. Franchises shouldn’t be penalized for being in small markets. Fans shouldn’t suffer losing season after losing season because their team can’t create enough revenue to compete. This is just a way of bridging the gap some. According to Forbes, the high ranking teams would still be profiting well above $30 million while if you add $15 million to a team at the bottom, they go from losing $5-10 millon to profiting $5-10 million. In short, the big guy doesn’t get hurt much while it makes all the difference for the little guy. 4. TWEAK THE NUMBERS From here, it gets easy. You keep most of the elements of the old cba but just lower the numbers. What most people forget is that this recently concluded collective bargaining agreement was even more owner friendly than the cba that was ratified in 1999 after the big lockout. That 1999 deal was considered to be a huge victory for the owners. If that was a huge victory then the 2005 deal should’ve been considered a landslide. So what happened? In my opinion, the cap just kept going too high. With revenues in the league going up just about every year, there’s no reason why teams should becoming less and less profitable. If only 8 teams spent the luxury tax yet 22 of them lost money, then the simple answer is that the cap and lux tax threshold were just too high. The cap was determined by overall revenue created and since the large markets were mostly responsible for that revenue, the cap wasn’t fairly determined. Sure, the big market will still be profitable but the small markets weren’t seeing more generated revenue so the cap would eventually be too high for them. So…… a) Lower the cap. As mentioned earlier, the soft cap should get down to $50 million in 2015 and then from there, base the number at less than 40% of BRI as opposed to the current 48%. b) Lower the amount of the max salary by reducing the percentage that players can get. Currently, 0-6 year vets can max out at 25% of the cap, 7-9 year vets get 30% and veterans with over 10 years experience can get 35%. Lower it to 20%, 25% and 30%. c) Lower the length of contracts to 5 years maximum if you resign with your current team and 4 if you switch teams as free agents from the current 6 and 5 setup. Limit MLE signees to 3 year deals. The combination of a 5 year deal and a 20% max for players coming off their rookie deal would make for a $10 million base salary on a hypothetical $50 million cap. With 10% raises, this would make the total deal come out to $60 million over 5 years. This is well below the $100 million deals that we see all over the place and would lower the total payroll to the point that teams would still be under the hard cap and opportunities would still be abundant for free agents. d) Add a “Keith Van Horn” provision. Dallas was able to use KVH’s bird rights to their advantage despite the fact that he was almost 2 years into retirement. It was a loophole that made a mockery of the system. To fix this problem, players should no longer have bird rights if they’ve been out of the league for over a year. The whole point of bird rights is to allow teams to retain their stars. If a player is out of the league for over a year, he really isn’t much of star anymore. e) Add a “Big Z” provision. When Cleveland dealt Zydrunas Ilgauskas to Washington for Antawn Jamison, the Wizards then waived Big Z and he then went back to Cleveland. They basically got Jamison for nothing. Other teams have taken advantage of this loophole as well. To get rid of it and the possibility of teams colluding together in the future, a new simple rule should be put in place that says a team can’t bring a player back until the following season. f) Make the raises in contracts be 10% for someone resigning with his team and 5% if they leave via free agency. Those numbers are easy to factor in your head and are lower than the current 10.5 and 8.5. Lower raises means lower overall contract and lower payroll. g) KEEP THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE AND FORGET ABOUT FRANCHISE TAGS!! This is a clause that allows for teams to resign their own free agents to a number that is above the max. For example, if a free agent is coming off his 8th year in the league and he makes $17 million, he should be eligible for a 5% raise off that $17 million. That would bring his new base salary to $17.85 million. With a hypothetical $50 million cap and a 25% max for 7-9 year vets, that would mean that he could only sign for a max of $12.5 million elsewhere. That’s a difference of over $5 million on the base salary alone and probably is enough to keep the player from leaving. It’s one thing for Lebron James to take a $2.3 million base salary cut but if you more than double that, he probably stays in Cleveland so future free agents will have less incentive to leave and eliminates the need for franchise tags, something the players union is justifiably fighting.

