- Jun 1, 2008
- 38,406
- 7,519
They ain't tryna hear you DT43, he just runs fast 
Last edited:
Official 2013 NBA Offseason Thread
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by durantula,
- Start date
- Status
- Apr 4, 2008
- 74,939
- 24,350
Certain people on this site like to discredit Wall and label him a bust, as if he's a Brandon Jennings clone whom I also think gets a worse wrap on here than he deserves.
Wall hasn't won yet because he's had assclowns around him. Last season was a step in the right direction and if he stays healthy this year, Washington will finish over .500.
Wall hasn't won yet because he's had assclowns around him. Last season was a step in the right direction and if he stays healthy this year, Washington will finish over .500.
Last edited:
- Jan 7, 2004
- 28,043
- 10,466
Elite: CP3, Russy, Rondo, Pooh, Parker, Deron.
Cusp of greatness: Wall, Kyrie, Steph, Lillard, etc.
Cusp of greatness: Wall, Kyrie, Steph, Lillard, etc.
big j 33
Supporter
- May 31, 2006
- 36,043
- 16,803
Watch Rondo lead the Celtics to a decent record and the 8th seed, then they trade him for Jennings and they immediately tank for Wiggins.
shoeking2101
Banned
- Sep 1, 2007
- 19,728
- 2,456
Man I swear ,
We got dudes barely averaging 17 a game being labeled superstars,
We got dudes that haven't won 30 games in a season being maxed out on a half of season worth of work and perceived potential. Potential that may not even be realized.
Paul Pierce won't retire a Celtic,
The NBA wearing sleeves on jerseys now,
The Lakers and C's stink but the Clippers are arguably title contenders,
This new NBA is all kinds of weird to me
,We got dudes barely averaging 17 a game being labeled superstars,
We got dudes that haven't won 30 games in a season being maxed out on a half of season worth of work and perceived potential. Potential that may not even be realized.
Paul Pierce won't retire a Celtic,
The NBA wearing sleeves on jerseys now,
The Lakers and C's stink but the Clippers are arguably title contenders,
This new NBA is all kinds of weird to me
- May 10, 2013
- 1,891
- 516
this might be old, but its new to me!
[color= rgb(197, 35, 40)]STAY CONNECTED[/color]
NBA owners decided to give the Thunder $15 million on Thursday because of mistakes made when allowing Oklahoma City to sign Kevin Durant to a fatter contract in 2011.
TWEET (41) SHARE (47) [color= rgb(41, 41, 41)]21[/color]COMMENTS
Grantland's Zach Lowe broke some bizarre news on Thursday: the NBA Board of Governors voted this week to award the Oklahoma City Thunder roughly $15 million because of an issue with Kevin Durant's super-max contract.
Here's the set-up. In July 2010, Durant reached a max early extension deal with the Thunder. It would go into effect for the 2011-12 season, as per a normal early extension. The thing with maximum contracts is that they depend on the salary cap level: prior to 2011, the "max" for a player with just four years of service was 25 percent of the cap, or just under $15 million in starting annual salary. So while Durant and the Thunder reached that deal in 2010 and reports suggested an estimated contract value using simple math, the actual figures couldn't be sorted out until the league set the 2011-12 cap level.
More: Thunder coverage at Welcome To Loud City NBA free agency rumors
The lockout got in the way. One of the concessions to the players' union made by owners was that certain high-level rookie contract players would be eligible for a "super-max" second contract. The criteria was tough -- you had to have won the MVP, been voted an All-Star starter twice or made two All-NBA teams -- but there was one obvious immediate candidate, Derrick Rose. (I believe I was the first to dub it the "Derrick Rose Rule," which is a bit dubious because of what comes next. The official term is "Designated Player.")
So the lockout deal is reached in November 2011, including the Rose Rule, and the league set the cap for the 2011-12, which means the Thunder can figure out Durant's exact contract figures. But wait! His agent noted that while he signed his deal before the lockout, it hadn't gone into effect and that he should be eligible for the super-max as a two-time All-NBA honoree. The deal between Durant and the Thunder was for themaximum salary he was eligible for: that'd be the super-max salary level. The league considered the argument, and approved the boost in December 2011. Durant ended up with the super-max, and the extra $15 million over five years it entailed.
Now, according to Lowe, the Thunder has convinced a majority of the Board of Governors that because it signed the deal with Durant not expecting to be paying 30 percent of the cap to him, it should be repaid for the difference. In other words, the damn owners cost the Thunder $15 million on Durant's already-inked deal by approving the Rose Rule.
