NBA Screwed?: James Leaning Towards Heat

Bill Russell of course. 11 Championships in 13 years.

That's who I thought he was talking about at first, but then I thought that was nearly 50 years ago

Could Miami's Super Team Be Broken Up After One Year? -- NBA FanHouse (http://nba.fanhouse.com/2010/07/11/could-miamis-super-team-be-broken-up-after-one-year//?ncid=txtlnkusspor00000002)
LAS VEGAS -- When Cleveland owner Dan Gilbert predicted that his Cavaliers would win a championship before The King and his Miami Heat Superfriends in his open letter to LeBron James, the assertion seemed about as foolish as the letter itself.

Yet Gilbert's inexplicable confidence in making the statement -- and lack of confidence in the Heat's new star-studded core -- may have stemmed from a scenario that has fast become a hot topic among the league's owners: The notion that the Miami Three of James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh could be down to the Miami Two after just one season.

It is, in fact, a possibility.



Share
With the league's collective bargaining agreement set to expire after next season, the owners are poised to go the way of the NHL and insist on a hard salary cap in the next deal that could be in the neighborhood of $45 million. If they are successful in that attempt -- likely after a lockout like the one endured by the NHL in 2004-05 -- the Heat and a number of other teams could be forced to release key players if their salaries surpassed the cap.

James, Wade and Bosh are reportedly scheduled to make a combined $43 million on their own next season with 10 percent annual raises thereafter, potentially meaning a nightmare scenario on South Beach. The Heat would hardly be alone in their despair, as the defending champion Lakers have approximately $80 million in committed salaries for the 2011-12 season and are slated to pay a combined $45 million for Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol alone.

The NBA currently has a soft salary cap, which includes numerous exceptions that allow teams to exceed the cap and a luxury tax threshold to deter teams from spending well beyond the cap. It is a system, however, that the owners are convinced no longer works in the current economic climate.

Commissioner David Stern claimed at the All-Star game in February that the owners are projected to lose approximately $400 million this season, with player's association director Billy Hunter later being quoted calling those projections "baloney." Considering the events that have transpired since, it's safe to say Hunter isn't done disputing Stern's position.

The announcement of the 2010-11 salary cap certainly didn't help Stern's argument, as the final figure of $58.044 million (with a $70.307 million luxury tax threshold) was not only higher than the $57.7 million cap figure from last season but approximately $2 million higher than was recently projected and far higher than low-end prediction of $50.3 million given by the league last year. What's more, the flurry of bloated free agent deals being given this month has players and agents alike rolling their eyes at the perceived disconnect between the words and deeds of the owners.

The NHL's negotiating history is worth analyzing, as the owners are clearly using it as a reference point for their position. That revelation is the next step in the process, as sources confirmed to FanHouse that the owners were recently given the Players Association's latest proposal and a miles-apart counter is to come.

In the case of the NHL, teams that lost players because of the new structure were given a week to buy out those contracts at a two-thirds rate. That money did not count against their cap, and those players could not re-sign with their current team. Additionally, all salaries on existing contracts were rolled back 24 percent.

All 30 teams will be represented at an owner's meeting Monday in Las Vegas, where they'll certainly discuss such matters. The meeting has been planned for months, although a counter proposal is not expected to be formalized during the session that is expected to last approximately three hours. It remains unclear which options the owners will consider that could help avoid the doomsday scenario and break-up of the Miami Three, whether it's grandfathering in contracts that were signed before the new CBA or perhaps implementing the hard cap in phases over numerous years to allow teams to make the necessary adjustments.

If not, however, Gilbert's seemingly-senseless prediction could wind up being right after all.

E-mail Sam at amick.sam@gmail.com or follow him on Twitter @samickFanHouse.

Does Jesse Jackson really have to turn everything into a slavery analogy?

Rev. Jesse Jackson: Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert put LeBron James in danger - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5372266)

Does Jesse Jackson really have to turn everything into a slavery analogy?

Rev. Jesse Jackson: Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert put LeBron James in danger - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5372266)

Omg. What a gigantic fail. I'm certainly for racial equality, but Jesse Jackson is such a turd.

Does Jesse Jackson really have to turn everything into a slavery analogy?

Rev. Jesse Jackson: Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert put LeBron James in danger - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5372266)
The man is so blind he actually holds his race back in ways. If people can ever be justified for using slurs based on race he's the poster boy for the exception list, not that I condone it. So many people try to ride in on a high horse that aren't worth the mud and droppings below the hoof and he's one of them. It's a shame that the likeness of true civil pioneers like Thurgood Marshall don't rest in the minds of many of the so called rights movement leaders of today.

Does Jesse Jackson really have to turn everything into a slavery analogy?

Rev. Jesse Jackson: Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert put LeBron James in danger - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5372266)

What a bad choice of words. I'll never equate a man getting paid millions upon millions of dollars to play a game as being a "slave." If Dan Gilbert was black he wouldn't have said anything, he just looks at it like another case of a rich white guy keeping the black man down, despite the whole, "he gave LBJ everything he could've to bring a championship to Cleveland, including an assload of money, whatever position player LBJ asked for to help him out, etc. etc."

Does Jesse Jackson really have to turn everything into a slavery analogy?

Rev. Jesse Jackson: Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert put LeBron James in danger - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5372266)

That's the type of thing I would love to hear as a joke from Chris Rock. Unfortunately hearing it come from Jessie Jackson simply makes me shake my head. Jessie Jackson reminds me of people like this.

In 2010, Bush was featured almost shirtless on the cover of Essence Magazine as part of an issue about "Black Men, Love & Relationships."[41] However there was controversy as some black female readers took offense to Bush on the cover of such an issue, since he was involved with Kardashian (who is not Black) and Bush was accused of only dating non-Black women.[42]

A couple of more surgeries, and JJ becomes the second coming of Joan Rivers?
He is nothing if not entertaining...........

What a bad choice of words. I'll never equate a man getting paid millions upon millions of dollars to play a game as being a "slave." If Dan Gilbert was black he wouldn't have said anything, he just looks at it like another case of a rich white guy keeping the black man down, despite the whole, "he gave LBJ everything he could've to bring a championship to Cleveland, including an assload of money, whatever position player LBJ asked for to help him out, etc. etc."

This

People like JJ work way to hard trying to manufacture racial atrocities out of relative innocence.
A friend on mine and I were having a similar conversation some time ago. He wisely advised me that JJ and the Rev al, etc do not represent or speak for the black community in general(except in their own minds).