The Goat Pen

narrow the payments. Stronger for the union long-term. Right now, the NBA is the highest paid athletes in the world with a giant difference between top and bottom.

The checks stop this week. Watch how long this lasts with the players not getting paid. I personally hope they lose a complete year. Create a little humbleness on the part of the player and owner.

Actually, the bottom make too much and the top make too little. D Wade and Lebron (combined) earn more for Miami than $14.7M and a 33 years old Kobe still earns more for LA than $25.2M.

Luke Walton isn't worth $6M. So, the top players gave up more so the bottom guys earn more. Now, if you drop the low paid workers, then the owners have definitely gamed the union...regardless of the BRI split.

Bklyn wrote:Actually, the bottom make too much and the top make too little. D Wade and Lebron (combined) earn more for Miami than $14.7M and a 33 years old Kobe still earns more for LA than $25.2M.

Luke Walton isn't worth $6M. So, the top players gave up more so the bottom guys earn more. Now, if you drop the low paid workers, then the owners have definitely gamed the union...regardless of the BRI split.

See, I disagree with that. Luke Walton may be worth less, but there are a lot of players making much less who contribute a lot more.

I've always wondered why base contracts weren't bell shaped. Pay Kobe a lot but with a decline in the later years but with incentive contracts.

Owlman wrote:

Bklyn wrote:Actually, the bottom make too much and the top make too little. D Wade and Lebron (combined) earn more for Miami than $14.7M and a 33 years old Kobe still earns more for LA than $25.2M.

Luke Walton isn't worth $6M. So, the top players gave up more so the bottom guys earn more. Now, if you drop the low paid workers, then the owners have definitely gamed the union...regardless of the BRI split.

See, I disagree with that. Luke Walton may be worth less, but there are a lot of players making much less who contribute a lot more.

I've always wondered why base contracts weren't bell shaped. Pay Kobe a lot but with a decline in the later years but with incentive contracts.

HAHHAHA...that is very cute. Good luck with that. BURN BABY BURN!!

Occupy NBA

This may be the first time I quote a comment instead of the article itself...

I mentioned this several months ago. Shortening contracts will do little more than increase instability to team rosters. It will not eliminate busts. It may reduce the cost of signing a bust, but not by very much. On the flip side, the negatives far out-weigh the 1 benefit …. 1) Such limits won’t just apply to the “busts”. Owners will also not be able to secure their good players long-term which will make team building even more challenging – especially for small market teams, 2) teams will have more roster turnover, 3) team chemistry will constantly be in flux, 4) owners and GMs who are horrible at picking players and building teams will now be doing it more often - not good, 5) stars and quality supporting players will be more difficult to hold on to as they will hit FA several times during the prime of their careers, which brings me to number 6) teams who do a good job of acquiring and developing good young talent won't get to keep that team for more than 2-3 years. Why should teams who do it right be penalized by an ill-conceived system demanded by owners who don't know their collective @sses from a hole in the ground? It's obvious that many fans, by showing support for such changes, only desire a system that is more punitive on the players - damn the consequences. However, when their teams' start losing good players to bigger markets after only 3 yrs instead of 5-6 yrs, they'll wonder why they supported the system changes in the first place. But by then it will too late - the genie won't be going back into the bottle. And by the way, players will still gravitate toward the big markets so that issue won't change for small-market teams. Fans can be idiots sometimes.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_ ... he-disease

the comment would have been half decent if

1) the commenter didn't admit the problem exists and proposes zero solutions of his own on how to fix it, just spews about how it wont fix anything or maintain the status quo

2) dude is spittin' off like he's in the middle of some internet flame war, who's he mad at? and who's he arguing with? why is he calling other fans idiots? are other fans involved in the negotiation?

it's clear he has a rooting interest in a large market squad or has a major hate-on for the owners otherwise he would have come up with some type of alternative measure to reach a desirable equilibrium between small & large market franchises


shorter contracts mean more free agency

isnt that what the players want? all I hear is Fisher & Hunter complaining that the system demands of the owners are inhibiting the players' ability to fully reap the rewards of a true free market.

