Melo and the Nicks

[detlef]

Assuming he wants to play there, why is he so hell-bent on them trading for him rather than just signing with them in the off-season? Does the collective bargaining deal end right away after the season? Does he have to ink an extension this year in order to get the 3 year/ $65 million extension? From what I understand, under the new deal, contracts will max out around $11 mil per year.

 

That could be the only reason because you'd think he'd want to go to a team with as much talent as possible rather than one who had to send a bunch of promising players elsewhere to get him.

 

I guess it sounds like I answered my own question, but I suppose I was looking for confirmation of this whole situation.

[WashingtonD]

The extension gives him the most possible money and is the safest route for him.

 

The CBA expires this off season, and given that a lockout is a possibility on one extreme (meaning out of contract players will have no income) and even if that doesn't happen the owners are looking to cut player salary ranges in the new CBA (shocker), it's likely he'd leave a lot of money on the table by not signing an extension this year

[electricrelish]

The extension gives him the most possible money and is the safest route for him.

 

The CBA expires this off season, and given that a lockout is a possibility on one extreme (meaning out of contract players will have no income) and even if that doesn't happen the owners are looking to cut player salary ranges in the new CBA (shocker), it's likely he'd leave a lot of money on the table by not signing an extension this year

 

That explains why Melo has stated that he may sign an extension with the Nuggets.

[Azazello1313]

there are a few factors at play here. one is that under the rules of the CBA he can get more money if he "re-signs" with whomever owns his contract at the end of this season. the amount of money he'd be leaving on the table by signing with someone else as a free agent is significant. so melo's camp wants to avoid this.

 

personally, I really get the impression melo is doing everything he can to make sure his new team doesn't sell the farm to get him. pooh-poohing the question of whether he'll even sign an extension (i.e. with the nets), talking about how maybe he'll just re-sign with the nuggets, etc. he's being as coy as possible about signing an extension with whomever, and my opinion is he's doing it to drive down his own trade value right now, under the assumption that any team will be wary of pulling the trigger if there's any way they could end up holding the bag at the end of the season. I think he feels that optimal scenario for him is a sign-and-trade during the offseason -- he still gets the max $$ via extension, but his new team presumably doesn't have to give up quite as much to get him since the nuggets, at that point, have less leverage.

Edited February 15, 2011 by Azazello1313

[Ursa Majoris]

the owners are looking to cut player salary ranges in the new CBA (shocker)

Off topic but IMO they have no choice. I understand that collectively the NBA is losing upwards of $400 million per year. Certainly my local T-Wolves suck so bad they aren't putting enough bums on seats to pay the janitor, never mind the players.

[Seahawks21]

He can't make any more money per year. A max contract is a max contract. The advantage is that a player that re-signs can get that extra sixth year of max money. If you sign with a new team, they can only offer you a 5-year max contract, where your current team can offer you 6-years. That is 20+ extra million guaranteed. (it might be 6/7 years, but I'm pretty sure that it is 5/6).

[Azazello1313]

He can't make any more money per year. A max contract is a max contract. The advantage is that a player that re-signs can get that extra sixth year of max money. If you sign with a new team, they can only offer you a 5-year max contract, where your current team can offer you 6-years. That is 20+ extra million guaranteed. (it might be 6/7 years, but I'm pretty sure that it is 5/6).

 

that doesn't really paint the full picture. from a recent espn article...

 

If Anthony signs his extension (whether to remain a Nugget or to join another team in an extend-and-trade transaction), then he locks in his $18.5 million salary for 2011-12, and adds three additional seasons at $20.3 million, $22.1 million and $23.9 million, for a total of $84.8 million over four seasons. These salaries would be set (for the time being), since Anthony would be signing his extension under the purview of the current collective bargaining agreement. (See Section 6 below for a discussion of a potential rollback of player salaries.)

 

But if Anthony becomes a free agent this summer, his next contract will be under the terms of the new agreement. If the new agreement reduces maximum salaries, reduces raises, limits the number of years, or reduces the salary that can be guaranteed, his contract will be forced to conform to the new rules.