But here's the thing that strikes me as supremely odd about the whole situation: in January 2012, a month after the league granted Durant the super-max, the NBA also allowed the Thunder to sign Russell Westbrook to a "Designated Player" deal even though the collective bargaining agreement capped the usage at one per team.
Now Westbrook didn't sign a deal in January 2012 to give him 30 percent of the cap beginning in 2012-13 if he made another All-NBA team in 2011-12 (which he did). It wasn't a true Rose Rule deal. The deal was capped at the 25 percent level. But it was a five-year extension. Teams cannot sign a player to a five-year early extension while having another player they signed to a Designated Player contract on the roster. By virtue of the NBA granting Durant a Rose Rule contract (which was in excess of what Durant thought he signed in 2010), the NBA had made Durant a Designated Player ... and then a month later allowed the Thunder to sign a second Designated Player.
The league could have handwaved this away by saying that Durant wasn't technically a Designated Player because he signed his deal in 2010, before the lockout deal. But that doesn't jive with the salary boost the NBA itself approved at Team Durant's behest. Either Durant is a Designated Player, or he's not. Because of the NBA's decisions to retroactively grant Durant that status and then approve OKC signing a second Designated Player contract, the Thunder got an unfair advantage. You could make an argument that the fifth year the Thunder unfairly were able to award Westbrook kept his salary request lower, and will do so again in 2016-17, when we could have been a free agent if not for the double DP deals. (As a free agent with more than seven years of service, he'd be eligible as a free agent to sign a fatter deal than what he'll be paid in 2016-17. Of course, he didn't have to sign a five-year deal, but locking up cost-effective max-level players for as long as possible is textbook team management, and the league allowed the Thunder to do that in this case despite the rules pointing the other direction.)
And now the Thunder are getting repayed a portion of Durant's salary, which may allow the team to go out and sign a player while flirting with the luxury tax line. (If there are cap implications -- Lowe couldn't confirm that -- it gets even better for OKC, as they'd have more breathing room.)
At the end of the day, the NBA owners picking up the tab approved this. But the whole situation is bizarre, and it's pretty amazing that with all of the lawyers and interested parties in the room working out the finer details of the lockout deal no one thought to explicitly address the issue of Durant's already signed early extension. I'm really not sure how this could have been handled any more messily. At the very least, the Thunder shouldn't have been allowed to offer Westbrook a Designated Player contract. But there's nothing the league can do about that now, though giving the Thunder $15 million doesn't seem like an especially fair or sensible solution.
UPDATE, July 20: J.A. Sherman at WTLC and Kevin Pelton privately note that the Rose Rule (30 percent of cap for eligible second contract players) and the Designated Player clause (five-year early extension for one player on the team) are not necessarily tied together. It just is most likely to turn out that way, as with Derrick Rose. That makes sense as it relates to the league allowing a five-year extension for Westbrook, but it doesn't make sense with regards to the league telling the Thunder to pay Durant 30 percent of the cap in the first place. The league is acknowledging the length of contract Durant agreed to before the lockout, but not the dollar amount. Again, it's a weird situation in which the league clearly retracted its position after a vote of the owners. Just very weird.
USA TODAY Sports
[color= rgb(197, 35, 40)]STAY CONNECTED[/color]
NBA owners decided to give the Thunder $15 million on Thursday because of mistakes made when allowing Oklahoma City to sign Kevin Durant to a fatter contract in 2011.
TWEET (41) SHARE (47) [color= rgb(41, 41, 41)]21[/color]COMMENTS
Grantland's Zach Lowe broke some bizarre news on Thursday: the NBA Board of Governors voted this week to award the Oklahoma City Thunder roughly $15 million because of an issue with Kevin Durant's super-max contract.
Here's the set-up. In July 2010, Durant reached a max early extension deal with the Thunder. It would go into effect for the 2011-12 season, as per a normal early extension. The thing with maximum contracts is that they depend on the salary cap level: prior to 2011, the "max" for a player with just four years of service was 25 percent of the cap, or just under $15 million in starting annual salary. So while Durant and the Thunder reached that deal in 2010 and reports suggested an estimated contract value using simple math, the actual figures couldn't be sorted out until the league set the 2011-12 cap level.
More: Thunder coverage at Welcome To Loud City NBA free agency rumors
The lockout got in the way. One of the concessions to the players' union made by owners was that certain high-level rookie contract players would be eligible for a "super-max" second contract. The criteria was tough -- you had to have won the MVP, been voted an All-Star starter twice or made two All-NBA teams -- but there was one obvious immediate candidate, Derrick Rose. (I believe I was the first to dub it the "Derrick Rose Rule," which is a bit dubious because of what comes next. The official term is "Designated Player.")