Not only did Seattle have arena issues but there was the issue of Oklahoma City and their support of the Hornets during the 2 years after Hurricane Katrina. Telling that market to support the NBA for 2 years and then just wave goodbye didn't sit well with Stern. As far as he was concerned, it was put up or shut up time for markets with arena problems. d*ck around with politics and anti sports types in city council and Stern would gladly relocate a team out of that market for OKC. Seattle tried to call his bluff only he wasn't bluffing. Now, there are no OKC's out there. Yes, the league would like to put a team in Seattle but they aren't going to go out of their to do it like they did for OKC. In short, Atlanta is safe. They have a great arena and are in a growing, large market with the right demographics and businesses.

I think he's just showing the list of the highest paid players in the league and mentioning that a lot of them are overpaid. Lebron and Wade are the biggest bargains in the league. It angers me that they both play for the same team. It would've been so much better had one gone to New York. Heat and Knicks rivalry renewed and more parity in the EC. The Hawks would be legit contenders or at least closer to the top then what we have now.

It's not necessarily the $75 million that I'm shooting for but the concept of a multi layered cap system that I outlined. The players are going to fight tooth and nail to keep their rights and having exceptions to a soft cap and lux tax before hitting the hard cap is something that can work for everyone. NOW, that being said, we don't have to put the hard cap at $75 million. It can be lowered to the $60 to $65 range and then you put in the softer cap amounts below that. Since most teams can't get to that amount right now, the league would probably phase in the new cap levels over a 2 or 3 year period. This is also assuming you believe everything you read when it comes to the owners and their "losses". Let's be honest, do any of us really believe that the owners would be totally honest about their earnings, especially with a collective bargaining agreement about to expire? They always lie. ALL business owners lie and over report losses, cry "poverty" and hide earned revenue sources from employees. It's funny how all the Stern haters say that he is an evil liar that fixes games and is Satan in the flesh. Then, when he says that everyone is losing money, he all of a sudden turns into the poster boy for honesty and integrity. His job is too do everything he can to make the owners more profitable and help their various causes. Crying poverty and leveraging the players into an owner friendly CBA is what he needs to do. Otherwise, he's not doing his job. Let's also not forget that higher payroll doesn't necessarily guarantee success. The Knicks of this decade can attest to that. Orlando right now as well. Portland in the jail blazer era. For all we know, $75 million isn't high at all. If one team can profit with a $60 million payroll, then it's not totally out of the question that they can still be better than a team at $75 million who has made a mistake or two in player assesment. Detroit and San Antonio won it all with payrolls below the soft cap level while teams well above it were below .500.

I should've confirmed what I meant. Let's say you have a soft cap, lux tax threshold and then a hard cap on top of that. You make the soft cap be $50 million, the lux tax is at $62 and then a hard cap at $75 million. Here's how it works.... You are allowed to exceed the soft cap of $50 million to not only sign your own free agents BUT ALSO sign someone for the MLE provided you stay below the lux tax threshold of $62 million. For example, if the Bulls are at $52 million this summer, they can go out and sign Jason Richardson to shore up their 2G position. Assuming the MLE is around $5 million, he will fit under the $62 million lux tax threshold but they can't go any higher than that $62 million since they spent the MLE. The only way you can exceed the lux tax of $62 million is if you sign your OWN free agents, similar to what you have now. You can't use the MLE or any other exception to exceed the $62. This works for the Hawks though since JC is their own free agent. Assuming they are willing to pay the tax this year, they can resign JC as long as they stay BELOW the hard cap number of $75 million. The $75 million is the hard cap. No exceptions. Period. End of story. You can't exceed this number. If your payroll is at $74 million and you have an expiring contract of $4 million that puts you in the $70-75 range, you can't trade that expiring deal for another contract that will put you above the hard cap for the next season. In other words, the Lakers can't make a deal like the one that sent Kwame's expiring deal to Memphis for Pau Gasol. Those big market teams will now be stuck in the same boat that everyone else is in and it will even out the playing field as a result. If there is just a hard cap with no layers below it, it makes things tougher. Teams will constantly be right up against and FA's will be fleeing to Europe just to make more than the minimum. By creating layers below the hard cap and lux tax threshold, teams will still try to create cap space below the $50 million soft cap so that they can get the prime free agents that are out there only now they are going to have to sacrifice more than what the Heat did when the cap was at $58 million. Plus, by doing that, you have $12 million in breathing room for MLE free agents for the next year as well as up to $75 million in the hard cap to resign your own free agents. If the owner and GM put together a good roster, they should still have the right to exceed the cap to keep the team together, only now they can't just keep signing MLE guys like the Lakers and Celtics do. They can only do that if they are below the $62 million lux tax threshold. I know it sounds confusing but trust me, I have thought this thing out over and over and this is the best possible compromise that I can think of between both sides. They're both going to have to give a bit and take a bit.