 

Under the current rules, if Anthony becomes a free agent this summer he can sign (assuming his team has enough cap room, or can work out a sign-and-trade with the Nuggets) for a hair over $18 million in 2011-12, and up to $80.6 million (signing directly) or $82.4 million (sign-and-trade) over the same four years. But the theme here remains the same -- we won't be operating under the same rules this summer.

 

Maximum salaries are likely to fall under attack as a means of reducing the players' share of the pie. One reason is practical, and strategic -- most players don't earn anywhere near maximum salary, so a proposal that gets everyone back to work without significantly hurting the lower and middle classes is more likely to be approved under the current "one player, one vote" system. If maximum salaries take a significant hit in the next agreement, Anthony could find himself with considerably less earning power -- even if his team of choice ends up with a lot of cap room.

[Seahawks21]

that doesn't really paint the full picture. from a recent espn article...

I stand corrected. I didn't take new rules into account. Getting old. The new agreement would be much more relevant.

[detlef]

Just curious. But if the NBA is losing money (and I honestly don't doubt that, actually), why is anyone prepared to lock down Anthony for the extra $65 mil? Why doesn't every team, including the Nuggets and the Nicks, just wait and sign him under the new deal. I mean, that's $40 million! Who doesn't want to save that?

Edited February 17, 2011 by detlef

[Seahawks21]

Just curious. But if the NBA is losing money (and I honestly don't doubt that, actually), why is anyone prepared to lock down Anthony for the extra $65 mil? Why doesn't every team, including the Nuggets and the Nicks, just wait and sign him under the new deal. I mean, that's $40 million! Who doesn't want to save that?

Melo of course wants it done now. The Nuggets know he won't re-sign there long-term and want to try to make sure they get something in return, so the trade deadline is their only shot. The Knicks don't want to risk him signing with the Lakers in the offseason, and have the cap room and cash to pay the extra. Melo is much more needed in NY than the cap space they had saved up for LeBron.

[Big Country]

Just curious. But if the NBA is losing money (and I honestly don't doubt that, actually), why is anyone prepared to lock down Anthony for the extra $65 mil? Why doesn't every team, including the Nuggets and the Nicks, just wait and sign him under the new deal. I mean, that's $40 million! Who doesn't want to save that?

 

In aeague where one player can make a significant difference between winning and losing, it is more important for teams looking to improve to lock up the player now rather than risk losing him in free agency, even if it costs more now to do so.

[Azazello1313]

Why doesn't every team, including the Nuggets and the Nicks, just wait and sign him under the new deal.

 

probably because you won't get him. someone else will be willing to give up more (and extend him before the new CBA).

[Furd]

Here's what I don't get.

 

It seems to me that, in most professional sports (including the NBA in the past IIRC) a team cannot even suggest that it is interested in another player under contract with another team, lest there be tampering charges or somesuch.

 

Here we have a dog and pony show in which multiple teams are openly courting (and then some) Anthony? What gives? Owner approval?

 

[Azazello1313]

Here's what I don't get.

 

It seems to me that, in most professional sports (including the NBA in the past IIRC) a team cannot even suggest that it is interested in another player under contract with another team, lest there be tampering charges or somesuch.

 

Here we have a dog and pony show in which multiple teams are openly courting (and then some) Anthony? What gives? Owner approval?

 

 

nuggets signed off on it, knowing that any team acquiring him would need to have assurances that he would sign an extension before they gave up the kinds of assets the nuggets wanted.

[Furd]

nuggets signed off on it, knowing that any team acquiring him would need to have assurances that he would sign an extension before they gave up the kinds of assets the nuggets wanted.

 

Thanks.

[Ursa Majoris]

nuggets signed off on it, knowing that any team acquiring him would need to have assurances that he would sign an extension before they gave up the kinds of assets the nuggets wanted.

So, what do you think of the trade overall?

[Azazello1313]

So, what do you think of the trade overall?

 

well...first of all, f*ck starmelo and all these little NBA divas. lebron ("king" of the divas), deron williams, melo. I've been trying to like the NBA the last several years, but these narcissistic little tw@ts make it really difficult.