If that's the case why is this issue even on the table? This one should be rubber stamped right away, no? It's not rubber stamped because it's an obvious concession and there's no amount of free agency that can fuck up a franchise more than giving hedo turkoglu 20% of your salary cap over 6-7 years

I kept reading & here's a much better comment:

All this means is that Players will actually have to earn their paychecks every year like every other person in the world. If you cant keep up your production with what you were paid to do then so be it your pay shall reflect that. No more should one year wonders be able to demand high contracts. I think after one big year they should get a good raise for the next but only for the next and so forth then a decent contract extension with contract rules in place just in case they start to decline in performance. And players wont move to a new teams if they know it will be the same thing.

Personally, I don't think it is a requisite to come with an alternative solution in order to have license to say something isn't going to fix the problem. So, I have no issue with the commenter. Shit, I don't know if there is a solution to large markets/historically successful franchises landing superstars. Before players were making a shitload of cash and willingly signing with new teams via free agency, the same teams were winning championships. Successful teams have always held a premium to the athlete. The thing is, the large market team has to have the right management. It always comes to management. Chicago spent decades as a second-rate NBA franchise and did not win a chip until Jordan hit his prime. New York hasn't won a championship in almost 40 years and hasn't seen the Finals this millenium. The Clippers have been ass in three cities. Management means more than location and TV market size. Players don't come to the Lakers for the Promenade in Santa Monica. They come because Jerry Buss built a quality organization that focuses on winning championships. Same with Mark Cuban.

I agree with the commenter because I truly believe that the system changes I've seen will help owners get out from under bad contracts quicker, but if they take that freed money to sign another marginal player then it's just rinse and repeat.

As far as the Fish and Hunter issue, I don't know what the totality of the system changes are, so I can't comment on whether they had a specific issue with the contract length (which is something I thought they agreed to quite early). I thought their complaints were about the luxury tax changes, the lockout of tax spending teams for mid-level deals after some point and other issues that shrink the pool of available teams who are allowed to participate in the free agent process. I can easily see, in totality, why the union would buck at a structure that allowed less freedom of movement for players.

The fact that my team will suck probably has alot to do with my opinion but I could really care less about this season.

Shameful when people making so much money can't find a way to share the amount of money they are talking about..... especially with the way the world economy is right now. I personally would have liked a complete write off on the season

That would actually harm the economy...you heartless anarchist!

Bklyn wrote:That would actually harm the economy...you heartless anarchist!

LOL. Yes, I recognize the irony but those dough heads hurt alot of people to argue about how rich they want to be.

.....and the bottom line is they essentially wounded up right in the middle despite taking so much time. They should have been having more discussions last year knowing how far apart they were.

Actually, they should have decertified instead of trying to negotiate in good faith back in July. The only reason the owners moved on any concessions was because a court case would definitely hit their pockets in lawyer fees, and the risk of having a financial judgement levied against them in the billions of dollars range was very real.

The game didn't change until a Minnesota court put these case on their docket.

Heh, that would be interesting if D12 made his way to Kings County, NY...

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/72971 ... ando-magic

The new collective bargaining agreement is still an embryo -- an eight-page, bullet-point memo penned by the NBA. While all the details still need to be worked out, we now know the parameters of the deal.

We have the BRI split. We know how the new deal will handle free agents and trades. We have more amnesty details. We have new rules like "designated players" and "mini midlevel," "stretch" and "apron" exceptions. (For more on the new CBA, click here.)

But what you really want to know is, how does all this mumbo-jumbo affect my team? After poring over the new terms of the CBA and team payrolls and making phone calls around the league, ESPN Insiders John Hollinger and Chad Ford break down what the new CBA will mean to every team in the league.

BOSTON CELTICS
How it helps: The Celtics are nearing the luxury-tax threshold with just eight players currently under contract. However, the new CBA's harsher luxury-tax penalties won't kick in until the summer of 2013. By then the Celtics will be in full rebuilding mode and should avoid the stiffer tax.

If the new free-agent rules allow teams to offer an extra year and bigger raises to restricted free agents, the Celtics could lock up Jeff Green if they want to.

How it hurts: Restricted free agency got a little less restrictive under the new rules. If Green gets an offer sheet from another team, the Celtics will only have three days to match it. The team also can't really take advantage of the new amnesty provision unless they really want to blow things up and start over. The problem is, this isn't the summer to start over.