I'm cool with a hard cap as long as you have the layers below it. For example, if the hard cap is $75 million then I could see a lux tax threshold at around $63 million with a soft cap at $51 million and 75% of the soft cap is a tad over $37 million for the minimum salary level for the cheap owners. When you talk about the amnesty clause, are you referring to the old clause where you could waive a player and he doesn't count against your lux tax payment or does your system mean that his contract gets terminated altogether? I'm fine with the owners having the ability to terminate 2 deals over the course of the 10 year cba but I would at least make them wait 2 years in order to give the players a warning of sorts.

Thanks NBAsuperstar40. I didn't even realize that we had a point system over here. I'll try to post more often. :biggrin:

If you think it's sad now, imagine if the Chandler trade had gone through and then have them get lucky and get the #1 pick instead of #3 in the draft. That was the year that OKC bred Blake Griffin was available. For those who don't remember, the Thunder were way below the cap in their first year in OKC. The Hornets were pushing the lux tax and needed to shed salary in exchange for expiring deals. Thus, they dealt Chandler to the Thunder for Joe Smith and Chris Wilcox. Unfortunately, the OKC doctor made a big deal out of the potential for a turf toe injury getting worse and they called off the deal. Let's say that doesn't happen. If they keep TC, he probably wouldn't have made that big a difference on the team at the time since they were young and rebuilding and his presence was more for what he could do in the future when the team developed. If they get a lucky bounce of lotto balls, you have a front line of TC, Blake and KD to go with your backcourt. I'll take that any day of the week over Perkins and Ibaka. Now that would really be depressing for the rest of the league.

I agree. The GM's need to be held responsible to a certain extent. I briefly mentioned that at the end of the paragraph 3. The problem is that the owners are hell bent on getting their way this time and I think the players are better off making a deal now as opposed to missing half or all of the season and then getting that same bad deal later, only this time they have lost an entire year's worth of salary. I even think that for a lot of players, allowing for 1 or 2 guys to be whacked who aren't playing up to par is actually a good thing. Here's why. Let's say you have a team like the Hawks. They want to resign Crawford but just don't want to go over the lux tax to do so. It's not just the Hawks who get hurt if JC leaves. JC now has to find a team that will pay him what he feels is fair market value and with the MLE most likely being compromised in the next cba, he is going to have a hard time finding it. Not to mention the fact that he's gonna be over 30 as well. With my rule in place, they can take out Marvin or Hinrich and then have plenty of breathing room to bring back JC. Now, this is just a hypothetical example. I'm not necessarily suggesting that the Hawks are better off with JC over Marvin or Hinrich but you get the idea. If Marvin or Hinrich were truly under performing at the level that some guys in the league are, then being able to get rid of one of them works to the advantage of an upcoming free agent who wants to stay but can't due to said bad salaries. The league in general would be better. You wouldn't have as many Euro departures. The Hawks wanted JChildress back but were up against it financially and had to let him go. Lot's of teams have found themselves in that boat. Getting rid of 1 lame brain every 5 years helps everyone. The fans win because the team is better, the owner wins because he saves a boat load of dough and the upcoming free agent who deserves a pay day as opposed to floating over to Greece win as well. The only loser is the overpaid jake. The key is getting the players to understand the above. Don't hold out on a good deal for a new cba for overpaid underperformers.