 

I am bummed about chauncey. hometown dude whose arrival went farther toward making the nuggs an almost-legit contender than melo ever did, and all he wanted was to stick around and finish his career here. but it started becoming obvious that it would just make sense for him to be included in whatever deal they struck for melo. now he gets to go babysit a couple divas until they get spanked in the first round of the playoffs. the whole thing sucks for him.

 

for the nuggets....you know what? for the first time in a while, I'm kinda stoked to be a nuggets fan today. I was watching the game tonight -- with melo, chauncey et al gone and the knicks guys not arrived yet, only 9 guys on the bench -- and they destroyed the wolves. granted its the wolves. but the guys were playing team ball, ty lawson looked awesome. they were talking to masai (nuggs GM) and he said he got a call from felton's agent, saying don't trade any of these NY guys, bring us all in together with what you've got and we'll do something special. and that's why I like this knicks deal so much better than the nets deal that was out there. these guys from the knicks can play ball. right now. they're young, but they're legit NBA starters already, with upside. the PG rotation with felton and lawson excites me. we got some more size up front, and chandler and gallo can score. we lost the best player (best two players) in the deal, but we added some rotational depth, and there is a HUGH addition-by-subtraction with all the drama and ego flying off to NY. when you factor in the drama and uncertainty, which has been a major drag all year, I truly think the nuggets are actually a better team going forward for the rest of the year than they were a week ago. the ceiling is not as high as it is with a legit dominant scorer like melo, but they are now a team I am more excited about being a fan of.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Azazello1313

[Ursa Majoris]

well...first of all, f*ck starmelo and all these little NBA divas. lebron ("king" of the divas), deron williams, melo. I've been trying to like the NBA the last several years, but these narcissistic little tw@ts make it really difficult.

 

Couldn't agree more. FA will be the ruin of the NBA faster than the NFL. It's all about the big market endorsements. As for Williams running a coaching god like Jerry Sloan out of town, words fail me.

 

I am bummed about chauncey. hometown dude whose arrival went farther toward making the nuggs an almost-legit contender than melo ever did, and all he wanted was to stick around and finish his career here. but it started becoming obvious that it would just make sense for him to be included in whatever deal they struck for melo. now he gets to go babysit a couple divas until they get spanked in the first round of the playoffs. the whole thing sucks for him.

 

Again agreed. Great player and person too. The worst mistake the T-Wolves ever made was letting Billups go in favor of keeping Terrell Brandon, who never played again (and anyone with half a brain could see he wouldn't).

 

for the nuggets....you know what? for the first time in a while, I'm kinda stoked to be a nuggets fan today. I was watching the game tonight -- with melo, chauncey et al gone and the knicks guys not arrived yet, only 9 guys on the bench -- and they destroyed the wolves. granted its the wolves. but the guys were playing team ball, ty lawson looked awesome. they were talking to masai (nuggs GM) and he said he got a call from felton's agent, saying don't trade any of these NY guys, bring us all in together with what you've got and we'll do something special. and that's why I like this knicks deal so much better than the nets deal that was out there. these guys from the knicks can play ball. right now. they're young, but they're legit NBA starters already, with upside. the PG rotation with felton and lawson excites me. we got some more size up front, and chandler and gallo can score. we lost the best player (best two players) in the deal, but we added some rotational depth, and there is a HUGH addition-by-subtraction with all the drama and ego flying off to NY. when you factor in the drama and uncertainty, which has been a major drag all year, I truly think the nuggets are actually a better team going forward for the rest of the year than they were a week ago. the ceiling is not as high as it is with a legit dominant scorer like melo, but they are now a team I am more excited about being a fan of.

 

Yep. Note: Actually that was Memphis the Nuggets beat up on tonight (a much better team than the Wolves) - the Wolves were getting their asses handed to them by Milwaukee.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Ursa Majoris

[Azazello1313]

Yep. Note: Actually that was Memphis the Nuggets beat up on tonight (a much better team than the Wolves) - the Wolves were getting their asses handed to them by Milwaukee.

 

I was coming back to correct that. I walked away from the computer and thought, "wait, wolves....where the hell did I get that?"

 

it was, as you note, actually a pretty meaningful game (for playoff purposes) against memphis.