So the lockout deal is reached in November 2011, including the Rose Rule, and the league set the cap for the 2011-12, which means the Thunder can figure out Durant's exact contract figures. But wait! His agent noted that while he signed his deal before the lockout, it hadn't gone into effect and that he should be eligible for the super-max as a two-time All-NBA honoree. The deal between Durant and the Thunder was for themaximum salary he was eligible for: that'd be the super-max salary level. The league considered the argument, and approved the boost in December 2011. Durant ended up with the super-max, and the extra $15 million over five years it entailed.
Now, according to Lowe, the Thunder has convinced a majority of the Board of Governors that because it signed the deal with Durant not expecting to be paying 30 percent of the cap to him, it should be repaid for the difference. In other words, the damn owners cost the Thunder $15 million on Durant's already-inked deal by approving the Rose Rule.
But here's the thing that strikes me as supremely odd about the whole situation: in January 2012, a month after the league granted Durant the super-max, the NBA also allowed the Thunder to sign Russell Westbrook to a "Designated Player" deal even though the collective bargaining agreement capped the usage at one per team.
Now Westbrook didn't sign a deal in January 2012 to give him 30 percent of the cap beginning in 2012-13 if he made another All-NBA team in 2011-12 (which he did). It wasn't a true Rose Rule deal. The deal was capped at the 25 percent level. But it was a five-year extension. Teams cannot sign a player to a five-year early extension while having another player they signed to a Designated Player contract on the roster. By virtue of the NBA granting Durant a Rose Rule contract (which was in excess of what Durant thought he signed in 2010), the NBA had made Durant a Designated Player ... and then a month later allowed the Thunder to sign a second Designated Player.
The league could have handwaved this away by saying that Durant wasn't technically a Designated Player because he signed his deal in 2010, before the lockout deal. But that doesn't jive with the salary boost the NBA itself approved at Team Durant's behest. Either Durant is a Designated Player, or he's not. Because of the NBA's decisions to retroactively grant Durant that status and then approve OKC signing a second Designated Player contract, the Thunder got an unfair advantage. You could make an argument that the fifth year the Thunder unfairly were able to award Westbrook kept his salary request lower, and will do so again in 2016-17, when we could have been a free agent if not for the double DP deals. (As a free agent with more than seven years of service, he'd be eligible as a free agent to sign a fatter deal than what he'll be paid in 2016-17. Of course, he didn't have to sign a five-year deal, but locking up cost-effective max-level players for as long as possible is textbook team management, and the league allowed the Thunder to do that in this case despite the rules pointing the other direction.)
And now the Thunder are getting repayed a portion of Durant's salary, which may allow the team to go out and sign a player while flirting with the luxury tax line. (If there are cap implications -- Lowe couldn't confirm that -- it gets even better for OKC, as they'd have more breathing room.)
At the end of the day, the NBA owners picking up the tab approved this. But the whole situation is bizarre, and it's pretty amazing that with all of the lawyers and interested parties in the room working out the finer details of the lockout deal no one thought to explicitly address the issue of Durant's already signed early extension. I'm really not sure how this could have been handled any more messily. At the very least, the Thunder shouldn't have been allowed to offer Westbrook a Designated Player contract. But there's nothing the league can do about that now, though giving the Thunder $15 million doesn't seem like an especially fair or sensible solution.
UPDATE, July 20: J.A. Sherman at WTLC and Kevin Pelton privately note that the Rose Rule (30 percent of cap for eligible second contract players) and the Designated Player clause (five-year early extension for one player on the team) are not necessarily tied together. It just is most likely to turn out that way, as with Derrick Rose. That makes sense as it relates to the league allowing a five-year extension for Westbrook, but it doesn't make sense with regards to the league telling the Thunder to pay Durant 30 percent of the cap in the first place. The league is acknowledging the length of contract Durant agreed to before the lockout, but not the dollar amount. Again, it's a weird situation in which the league clearly retracted its position after a vote of the owners. Just very weird.
- Mar 22, 2007
- 4,526
- 4,446
So yall are in love with kyrie but hate wall? #logic
- May 25, 2001
- 22,150
- 16,403
Yea it's old. Bennett used that "found" money to make a huge splash in free agency too, Ryan Gomes!
Last edited:
- Nov 5, 2012
- 80,694
- 55,639
Kyrie is much more of a quarterback than Wall and is much more refined as a basketball player.