I've been thinking about this for awhile and the best compromise I could think of is that if the new cba is for 10 years, the owners should have the right to terminate one deal during the first 5 years and one in the next 5 years. For the players sake, I'd make a rule saying that you can't terminate a deal unless the player has played 2 years on it so that if they get hurt, they at least have 2 years of salary to fall back on. FWIW, the Allan Houston rule still allowed the players to get paid even after they got cut but the salary wouldn't count against a lux tax payment. Great for the player, good for a luxury tax paying owner and BAD for owners who keep their payroll low and expect a nice lux tax payout only to now not see it due to it being wiped off the lux tax books. My thinking is this. Owners are making way too big a deal out of guaranteed deals. When you get down to it, it's rarely more than one deal that really sticks out as a bad one either because a player slacks off or gets hurt. If you give the owner the right to terminate one per every 5 years, that should be enough. If he has to do more than that, you have to consider the possibility that the GM is no good and that HE should be the one getting fired. Also, if you're someone who thinks that guaranteed deals need to go away because all players slack off, then this is still good because nobody knows whose deal will get terminated. Therefore, it's in their best interest to try as hard as they can so that they don't become that guy. To allow for more competitive balance, the league needs to do away with allowing teams to pay the MLE if they are already in the lux tax. Boston and the Lakers kept taking advantage of this. The Lakers got Fisher, then Artest 2 years later and this year they got Blake and Barnes to split it. My new rule would only allow teams in the soft cap to lux tax window to spend on the MLE. For example, the cap was $58 million and the lux tax was $70 million. The majority of the league was in that range. As long as you can exceed the $58 million but stay below $70 or whatever the lux tax is for a given year, you can spend the MLE. Basically, I'm saying that the lux tax becomes a hard cap of sorts if you're spending the MLE or any portion of it. I don't have a problem with a hard cap as long as there are layers below. For instance, you have a minimum cap of 75% of the actual salary cap. That's how it is now. Then you have the cap. $58 million this year. Then the lux tax at $70. I would then have no problem if you put in a hard cap at $82 million as that $12 million is the same window between the soft cap and lux tax. Therefore, you have a system where you can exceed the soft cap to sign MLE players, can only exceed the lux tax to sign your own bird or early free agents and then you can't exceed the hard cap. Period. From there, it's pretty simple. I'd probably lower the max to 20%, 25% and 30% depending on years in the league as opposed to the current 25%, 30% and 35%. Maybe extend the rookie cap a year or 2 so that owners don't have to pay the big bucks after 4 years but now maybe 5 or 6 and still have the ability to get rid of rookies after year 2 if they don't pan out. Limit raises to 10% for players signing with their own team and make it 5% if you leave as a free agent as opposed to the current 12.5% and 8.5% which are high, bad for the owner and hard to calculate in your head. 10 and 5 is easy. Also eliminate trade exceptions when a player is signed and traded. Players took advantage of this by getting their cake and eat it too by resigning with their own team and then got traded which allowed them to get the max raise AND bolt their team. If we can get a franchise label, this becomes moot but if not, let's throw it in the new cba as well.