[Azazello1313]

pretty good rick reilly column

 

In Denver, our hearts are as black as Johnny Cash's closet, our eyes mere lumps of coal. We are the emptiest thing fans can be: an NBA city without an NBA superstar.

 

Don't laugh. You could be next.

 

This is what the NBA has become: very tall, very rich twenty-somethings running the league from the backs of limos, colluding so that the best players gang up on the worst. To hell with the Denvers, the Clevelands, the Torontos. If you aren't a city with a direct flight to Paris, we're leaving. Go rot.

 

There's no rule against it, so they do it. Ray Allen and Paul Pierce beg Kevin Garnett to please come to Boston. LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh connive to play in Miami. At his wedding in New York City this past July, Carmelo Anthony, Amare Stoudemire and Chris Paul toasted to all three playing in New York someday. Stoudemire switched this past summer. Anthony was traded there Monday. And Paul is set to enter free agency next season, bags already packed.

 

Great for Spike Lee. Sucks for the game.

 

"The question is, will the fans support players whose egos are bigger than the game?" asks Denver Nuggets coach George Karl, who suddenly finds himself coaching a locker room full of nobodies. "Will the fans support all these players and agents manipulating things? Because if they don't, if the switch [by fans] is abrupt enough, the league could be at a crisis point."

 

Hello, David Stern? Did you leave a wake-up call for the 21st century? Your clubs need to be able to protect their great players with a franchise tag, as the NFL does. If that isn't priority No. 1 in your lockout talks, you need the Wite-Out.

 

Anthony stuck it to Denver because he could. Teams are powerless against it. He got the city he wanted, the teammates he wanted and the money he wanted, and he got it before the lockout. It's good to be king.

 

The only power Denver had was to yank Melo's chain.

 

"Carmelo," Nuggets general manager Masai Ujiri said Monday night, "you've been traded …"

 

Melo held his breath on the other end of the line.

 

"… to the Nigerian national team."

 

Question: When all the Denvers and Memphises and Sacramentos fold because all their stars leave, whom are these SuperFriends teams going to beat? Baylor? A strong league is strong throughout, not just at the top. In other words, how will you get them to care in China, Mr. Stern, when they don't in Portland?

 

"The whole foundation of this massive thing called pro sports is the fan," Karl said. "You got to make the fan happy."

 

We are not happy in Denver. Here's why:

 

1. What we're left with: We gave up a surefire Hall of Famer, who is only 26, for four New York Knicks starters. This is like acquiring the four best mountain climbers in Nebraska. Among Wilson Chandler, Raymond Felton, Danilo Gallinari and Timofey Mozgov (who, I believe, doesn't even exist), not one is in the top 35 in scoring or rebounding.

 

2. The utter, sickening irony of it: Anthony insisted the most important thing to him was not (A) getting his starlet wife, LaLa Vasquez, to Broadway, nor ( dunking with his friends, nor © cranking up his Q rating on Madison Avenue. No, he said his main priority was (D) "playing for a champion."

 

Why New York, then?

 

Stoudemire and Anthony will go together like peanut butter and microscopes. Stoudemire is a pick-and-roller. Anthony never picks and rolls. Stoudemire likes the ball in the same spots Anthony likes it. Knicks coach Mike D'Antoni lives to run. Anthony likes to set up on the wing, freeze it, look it over, freeze it some more and then unleash some weapon from his incredible one-on-one offensive arsenal. It works plenty, but Stoudemire is not going to enjoy standing there and watching it.

 

Remind me: How did it go with Anthony and Allen Iverson sharing one ball?

 

"If [Anthony would] have stayed with us, he'd have had a much better chance of winning a championship," Nuggets president Josh Kroenke said. He's right.

 

If Anthony had really wanted to play for a champion, he should've stayed put. The Nuggets had two big contracts expiring (kneeless Kenyon Martin's and brainless J.R. Smith's), which would have allowed them to sign the fresh-legged big man and the shooter they needed.

 

Prediction: Anthony will never get closer to winning an NBA title than he did in Denver.