Even with the new "apron" exception the Celtics probably won't be able to use the full-midlevel exception. Re-signing Green and Glen Davis should take them far enough over the threshold that the only exception available to them will be the mini midlevel.

Immediate impact (this season): While a shortened season could favor a veteran team that has already established chemistry like the Celtics, depth could also be critical to combating a compressed schedule, and the C's don't have it. Either way, the rules did little to change the short-term outlook of the franchise much, with the lone exception being that it won't be able to use a full midlevel exception this season.

Long-term impact (future seasons): With only Paul Pierce, Rajon Rondo and Avery Bradley under contract for the 2012-13 season, team president Danny Ainge could really shake things up next summer by using the amnesty clause on Paul Pierce to get roughly $40 million below the cap and go crazy in the free-agent market. The question is whether we'll ever see any team construct a Big Three again. The new rules make that pretty tough going forward.


CHICAGO BULLS
How it helps: Not much. The designated player rule means it's now almost impossible that Derrick Rose will leave … especially when Rose will qualify for a rare contract that allows him to earn 30 percent of the cap instead of the normal 25 percent for rookies. But who are we kidding? Rose, who grew up in Chicago, wasn't going anywhere.

If the Bulls were to re-sign Keith Bogans, a 2012 free agent, after the upcoming season, they could still use the new "apron" rule that allows them to use their full midlevel exception even though it would put them over the luxury-tax threshold.

How it hurts: The Bulls will mostly be all smiles, but the truth is the new designated player rule actually hurt the Bulls. Yes, it virtually guarantees they lock up Rose, but it will come at a much higher cost. Under the old rules Rose was would earn a starting salary of $13.6 million. Under the new ones, his salary will come in at around $16.3M. Over the life of the deal Chicago will owe Rose an extra $15 million.

For a team that already has three big contracts on the books (Carlos Boozer, Joakim Noah and Luol Deng), the extra cash for Rose will make it that much tougher for the Bulls to stay out of the luxury tax starting in 2012-13. Owner Jerry Reinsdorf has never paid the tax before; will he be willing to do it now?

Immediate impact (this season): A lot, actually. The Bulls will sign Rose to a max extension this fall. That's a given. The question is whether they'll use their midlevel exception. The team really needs an upgrade at the 2 and there will likely be a number of veteran options available, including Vince Carter (assuming the Suns don't pick up his option), Jason Richardson and Jamal Crawford. Signing any of them will likely put them over the luxury tax both this season and for seasons to come.

Long-term impact (future seasons): The new, more punitive luxury tax doesn't kick in until 2013, but when it does, the Bulls should be well over the threshold. Reinsdorf isn't James Dolan. He runs a pretty frugal ship. The Bulls should be a great test case of whether the tougher rules on spending really do deter big-market teams from outspending small-market clubs.

DALLAS MAVERICKS How it helps: The Mavericks have always been an expensive team to run. Under the new luxury-tax rules, it's about to get even more expensive to put a team like this on the floor. The good news is the Mavs get a break for two years before the more aggressive luxury-tax penalties kick in. Assuming they re-sign Tyson Chandler and at least one more free agent, the Mavs would have been looking at a hefty tax bill under the new rules.

Whenever the Mavs decide it's time to start making over the team, they have an amnesty poster child in Brendan Haywood, who's due $35 million over the next four years. They may keep him around as insurance at center this season, but long-term, he's almost surely a goner.

How it hurts: Mark Cuban has been one of the biggest spenders in the NBA. But with the new luxury-tax rules, the gravy train may be coming to an end. Between the stiffer tax penalties and a new "repeater" tax that penalizes teams even more if they've been over the tax four out of five years, the Mavs may finally have to rein things in a bit. The new sign-and-trade and extend-and-trade rules may also keep the Mavs from picking off elite free agents from other teams in the future.

Also, Cuban practically invented the "let's throw $3 million into every trade" idea to sweeten deals. But under the new rules, teams can only send out a maximum of $3 million in a given year.

