Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

NBA Finals: Los Angeles Lakers vs. Boston Celtics


King Taharqa

Who will win?  

35 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will win?

    • Los Angeles Lakers
    • Boston Celtics


Recommended Posts

Surprise surprise. Game 7 coming on Thursday. Lakers are more agressive defensively tonight, and the injury to Perkins hurt the C's. I'll give the Lakers credit, they responded to the adversity and played with more effort. But I'm sticking with the Celtics to bounce back off this blowout and get it done in LA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cant see a Kobe Bryant led Lakers team losing a game 7 for the NBA championship on their home floor' date=' especially if Perkins injury keeps him out of the game.....Lakers in 7......[/quote']

The injury to Perk is a big loss if he cant go. They need his presence defensively. Pau Gasol is +20 right now and flirting with a triple double and Perk going down is a big part of that. I trust Doc Rivers to make the adjustments and get the Celtics to play a shitload better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i called Boston in 6. im still skeptical but i'll stick with Boston. please LA fans, don't blame the refs. blame anyone but Kobe, who scored 38 pts.

im so sick of excuse. for the love of all things good and mighty quit kissing azz. Maybe the Celtics are better right now! jeez

puh-theh-tick

Great stuff, what else ya got?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...