Kyrie deserves much more reverence than Wall...
Kyrie deserves much more reverence than Wall...
- Mar 30, 2010
- 8,485
- 1,318
They ain't tryna hear you DT43, he just runs fast
Even if they think he's just running fast, if that's all he's doing and he's putting up elite level numbers as a 22 year old that says a lot. I mean come on. He's in his 3rd season and NBA teams cannot guard him
At this point I don't know you're trolling or what. Do you still not understand why the Wizards maxed Wall out? What other choice did they have?Man I swear
We got dudes barely averaging 17 a game being labeled superstars,
We got dudes that haven't won 30 games in a season being maxed out on a half of season worth of work and perceived potential. Potential that may not even be realized.
Paul Pierce won't retire a Celtic,
The NBA wearing sleeves on jerseys now,
The Lakers and C's stink but the Clippers are arguably title contenders,
This new NBA is all kinds of weird to me
Last edited:
- Feb 17, 2013
- 3,870
- 853
damn, do the players like these sleeved jerseys?
- Apr 4, 2008
- 74,939
- 24,350
I like Kyrie but no.
- Jan 31, 2012
- 7,071
- 782
Probably not
- Feb 6, 2011
- 40,141
- 11,080
damn, do the players like these sleeved jerseys?
Hopefully they go cuz fans don't
- Jan 4, 2009
- 6,599
- 439
Nothing is set in stone and nobody used the words, scrub, bum , or tried to write him off. Usually 3 yrs is enough to get a pretty good idea of the player youre dealing with, i think Wall is a good player at this point and thats it.
Hes not on the superstar level or a great player despite what NT wants, funny thing is i remember showing my boys his youtube HS clips saying omg he gonna be a problem. But he just hasnt made the jump yet so long are we going to wait ? 3 more mediocre years like hes only 25 give him time.
Hes not on the superstar level or a great player despite what NT wants, funny thing is i remember showing my boys his youtube HS clips saying omg he gonna be a problem. But he just hasnt made the jump yet so long are we going to wait ? 3 more mediocre years like hes only 25 give him time.
- Apr 4, 2008
- 74,939
- 24,350
Those Warriors jerseys with da sleeves were the worst things I've ever seen. I don't like how the NBA has this od clean image. The league needs some personality and flare, starting with the uniforms.
Son, Wall is 22. He didn't spend 3 years on the Spurs. You have to factor in his lousy a d toxic the Wizards environment was when he firsts entered the league. John Wall takes a major step this year now that has solid, unselfish talent around him. Washington won't win 55, but they'll be ok. 8th seed for sure.
Son, Wall is 22. He didn't spend 3 years on the Spurs. You have to factor in his lousy a d toxic the Wizards environment was when he firsts entered the league. John Wall takes a major step this year now that has solid, unselfish talent around him. Washington won't win 55, but they'll be ok. 8th seed for sure.
Last edited:
Idk he doesn't put up great assist numbers is his passing or crappy teammates
- Mar 30, 2010
- 8,485
- 1,318
What is your response to this?
http://bkref.com/tiny/W7Noh
I feel like they're just lying if they do.. joints look horrible. Supposedly the league is forcing 20 teams to try them out next yeardamn, do the players like these sleeved jerseys?
Last edited:
- Jun 1, 2008
- 38,406
- 7,519
I don't see how you can say he's not on Russ/Rose level when he put up just as good numbers as they did at his age with a worse team.
- Jan 31, 2012
- 7,071
- 782
19, 4, and 8 on 44%. He's a problem, but his team isn't.
What is your response to this?
http://bkref.com/tiny/W7Noh
I feel like they're just lying if they do.. joints look horrible. Supposedly the league is forcing 20 teams to try them out next yeardamn, do the players like these sleeved jerseys?
The warriors said they didn't like them
- Nov 5, 2012
- 80,694
- 55,639
No what? Wall isn't nearly as complete a player as Kyrie.
- Jan 7, 2004
- 28,043
- 10,466
Dude, Kyrie doesn't play defense half as good as Wall.
- Nov 5, 2012
- 80,694
- 55,639
True, but no point guards really play defense, or great defense.
Offensively, Kyrie's IQ, skill set and game management all trump Wall's. Which overall tip the scale much more to Kyrie.
Last edited:
- Oct 24, 2010
- 94,425
- 33,489
dont care and dont buy it
ROndo isnt good for the Pistons since he cant shoot or score.
Jennings is kinda what they need if he can learn to control himself. If the Pistons had shooters then Rondo would be a perfect fit but we have everything BUT shooters
- Status