Immediate impact (this season): None, really. Dallas will continue to break the bank to keep this team together. Barring injuries, it should be a serious contender for another NBA title.

Long-term impact (future seasons): At some point, the Mavs' strategy of outspending everyone will be curtailed. The new rules still give the wealthiest owners the ability to spend more than small-market teams, but the higher penalties will make them think twice about it.


LOS ANGELES CLIPPERS
How it helps: The designated player rule and increased max contract for high achievers combine to make it very unlikely that Blake Griffin will leave when he becomes a free agent in two years. How it hurts: The Clippers don't have a truly amnesty-worthy contract. The three-day matching period makes it more tempting for other teams to go after restricted free agents, especially those belonging to a frugal team like this one. That could cost the Clips DeAndre Jordan this summer or Eric Gordon next summer.

Immediate impact (this season): The Clips may use their amnesty on Ryan Gomes but are more likely to preserve it as an insurance policy, most specifically against a decline from Mo Williams.

Long-term impact (future seasons): We're pretty sure Griffin is staying. Gordon? That's still a question.




LOS ANGELES LAKERS
How it helps: The harsh luxury-tax rules don't kick in for two more years, which means the Lakers can spend the next two seasons going all out for another ring for Kobe before the reckoning comes. Just as importantly, the extend-and-trade rules, though harsher than the previous ones, aren't going to be a roadblock if Dwight Howard (or some other star) really wants to force his way to L.A.

How it hurts: The Lakers will have only a mini midlevel exception and no biannual exception this year and next, and they could really use the extra bench help.

Immediate impact (this season): The Lakers will have to shop carefully for guard help given their mini MLE; otherwise it's business as usual in the short term. L.A. may also use its amnesty on forward Luke Walton, but it might prefer to bag the insurance money (a back problem may force him to retire) and amnesty Metta World Peace, Steve Blake or even, ironically, players' association president Derek Fisher. Or it could opt to hang on to the amnesty as future insurance against multiple huge contracts.

Long-term impact (future seasons): Here's something to keep an eye on: The harsher luxury-tax rules kick in 2013-14 -- the same time that the Lakers will be paying Kobe Bryant $30 million in the final year of his deal. That's more than half the current salary cap; between Bryant, Pau Gasol, Blake and World Peace they're already over, making it virtually impossible to get under the tax and avoid the draconian penalties of "repeat offender" status.

So here's the question: Would they dare to save the amnesty for 2013-14 and use it on Kobe?



MIAMI HEAT
How it helps: The higher-than-expected $70 million luxury-tax level and two-year phase-in of more punitive tax rules means Miami has a bit more flexibility this winter to build out its roster. But the bigger advantage is that the designated player and extend-and-trade rules will make it harder for other teams to do what the Heat did and build a roster with multiple superstars on the same team.

The amnesty rule also gives them a mulligan on one of their two genuinely bad contracts -- either Joel Anthony or, more likely, Mike Miller -- removing an obstacle to success.

How it hurts: It's going to be very hard for Miami to stay in contention without being a repeat tax offender, but that status will be dealt with very harshly by this CBA, and Miami historically hasn't been a big-spending team. The Heat had better hope BRI rises sharply over the next three years to limit their tax exposure, because even with their stars they can't offset the tax hit with the revenues of an L.A. or New York.

Immediate impact (this season): Miller is a likely amnesty cut, which would allow the Heat to re-sign free agents Mario Chalmers (restricted) and James Jones, and use the non-taxpayer MLE and biannual exception to build out the roster. The Heat may also try to stay under the luxury tax entirely this season, because that buys them an extra year before they hit the "repeat offender" status and face more draconian tax penalties.

Long-term impact (future seasons): It's not clear how the Heat can cope financially with being a repeat tax team, but the way they've built their roster virtually assures them of being one beyond this season. By the fourth year of the CBA this roster could get very expensive.


NEW JERSEY NETS
How it helps: The Nets ended up blowing all of their cap space last summer on mediocre players. Now that they have Deron Williams in the fold, they desperately need some of that space back to bring in a better supporting cast around him. The new amnesty rule is a godsend for the Nets. Travis Outlaw should be packing his bags.