I usually do these right away but due to it being such a weak draft coupled with an interesting playoff run for the Hawks, I put it off a bit. Regardless, here is my annual "Max Trueblood mock draft". 1. Cleveland-Kyrie Irving, PG Dan Gilbert was pretty excited about getting the #1 pick which led me to believe that he has his eyes on someone and the rumor for a few months now is that they like Irving. 2. Minnesota-Derrick Williams, SF Enes Kanter fills more of a need at the center spot but Williams is the best available. Could come off the bench or start right away if the Wolves get a deal for Michael Beasley. 3. Utah-Enes Kanter, C All signs point to them taking Brandon Knight but I just don't see why he's a perfect fit in the Jazz system. Look for Kanter to get the nod here and team up with Turkish countryman Mehmet Okur. 4. Cleveland-Jonas Valanciunas, C Big time reach here but he's young and has the most long term potential. He fills a need and coupled with it being a weak draft, actually makes some sense here. 5. Toronto-Branden Knight, PG Tempted to take a European like Jan Vesely since they've built their roster around Europeans but Knight is too good to pass up. With Calderon getting older and Bayless better suited to being a combo guard off the bench, the Raps go with a floor leader. 6. Washington-Jan Vesely, SF/PF I swore I'd never project another 6'11" Euro as a wing player but this guy has the skills to get it done on the next level. 7. Sacramento-Kemba Walker, PG The Kings feel that Tyreke's long term position is the 2 spot so they fill the PG gap with Walker. 8. Detroit-Marcus Morris, SF/PF Tough as nails type who'll fit the Motor City image. Not to mention that Tayshaun Prince is a free agent and may not be back so there could be a hole at SF. 9. Charlotte-Kawhi Leonard, SF Has been compared to Gerald Wallace on most draft sites so the Bobcats have someone that they can pacify the "Crash" fans with. 10. Milwaukee-Bismack Biyombo, PF The Bucks seem to have good luck with foreign players and he is arguably the best player available. 11. Golden State-Jordan Hamilton, 2G/SF A bit of a reach here but I'm impressed with this guy's game and he has NBA written all over him. Can run the floor well which comes in handy with this uptempo offense. 12. Utah-Jimmer Fredette, PG Now you know the real reason why I have the Jazz going big with the #3:-p. Gotta see the Jimmer stay in state. 13. Phoenix-Alec Burks, 2G Really tempted to take Klay Thompson here but they have enough shooters. Time for a defensive player with an all around game. 2G is the weakest spot in the NBA talent wise and Burks and Thompson are the best available. 14. Houston-Chris Singleton, SF/PG He can come right in and battle Chase Budinger for the starting SF spot. 15. Indiana-Donatus Motiejunas, PF/C The Pacers can fill the backup PG need through free agency. For now, this guy can spread the floor on offense when the Pacers go small. Has been on the NBA radar forever. 16. Philadelphia-Tobias Harris, SF Another reach but he has long term potential and the Sixers could use some depth at the 3 spot due to Thaddeus Young getting the majority of his minutes at the 4. 17. New York-Klay Thompson, 2G Great pick for the Knicks. Catch and shoot guy comes in handy in the uptempo offense. Will battle Fields for the starting 2 spot. 18. Washington-Nolan Smith, PG Surprise pick here but the Wiz go for need as they have no backup PG to Wall. Steady ballhandler gives who is effective in the halfcourt. 19. Charlotte-Tyler Honeycutt, SF Should've stayed in school but I still him having success on the next level. Gives Bobcats another SF option after the loss of Gerald Wallace. 20. Minnesota-Markieff Morris, PF Best available as Marcus' twin does the free fall. 21. Portland-Tristan Thompson, PF Another free faller who will work well here as the Blazers have no backup for Lamarcus Aldridge. 22. Denver-Deandre Liggins, 2G I'm going way out on a limb on this one but if the Nugz are tired of JR's antics and want to go with a 2G sleeper, this could be the guy. 23. Houston-Lucas Noguera, C Another sleeper who may not even be eligible for the draft but has long term upside and could develop overseas for a couple years. 24. Oklahoma City-Kenneth Faried, PF Another tough guy that Brooks and Presti will love. 25. Boston-Marshon Brooks, 2G Local guy from Providence gives the Celtics backcourt depth. 26. Dallas-Trey Thompkins, PF Listed as PF but likes to shoot from deep and Dallas likes to spread the floor so he works out here. 27. New Jersey-Jeremy Tyler, PF Finally coming into his own and gives the Nets a long term guy to go with their core of young players. 28. Chicago-Josh Selby, PG/2G Good all around player and best available. 29. San Antonio-Keith Benson, C Has been on the NBA radar forever. Gives the Spurs a good low post player to develop while Duncan heads to the twilight of his career. 30. Chicago-Nikola Vucevic, C The Bulls hit a homerun the last time they took a USC player in Gibson so they go that route again. A very underrated college player who could be a factor in the league.

How many people on here are Thrasher fans? The only reason I ask is that I don't want to offend anyone if they are but I think it would be in the best interest of a lot of people if the Thrashers were the one that was sold and eventually relocated. Ownership could then use the money from the sale towards balancing out losses or paying off debts as well as making the Hawks a better team. Let's face it, Atlanta isn't the greatest pro sports city around. Maybe it would be better off with 3 teams as opposed to 4 and you wouldn't have the oversaturated situation that we do now. There has to be some Thrasher fans that would become Hawks or Braves fans if the sale went through. Also, let's not forget that the new cba will most definitely have more revenue sharing. That means that teams at the lower end of the totem pole, like the Hawks, will have more revenue and less losses.

