[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
No Subject
>Under the new proposal, teams could designate one player as
>a franchise player, regardless of years of service, who
could
>receive a contract that would "pay him 35 percent of the
team's
>salary cap." Approximately equal to as much as $115
million
>over 7 years.
>Since both Pitino and Gaston have
already gone on record that
>they don't view Antoine as a $100 million
dollar player, should
>this proposal be accepted, Antoine is gone.
He'll want to be
>to be designated as a franchise player and receive
the
>$100 million-plus contract, and Gaston won't pay it.
The difference here is that the allowed $115
million would be over seven years. Always before we (and Gaston) have been
talking about a $100 million contract over six years, the maximum length allowed
by the old CBA. If you do the calculations, you will find that $115 over 7 years
(16.4 mil/year) is still less that $100 million over six years (16.7 mil/year) .
So we would still be able to sign Antoine without Gaston breaking his vow of not
giving him more than $100 million in six years.
>OK, let me see if I've got this right. The agents' solution is
to
>create a system which will allow (even encourage) 29 Kevin Garnett type
>contracts? I guess that's about what I should expect from
them.
Again, the maximum deal in this proposal (155
over seven years, or 16.4 mil/year) would still be far less than the Garnett
deal (126 over six years, or 21 million per year.)
If the proposal from the union is to accept the owners deal
with this one "franchise player" amendment, I would accept it in a
heartbeat and start playin' ball. I believe this would allow us to keep Walker
(as franchise player) as well as Pierce and Mercer. Pierce and Mercer would be
limited to their less-than-7-year player percentages. The only way we would lose
them is if some other team would offer to make them its franchise player, which
I don't think would happen.
Nathan A.