The lack of a hard cap and the relaxing of the system demands of the owners should play right into the Nets' hands. They are a year away from being in Brooklyn and, by proxy, a big-market team. The fewer restrictions on billionaires throwing their money out the window the better.

The new extend-and-trade and sign-and-trade rules protect them -- a little bit -- from Williams twisting their arm into another trade or just bolting outright this summer.

How it hurts: The new extend-and-trade and sign-and-trade rules also somewhat limit the Nets' ability to land another star alongside Williams. They could also really use at least one more amnesty waiver for Johan Petro.

Immediate impact (this season): The Nets really want Dwight Howard. In fact, they're prepping an offer that includes Brook Lopez and draft picks as we speak. To get Howard, they'll also agree to take Hedo Turkoglu's contract back and that wouldn't be possible without the new amnesty rules. If the Magic say no, they can still strike in free agency now. They have the cash to land a stud free agent or two (Nene is at the top of their list) and then hope that's enough to convince Williams to sign an extension this season.

Long-term impact (future seasons): The stiffer luxury-tax penalties and trade rules will hamper the big spenders a little, and if the Nets' strategy is to build the team like the Heat, they might find that it's going to be tough to get that third star under the new rules.




NEW ORLEANS HORNETS
How it helps: They've been permitted to continue existing. Also, the tightened extend-and-trade rules make it harder, but not impossible, for Chris Paul to force his way out of New Orleans. Like Orlando, the Hornets wanted a franchise tag and didn't get one.

How it hurts: Of course, these same rules also make it harder for the Hornets to get full value in a trade for Paul if they're convinced he's leaving anyway. In the latter scenario, the Hornets would need to trade him by Dec. 31 so that he could sign a full Bird Rights extension with his new team after six months pass but before he becomes a free agent. Otherwise, he's only able to extend his current deal (which technically doesn't expire until 2012-13, but he can opt out of it in 2011-12) for one more year in an extend-and-trade.

Immediate impact (this season): Little besides Paul will be affected. The new CBA doesn't change much regarding David West's free agency or how the Hornets will proceed with secondary players. The biggest issue is the mere scramble to fill out the roster with only six players under contract and a very brief shopping season.

Long-term impact (future seasons): Paul is the major piece, but the amnesty rule is also somewhat helpful. It gives the Hornets some reassuring alternatives in case Emeka Okafor's performance changes, or in case Trevor Ariza's doesn't.




NEW YORK KNICKS
How it helps: The league didn't get the franchise tag that small-market teams wanted, so Knicks fans can take a major sigh of relief -- New York can still raid the rosters of the poor and get away with it. The new trade and free-agent rules may give Chris Paul, Deron Williams or Dwight Howard pause about leaving, but they're not draconian enough to stop them if they really want to play in New York.

How it hurts: The Knicks used an extend-and-trade to get Carmelo Anthony in the fold. The new CBA severely curtails the ability of teams to do the same in the future. The Knicks used a sign-and-trade to land Amare Stoudemire. Sign-and-trades are also less likely under the new arrangement.

The Knicks will also be affected by the league's new revenue-sharing program. While the details are a little fuzzy, it's clear the Knicks and Lakers will be giving up a significant chunk of their profits to small-market teams.

Immediate impact (this season): The bottom line for the Knicks? They really need to work a deal to get either Howard, Paul or Williams by Dec. 31.

They don't have the cap space to hand out a max contract next summer, so if one of them wants to play in New York, he would have to take a significant pay cut and fewer guaranteed years in free agency. If anything, the urgency to pressure New Orleans, New Jersey or Orlando into a deal now has increased.

Long-term impact (future seasons): If the Knicks land another star, it's going to be much more difficult to add talent around them. And if they become a luxury-tax payer again, the cost of doing business will become much higher. Then again, with ticket prices in New York rising about 49 percent this year, they clearly will have the ability to finance such a team.




OKLAHOMA CITY THUNDER
How it helps: The designated player rule will make it easier for OKC to fend off bids for James Harden -- if he becomes as good as most suspect he will -- when he becomes a free agent in two years … provided they don't have to use it on Russell Westbrook first. My reading of the rule is that they won't since, financially, a max extension with the Thunder would be much more lucrative for the point guard. More on that in a second.