 

3. The lousy thing all this does to Chauncey Billups -- our native son: Billups was sucked into the vortex of a trade he wanted no part of. He deserved to end his basketball career in Denver, where it began. Instead, at age 34, he's being fitted for a Knicks jersey and wondering how he tells his three little girls.

 

Thanks for the ride, Karl texted him when news of the megatrade hit. You're one of the best winners I ever coached.

 

He didn't mention texting Anthony.

 

4. The grinding unfairness of it all: The NBA used to work on a turn system. You will lose, but if you hang in there, you'll be rewarded with a very high draft pick like an Anthony, and your turn at glory will arrive.

 

Not anymore. The superstars are in charge now. Now, you lose and you get a pick, and that pick immediately starts texting his pals to see where they'll all wind up in three years. Pretty soon, you're back losing again.

 

Get ready, Oklahoma City.

 

You wonder why the NFL continues to pull away from the NBA in this country? Three words: Green Bay Packers. Two more: Indianapolis Colts. The NFL finds a way to let cities that don't happen to have a Versace store hang on to their great players like, oh, say, Peyton Manning.

 

"Melo was a big part of our team, but he wasn't irreplaceable," Karl said. "I think we're still going to make the playoffs, and I think we're going to be good when we get there."

 

Now why on Earth would he think that?

 

"Because I believe in my guys," Karl said.

 

I'm sure he does.

 

And soon he'll meet them.

[Scooby's Hubby]

I quit watching the NBA when Magic retired ... if it weren't for gambling, noone would watch the league.

[detlef]

I'm growing a bit tired of the, "This is why the NFL is better" shtick. And that this will somehow be twisted into a reason why the owners should get their way in the negotiations because, apparently, their way works best.

 

Even in MLB, where there is no cap, the data doesn't support the fact that the NFL is allegedly doing a better job of leveling the playing field because there are just as many reliably bad teams in the NFL as there are in MLB. For example, if you take the three poster children for MLB's disparity (KC, Pitt, and the Brewers) and compare them to Detroit, Cleveland, and Buffalo over the last 9 years, you'll find that both sets have been among the worst 5 and worst 10 in the league nearly the same amount of time, with the 3 from the MLB just edging out those from the NFL 36-34 if you add up the total times among the 5 worst plus total times among the 10 worst for the 3 combined. Couple that with the fact that more different teams have won it all during the last 10 years and that one of the teams with the smallest payroll, Florida, has won it all as much or more than anyone besides NY in the last 15 years, and it's really hard to have an argument for why the NFL's version is actually, measurably better. It's all a matter of perception. Which is why, the best a guy like Jackass could come up with in the CBA thread as to why I am wrong in this hypothesis is, "I know that if we made a bet today...I'd be proven right in 10 years." That's it. No data, Just, "I know I'm right."

 

Especially when you consider the same argument gets used in the NFL vs NBA, where both leagues have a cap. The device praised for making it possible for Indy to hold onto Manning. I mean, Melo was threatening to stay in Denver and sign the extension if NY didn't step up. That means, at least in terms of raw dollars, Denver could compete for his services. What they couldn't compete with is the fact that Melo wanted to live in the Big Apple. Could it be that Pittsburgh and Green Bay are simply football towns and that Indy just happened to employ one of the NFL's best executives during their recent run? Could it be that the fact that NBA players aren't hidden by helmets have something to do with the limelight factor and desire to play in bigger markets? I mean, if it was just a bout the cap, there'd be no reason why LeBron, Wade, and Boch couldn't have just all decided to go to Memphis. The problem is, it's freaking Memphis. Who's fault is that? NFL players are free to go wherever they want, just like NBA players do. And it's not like Manning gave Indy a home team discount. He's getting paid, and plenty.

 

Hell, maybe it actually comes down to less greed on the part of NBA players than NFL players. After all, it's a foregone conclusion that Chris Paul is going to be joining Melo and Amare next year. Well, based on where the cap is headed, he may have to be willing to play for a whole lot less than he could get going to a team with more cap room. Yet this will still, somehow, get reconciled by "player greed" if he does.

