Layne Murdoch/NBAE/Getty Images
Kevin Durant is concerned. The NBA’s new proposal could potentially have a great affect on his team staying together.
One reason, among many I’m sure, that he’s not a big fan of this new proposal.
The Thunder, a small market club without deep pockets, has a lot of young players to re-sign. Durant’s already locked up to a max extension, but with Russell Westbrook due one along with James Harden, Serge Ibaka and even Eric Maynor, Oklahoma City could have a difficult time keeping its young group intact.
I wrote about how a hard salary cap could potentially destroy the core, but the league’s latest proposal includes a stiff luxury tax for teams that spend over the cap. And when Durant was asked about, he wasn’t happy about it.
Wouldn’t you know it though, the NBA’s labor ninja was stalking Durant’s comment and came swooping in to correct him.
Question is: Is the NBA correct about that? Noam Schiller of Hardwood Paroxysm has an interesting take:
This time, though, my delusions of grandeur have caused me to feel somewhat involved in this most recent “David Stern is trolling on Twitter again” episode. And as a person who mistakenly thinks he is involved in something is wont to do, I must point out that Kevin Durant is right, and the NBA is wrong.
The NBA is absolutely correct that teams will have the chance to re-sign their own free agents. All recent indications have shown that the NBA and its owners have relented on keeping Bird Rights exceptions for luxury-tax paying teams. Theoretically speaking, this means that teams that are 30 million under the salary cap and teams that are 30 million into luxury tax territory have the exact same abilities to re-sign players who are finishing their contracts.
The issue, though, was never the legality of re-signing players – it was the cost. And it is the cost that will deter small market teams such as Oklahoma City. Re-signing Serge Ibaka to an extension is all fun and games if he clocks in at 5 years, 48 million (which I would randomly declare reasonable in old CBA terms and may or may not be way off), but how do you feel about 5 years, 55 million? 60? 65? 80?
This is the effect of the new luxury tax. Reports regarding exact amounts still vary, but at the very least, the first 5 million above the threshold should see penalization at a $1.50 to $1 rate, with growth every 5 or 10 million jump. As such, the decent back-up point guard that you signed after Maynor bolted for a bigger deal on a team without Russell Westbrook can suddenly cost you like your starting center. Never mind that you’re already on the books for one of those.
The league is preaching competitive balance. And by that, it means balancing out to help small market like Oklahoma City compete with Boston, Los Angeles and Chicago. But by doing that, they could impede a well-managed team like the Thunder where talent and players have been stockpiled.
The league wants to equally distribute talent out among the Minnesotas and Milwaukees of the world, but what about a team like the Thunder where all that talent is already on the roster? You really want to equally distribute that talent when a small market team is already doing it right?
Which is a major reason I see this competitive balance thing as a red herring for the league’s owners to get the best deal possible. By preaching to help the little man, the league is also trying to line its pockets with a system that favors the owners in every way.
A team operating on a budget like Oklahoma City isn’t going to bust into luxury tax territory, especially when there’s a stiffer penalty against repeat offenders. Sure, the Thunder have a good chance of keeping the core together.
But to do it, they’ll have to spend more money. And therefore, greatly risk a loss on the season in terms of money. Isn’t that exactly the opposite of what the league’s saying it’s fighting for?
Anyone seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C4zaisIRxQ&feature=channel_video_title At 1.17... that will be Thunder players salary in 2013-2014.
I've always said here that I think probably the only way this core is able to stay intact (especially after the Kendrick Perkins contract) will be for either a)Presti to do a top notch sales job to the coming free agents and get them to take a little off the number that they feel that they are worth to continue to play a prominent role on a contending team with great chemistry like they've done in San Antonio. Or b) pay some tax.
I don't think it will be able to be done any other way.
The hard caps impact on keeping the Thunder together, becomes hazy for me when you look at the rest of the league.
A hard cap will also impact the financial decisions of all the other teams. Who knows if there will be enough money to resign Serge, for example. Because we don't know how much money other teams will have to pay for players like Serge. That will dictate his market value.
And his market value might fit under the Thunder's cap.
I'm not smart enough to run the calculus on that, it gets very very complicated.
the owners just need to face facts. NOT EVERY TEAM can be nba champions. Its not just about money here. Its about having and eye for talent and also developing that talent. Presti found serge in the congo of all places. You just dont get a MJ or a kobe over night. This competitive balance nonsense is getting old, dont lie, its about money money money.
From Yahoo,KD is weighing offers from Maccabi Tel Aviv in Israel, Valencia in Spain and BBC Bayreuth in Germany.
BBC Bayreuth is an interesting option.They are only 6-10 in germany league and want to get the best player in the world.But he can enjoy life there.
well a hard cap would be worse, we just wouldnt be able to keep serge at all. We may be a small market, but our owners are not poor, so if they want to win they can afford whatever they want and take the loss.
Exactly what ive been saying all along. Hard caps and big luxury taxes take away the one thing small markes have to offer players... Money. When they already dont have any
Unfortunately not enough people in the NBA especially owners understand both how the business works and how to build a successful team. Resign yourself to the fact that the system will essentially be the exactly the same. players will just be paid less of the BRI which despite all the bad contracts given out wasn't reached last year.
The dumb owners will now just have more money to spend on Hotels and yachts and whatever else billionaires buy for fun
The most important factor in all of this is how contracts start to come into existence in the new CBA. That is, how does it affect the market value of players? If we paid all of our guys like they would have been paid in the old CBA, Noam is right in that OKC will never spend that much on salaries and the tax. However, what if the thinkable occurs and teams start changing the way they value players. What if nobody can risk giving Carlos Boozer 17 million anymore. What if 10-12 million dollar players are only worth 8-10 to teams now.
The trickle down effect of all that could change our whole outlook. Do we even know if max contracts have changed at all? There were previously based on a percentage of the soft cap, but the cap could easily change with the new BRI split. Suddenly Westbrook (and even possibly Durant playing on a "max" contract) may not be cap-breakers.
@Keith00 While that is whatth owners hope will happen, instead it will simply separate the haves and have nots. Teams who cant afford luxury tax hits will change the way they value players, but the teams who can afford it will continue to keepthe prices high and have an easier route to building all star teams.