How it hurts: Let us count the ways. First, they gave every bad GM a mulligan with an amnesty rule that, by dint of his never signing a bad contract, Oklahoma City's Sam Presti will likely never have to use.

Second, they stuck the knife in by suddenly making max extensions for Kevin Durant and Westbrook several million dollars more expensive than the Thunder had any reason to expect.

Third, by waiting two years before punitive luxury-tax rules kick in, the new CBA allows rivals in Dallas and L.A. to continue outspending OKC by a factor of 2-1 or so this season and next, just as the Thunder are peaking and trying to win the West.

And fourth, with Westbrook now having about 10 million reasons to make either the All-NBA first, second or third team this season and get the more lucrative rookie extension available to players who do so twice in their first four seasons, the alpha-dog tension between him and Durant will only worsen.

Immediate impact (this season): No change. The Thunder will make a couple of small-change moves for a backup small forward (either re-signing Daequan Cook or going after a role-playing vet like Shane Battier) and hope for the best with the Westbrook-Durant partnership.

Long-term impact (future seasons): It just got a lot harder to keep Serge Ibaka two years from now, since the price on the max deals for Durant and Westbrook just went up and I'm guessing Harden will be the first priority from the 2009 class. While revenue sharing will help a bit, it's hard to imagine this small-market franchise retaining four players with $10 million-plus contracts and a fifth (Kendrick Perkins) not too far away.




ORLANDO MAGIC
How it helps: Merry Christmas, Orlando, your Gilbert Arenas nightmare is over. Using the amnesty on him will pull the Magic under the tax line, allowing them to make full use of their exceptions and possibly even re-sign guard Jason Richardson.

How it hurts: Now it's time to play Scrooge. The extend-and-trade rules are unlikely to be harsh enough to thwart Dwight Howard's efforts to leave for a bigger market. And because of the six-month requirement to sign a full Bird extension, they could force Orlando's hand into trading him by Dec. 31 in order to maximize the value they get in a deal.

Immediate impact (this season): Arenas is out, but it's the Howard situation that will dominate the news both locally and nationally. Probably not in a good way.

Long-term impact (future seasons): If Howard goes, the Magic are now in better shape to deal with it cap-wise. Regardless, it would be a huge blow, and the lack of a franchise tag in the new CBA is a major bummer for the folks in Orlando.




PORTLAND TRAIL BLAZERS
How it helps: The Blazers receive a get-out-of-jail free card for the unexpectedly disastrous Brandon Roy contract, providing 100 percent cap and tax relief for what looked to be the worst contract this side of Gilbert Arenas.

How it hurts: Paul Allen can't just go buying draft picks all willy-nilly now that there's a $3 million annual maximum that teams can include in trades. Also, it would have helped if they had selected a GM at some point in the half-year between firing their last one and the end of the lockout.

Immediate impact (this season): Buh-bye Brandon, most likely. The Blazers won't be able to use their full midlevel exception, take advantage of sign-and-trades and re-sign Greg Oden unless they cut Roy loose. Plus, they save themselves a luxury-tax hit in the process. All that makes Portland one of the few teams likely to use its amnesty immediately.

Note that although the MLE is less than before (a max of four years, $22.5 million), keeping that and the biannual exceptions are big for the Blazers, as they've been one of the league's heaviest users of each.

Long-term impact (future seasons): A more punitive luxury tax and penalties for repeat offenders likely either limits or entirely eliminates the so-called "SPAM" method (Spend Paul Allen's Money) the team used to build rosters in the past. It will take more than brute financial force for Allen to win his long-coveted ring.



SAN ANTONIO SPURS
How it helps: The ability to use the amnesty rule in any season was a huge boon to the Spurs. Owner Peter Holt was the head of the labor committee and he pushed hard for it so they could keep Richard Jefferson this season and then waive him in the summer of 2012 if the team decides to rebuild.

The Spurs will likely be luxury-tax payers this season. Luckily for them, the new more stringent luxury-tax penalties don't kick in until 2013 -- just in time for the Spurs' rebuilding process.

