Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog
Because the rest of those guys are probably overpaid as well? (except maybe Gasol...)
Using a mere FOUR contracts signed by mediocre front offices such as the Knicks, Clippers, Grizzlies and Nuggets (traded to the Wizards within months of the ink drying) is a pretty flimsy sample size to determine what an NBA center is worth under the new CBA.
$13.8M is almost 25% of your cap space, and the new rules call for extremely steep penalties against luxury tax payers. So you're essentially talking about paying a third/fourth-best guy on your team "franchise player" money... I just don't see that as a formula for success in this new fiscal landscape.
|
Using contracts under the old cba to show that you must pay a premium for centers is flawed because the deals were handed out before the new CBA. Limiting the discussion to the four center deemed acceptable initially by five teams, perhaps six if you count the Wizards agreeing to pay Nene, it’s still flawed because only a fifth of the teams (or sixth if discounting Wizards) issued out these deals.
So using old deals to establish centers earn at a higher premium is improper. Using new deals to establish centers earn at a higher premium is also improper. Apparently, the only rationale that can be deemed proper is your own.
I find your latter point both very troublesome and illuminating. Do you honestly believe that Tyson Chandler was the “third/fourth-best guy” on the 2011 Mavericks? If that is the case, then I now understand why you seem so hesitant to question the move to not even attempt to resign him. If you can sum up the impact Chandler had on our team 2 years ago as being worthy of being the “third/fourth best guy” on a championship contender team, then all I have left to say is