 

If I had to guess, I would say that the NFL's health and willingness to share the wealth among the owners is the main reason for why teams in smaller markets can keep their stars. And that has absolutely nothing to do with how the owners share the pot with the players. Smaller markets don't need to keep player salaries down to insure their health, they simply need to keep the money pipes open and continue to get their cut of the massive TV contract. And, the irony is that despite their efforts to level the playing field, there still remain reliably bad teams and teams that dominate year to year. I mean, if this is truly all about not wanting to see the same teams at the top, over and over again, are we any happier that a team from a smaller city like Pittsburgh is at the top, over and over again.

 

As far as interest in the league. I'll say this. As a very casual fan, I am far more likely to tune into the NBA play-offs this year now that there are 6-7 great teams rather than 16 good ones. That should make the conference semis and forward much more compelling.

[detlef]

Here's another thing. Maybe the kinds of places NFL players want to live and the kinds of places NBA players want to live are not the same thing. I mean, Denver is a very, very desirable city to live in for many people. But maybe not NBA players. Do you think Greg Ostertag was counting the days until he could ditch SLC? Didn't seem like it. He spent all but one year there and that year was in Sacto. I mean, I realize that he's no Melo, but he was good enough that he could have had some other suitors in the FA market if he wanted to look elsewhere. If he was hell-bent on going to LA, I'm sure he could have. And I would guess there's a whole lot more Greg Ostertags in the NFL than there are in the NBA.

 

So, some former Big-10 linebacker finds out he's been traded from the Jets to the Broncos and he couldn't be happier. Now he gets to live in a house with some land rather than some cramped apartment in a dirty city.

 

Also, what's up with the Clippers? They're in LA, and they're maybe the worst franchise in the history of all pro sports. What about the Nicks. The "rich who just got richer". They've sucked balls for some time now and are still likely the 5th best team in their own conference.

 

Let us also not forget that the team with the NBA's best record is not Boston, or Miami, or LA, but San Antonio. And that Chicago built their previous run through the draft and built this current contending team through the very same.

[Azazello1313]

Even in MLB, where there is no cap, the data doesn't support the fact that the NFL is allegedly doing a better job of leveling the playing field because there are just as many reliably bad teams in the NFL as there are in MLB.

 

disagree strongly with the sentiment here. there are prerennial winners and losers in the NFL, but that is determined by systems and coaching legacies and sustained draft and free agent success over many years. the teams that are predictably good and the teams that are predictably bad, they aren't predictable based on market size and such. pittsburgh, indianapolis, green bay. in the NFL, a team in a city like pittsburgh can aspire to be a dynasty. in modern MLB, a team in a city like pittsburgh can aspire to be .500 one year out of ten. there is definitely room to rise and fall in MLB, but an overriding caste system is very much in place. I just don't see it being good for the sport.

 

it's a simple fact that, as far as fan base and revenue go, the NFL is leaving MLB and the NBA in the dust. it is not a stretch at all to see the correlation.

[Ursa Majoris]

disagree strongly with the sentiment here. there are prerennial winners and losers in the NFL, but that is determined by systems and coaching legacies and sustained draft and free agent success over many years. the teams that are predictably good and the teams that are predictably bad, they aren't predictable based on market size and such. pittsburgh, indianapolis, green bay. in the NFL, a team in a city like pittsburgh can aspire to be a dynasty. in modern MLB, a team in a city like pittsburgh can aspire to be .500 one year out of ten. there is definitely room to rise and fall in MLB, but an overriding caste system is very much in place. I just don't see it being good for the sport.

 

it's a simple fact that, as far as fan base and revenue go, the NFL is leaving MLB and the NBA in the dust. it is not a stretch at all to see the correlation.

Not so sure about MLB having the same issues that the NBA does. IMO, the NBA is in very serious trouble, losing nearly half a billion a year and a star system that is becoming ridiculous even to it's fans. There is one set of rules for the superstars and another for everyone else, just as there is a set of rules for the "best" teams as opposed to the rest.

 

Again, pissing off a coach as excellent and storied as Jerry Sloan to the point where he packs it in halfway through the season shows the power the NBA so-called stars have. And then Williams ups and leaves anyway.

 

In the next five years, at least six NBA teams will fold.