How it hurts: San Antonio may have one of the best front offices in the NBA, but having David Robinson and then Tim Duncan all of those years really helped the situation. With Duncan on the tail end of his career, how do the Spurs replace him? Short of hitting another home run in the lottery, they may have to drink from the bitter cup that small-market teams have been drinking from for years, and pretty soon.

If that's the case, Holt may regret not holding out longer for more substantive system-issue changes. It looks like Oklahoma City might be the new San Antonio and San Antonio might soon be the next Indiana.

Immediate impact (this season): The way the new deal is structured gives the Spurs a one- to two-year window to keep competing with their current core of Duncan, Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker without facing the stiffer luxury-tax penalties of the new CBA. In short, it looks like they're keeping the band together at least one more year.

Long-term impact (future seasons): The Spurs' future is as hazy as anyone's in the league. The Kawhi Leonard trade on draft night was an attempt to start adding some young talent. But unless the Spurs are able to flip Manu and Parker for younger, talented players next summer, there could be a long, difficult rebuilding process coming.




TORONTO RAPTORS
How it helps: The new amnesty provision allows the Raptors to be players in this year's free-agent market if they want to be. If Nene or Tyson Chandler wants to come to Toronto, they could amnesty a player like Jose Calderon and get far enough under the cap to sign him.

If new rookie Jonas Valanciunas is as good as some NBA scouts think he can be, the Raptors will also have an easier time re-signing him in four years thanks to the new designated player rules.

How it hurts: The new CBA shouldn't have a significant negative impact on the Raptors right now. Of course, that says more about the state of limbo the team is currently in than it does about the new CBA.

Immediate impact (this season): Unless they use the amnesty clause, the Raptors won't really be players in this winter's abbreviated free-agency period. If they do, they can take a shot at a few talented free agents.

Long-term impact (future seasons): Assuming they hold on to their amnesty waiver until next summer (when they could also let Leandro Barbosa walk), the Raptors could be serious free-agent players in 2012 without having to gut their team.




UTAH JAZZ
How it helps: If the Jazz need the money, the new amnesty clause would help them get either Mehmet Okur or Al Jefferson off the books.

How it hurts: The Jazz may be second-guessing themselves a little for trading Deron Williams. They got very good value for him from the Nets, but with extend-and-trade and sign-and-trade options now curtailed, you have to wonder whether Williams would have left the extra money and years on the table to bolt to another team. The new CBA would have made it harder for him to do so.

The Jazz were also another small-market team that was hoping the new CBA would level the playing field a little more than it did. Revenue sharing will help, but the competitive balance in the league is still out of whack.

Immediate impact (this season): Probably very little. They have one significant free agent, Andrei Kirilenko, whom they can probably afford to re-sign without incurring the luxury tax. Otherwise, the Jazz charted their future as a rebuilding club with the preemptive Deron deal in February. It's tricky to do, but the team has had success with it in the past.

Long-term impact (future seasons): The future of this team is Derrick Favors, Gordon Hayward, Enes Kanter and Alec Burks. The new rules for rookie contracts should protect them from losing any of them if they play up to their potential.

HOUSTON ROCKETS

How it helps: They'll have a bit more cap space than they expected. But it would help a lot more if they could go back in time and use the amnesty rule on Tracy McGrady.

How it hurts: The Rockets watched many of their competitors receive a mulligan on bad contracts, but they don't have any of their own. Plus, based on past history, the $3 million annual limit on putting cash in trades will hurt Houston as much as any team except perhaps Portland.

Immediate impact (this season): Houston can pursue free agent Nene and amnesty Hasheem Thabeet if it succeeds. Otherwise, the Rockets' main motivation remains packaging assets to get a perennial All-Star via trade, meaning little change to their blueprint.

Long-term impact (future seasons): As a high-revenue team that won't pay tax this year or next, Houston may be able to spend freely just as its competition needs to tighten the purse strings to avoid repeat-offender status. The Rockets will hang on to their amnesty to guard against a sudden decline from Luis Scola, who is 31 and has at least three years and $28 million guaranteed left on his deal.

(sorry, I meant to not delete Houston...but got happy in my hedge trimming)

The parity fallacy of the Lockout

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/stor ... rket-teams

Are you comparing the Rockets to unwanted pubic hair?