Not sure how relevant it is but just wanted to pass on my mini chat with J Chil. I work in the Century City section of Los Angeles and as I was exiting the 2029 Century Park East building (one of the twin towers of Century City), I saw Josh Childress waiting in the valet section. Easy to spot. 6'7" dude with a massive fro. I walked by and gave him the "what up J Chil". Unsure of what type of person he is, I didn't expect him to say much but he seemed really surprised and happy that someone recognized who he was. I told him that I hoped to see him back with the Hawks and he said "I will" and gave me the thumbs up. I told him "congrats on the contract, you got a good deal" and he just smiled and gave me the thumbs up again. He seemed like a really down to earth and good guy. No sense of an arrogant athlete aura about him. Now should we make anything out of his "I'll be back" statement? Maybe, maybe not. He could've just been appeasing a fan but that was a direct quote. FWIW, UBS Paine Webber and Smith Barney are in that bldg. so my assumption is that he's investing wisely but again, I just saw him at the valet and don't know what suite he was visiting. Still, it's refreshing to run into down to earth millionaires. Hopefully, with Bibby's current deal off the books next summer, he'll be right back here. We'll see.

Yeah, that was the case 5 to 10 years ago but times have changed. The ideal C/PF combo is more like Horford and Smoove as opposed to Koncak and Willis.

Well, Evans signed for roughly 2.5 million as a base salary and the MLE is something like 5.8 million so they have 3.3 left from that. You could easily get Wells or Finley with that. Also, the small exception is worth 1.9 and can be used every other year. I don't think the Hawks used their's last year although I could be mistaken. If not, then you have another 1.9 million you can spend on a decent big man.

The difference with byc is that you need to match 3 numbers as opposed to just 2. When no byc is involved, a player making 12 million can match with a player making 14 million. Like Emplay is saying, it is tough to match those 2 players if one is byc. Let's say the 14 million guy is byc. He would have a byc number of 7 and an actual salary number of 14 so you would have to match 7 with 12 with 14. Like I said earlier, 12 and 14 would work but 7 and 12 doesn't. Now if you add Speedy, like Emplay is saying, you have larger numbers with which to work and that makes it easier for you to get within 25% on 3 different numbers.

I guess you're right but they wouldn't have Bynum, Mihm and Gasol as Mihm would be on the Hawks in my proposed deal. Those numbers are really close though. I guess if they are off a bit, it could still be done provided the Hawks have a trade exception but they don't. I guess it all comes down to how accurate the numbers are. If hoopshype or your contacts are giving us legit data then it barely works. I merely threw in Zaza and Mihm so as to give the deal some breathing room in case the numbers we are giving are actually off a bit in reality. Oh yeah, thankfully the NBA increased the trade gap from 15% to 25%. If it's still 15%, this deal would be very hard to do without a 3rd team involved.

Yeah, I can see a trade happening. I don't think Utah is really wild about Brevin Knight and Ronnie Price being the backups. I have to think that they would prefer someone like Ridnour or Watson so a Korver and Jarron Collins for either one of those guys would work. OKC would have a 2 guard and would solve their logjam at point guard, all without adding much to the payroll. Utah would solve their 2G logjam and would have a good backup at point in case Williams gets hurt due to the long summer with the olympic team.

It was mentioned above that a 3rd team that is below the cap would have to be involved. That's an easy way to get around byc but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. If 2 over the cap teams throw in enough salaries, byc can be offset. It happened when Charlotte signed and traded Eddie Jones in the summer of 2000. He went from making $2 million to making $9 million. Charlotte was capped out and he became byc but with PJ Brown, Mashburn, Mason and a few others switching teams, enough salaries offset the byc. Let's assume Smoove's base year is $9 million and hoopshype is correct in their salary numbers..... Smoove 9 and 4.5 byc Speedy 5.7 Zaza 4.0 That gives the Hawks a total of 18.7 byc and 14.2 regular Let's say that they want to get Lamar Odom from the Lakers. They could throw in Chris Mihm to offset the byc. Here's how their numbers would be. Odom 14.5 Mihm 2.5 For a total of 17 million Now, 17 million is wedged between both Hawks' numbers of 18.7 and 14.2 and it comes within 25% and 100,000 of both so the trade works.