Nika in Seattle | Page 7 | The Boneyard

Nika in Seattle

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bald Husky

four score
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
2,231
Reaction Score
13,173
I think that Nika will make the Seattle roster. If there are cap space issues, Seattle will deal with them one way or the other.

First of all, she is good enough and will make their team better.

Second, they would look ridiculous if they cut her. They have been marketing her since the moment they drafted her.

And not just Seattle - if you go on the WNBA Twitter feed now (May 8), it looks like the Nika Muhl show.

The Caitlin Clark phenomenon has created a great opportunity to expand the popularity of the WNBA game and cutting Nika would be an incredible buzzkill move.
Why would the WNBA miss on the opportunity for Nika to guard Caitlin Clark when the Storm play the Fever? Nikas draft stock rose after her performance against Clark and Iowa. This would be perfect clip bait to promo the game between these two teams. Even though she was not a scorer at UConn, she became a folk hero to her fans and that may translate to the Seattle fans as well. She will make the team.
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2024
Messages
163
Reaction Score
382
Not a scorer at UCONN, but maybe not being the primary PG anymore will bring some of that offense out of her. We saw it in her first game when she made 2-3 FG, a midrange jumper and a three. I think she'll grow to be an evenly talented defender and scorer as she acclimates to her new position. At UCONN, especially in the Elite 8 game, she clearly had lots offensive talent locked up inside of her. Wish she had used it more.
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2023
Messages
235
Reaction Score
931
Of course you are referencing the fact that DT steamrolled Nika, scoring the basket and earning an “and 1” for a 3-pt play. I suspect that Geno got a kick out of watching that play, both the fact that Nika took on the GOAT, and that the GOAT gave the youngster a lesson.
DT vs NM is classic basketball. Veterans teach not by X's and O's but by showing how it's done. Rookies learn by giving their complete attention to the finer details executed by the best and trying to emulate. It's all part of the game we love.
 

HuskyNan

You Know Who
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
25,114
Reaction Score
204,193
#HuskySisterhood

9B3279BF-C141-48B9-BD93-A036D0329FEA.jpeg
 
Joined
Apr 11, 2020
Messages
2,250
Reaction Score
9,106
Tell me if this makes sense, I think the W ought to have 2 salary caps. One for an 11 person roster and a second higher cap for a 12 person roster. That way a rookie won't be told that they won't make the team because the team would be a $1.37 over the salary cap. The second cap should be the rookie salary higher than the 11 person cap. We're talking about peanuts here, but I understand the W is not generally profitable...

If a team cannot afford a 12th player at the starting rookie salary they should start a Go-Fund-Me page (which has been known to bring in much more than that). Really, this whole situation is ridiculous. One of the reasons WCBB is more popular than the W.
 

oldude

bamboo lover
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
16,949
Reaction Score
150,363
Tell me if this makes sense, I think the W ought to have 2 salary caps. One for an 11 person roster and a second higher cap for a 12 person roster. That way a rookie won't be told that they won't make the team because the team would be a $1.37 over the salary cap. The second cap should be the rookie salary higher than the 11 person cap. We're talking about peanuts here, but I understand the W is not generally profitable...

If a team cannot afford a 12th player at the starting rookie salary they should start a Go-Fund-Me page (which has been known to bring in much more than that). Really, this whole situation is ridiculous. One of the reasons WCBB is more popular than the W.
I think you should forward your suggestion to WNBA Commissioner Cathy Engelbert. :)
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2024
Messages
73
Reaction Score
264
Tell me if this makes sense, I think the W ought to have 2 salary caps. One for an 11 person roster and a second higher cap for a 12 person roster. That way a rookie won't be told that they won't make the team because the team would be a $1.37 over the salary cap. The second cap should be the rookie salary higher than the 11 person cap. We're talking about peanuts here, but I understand the W is not generally profitable...

If a team cannot afford a 12th player at the starting rookie salary they should start a Go-Fund-Me page (which has been known to bring in much more than that). Really, this whole situation is ridiculous. One of the reasons WCBB is more popular than the W.
In the situation of the Seattle Storm, it is going to be $17.00; no, not as little as a buck thirty seven, but literally seventeen dollars!
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2024
Messages
73
Reaction Score
264
Another solution, completely contrary to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, would be to allow a player to say “Although I was drafted as the fourteenth player overall, I would like to sign a contract for the league minimum salary of $64,154. I recognize that you want to pay me $67,249 because of my draft status, but I will accept the league minimum today and work towards a promotion and a larger salary in future, where do I sign?”
 

oldude

bamboo lover
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
16,949
Reaction Score
150,363
Another solution, completely contrary to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, would be to allow a player to say “Although I was drafted as the fourteenth player overall, I would like to sign a contract for the league minimum salary of $64,154. I recognize that you want to pay me $67,249 because of my draft status, but I will accept the league minimum today and work towards a promotion and a larger salary in future, where do I sign?”
Not crazy about that. It would allow unscrupulous owners to whipsaw 2 or more players to accept lower compensation than they are due, and it would also be in violation of the CBA. The goal should be to raise overall WNBA salaries, not reduce them.
 

CL82

NCAA Men’s Basketball National Champions - Again!
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
57,290
Reaction Score
210,420
Not crazy about that. It would allow unscrupulous owners to whipsaw 2 or more players to accept lower compensation than they are due, and it would also be in violation of the CBA. The goal should be to raise overall WNBA salaries, not reduce them.
On the other hand, it empowers players to make a decision as to whether or not they're willing to accept a nominal decrease to play in the WNBA. I accept that it may be violent at the CBA, but I am always partial to treating people like adults.
 

oldude

bamboo lover
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
16,949
Reaction Score
150,363
On the other hand, it empowers players to make a decision as to whether or not they're willing to accept a nominal decrease to play in the WNBA. I accept that it may be violent at the CBA, but I am always partial to treating people like adults.
Again, if someone is willing to take less pay than they are due, it presents a whole host of problems, not the least of which includes the potential of players to be referred to as “scabs” as well as the likely opposition of veteran players who would also be subject to whipsawing by owners.

I much prefer Skeets suggestion that teams be allotted 2 salary caps for 11 or 12 players respectively. The other possibility is that teams can pay the league a “luxury tax” similar to MLB if they exceed the salary cap.
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2024
Messages
73
Reaction Score
264
Again, if someone is willing to take less pay than they are due, it presents a whole host of problems, not the least of which includes the potential of players to be referred to as “scabs” as well as the likely opposition of veteran players who would also be subject to whipsawing by owners.

I much prefer Skeets suggestion that teams be allotted 2 salary caps for 11 or 12 players respectively. The other possibility is that teams can pay the league a “luxury tax” similar to MLB if they exceed the salary cap.
It is Capitalism. Further, these are professional athletes being discussed, not staff at a hair salon. This is a ‘protection’ that has absolutely ship-wrecked players careers in the past and will continue to do so into the future. In addition to being on the bubble and having to outplay other teammates for the roster spot, if your ‘required salary’ is $652 more than others only because you were drafted a few spots higher, and as a result puts the team over the limit, regardless of whether you’re a better player or not you don’t make the team. What is necessary, is to MAKE THE TEAM!!!

Step 1 – Make the team as a rookie!!!

Step 2 – Be a hard worker, be charismatic, become a crowd favorite, but not just in the women’s basketball stadium but rather become a community favorite! (Nika’s personality and attractive appearance certainly will not hurt her).

Step 3 – Appear in commercials and advertising; be compensated an amount that will make the WNBA Salary nothing but what it really is, a pittance, and the $652 makes no dang difference.

Step 4 – Make the team as a second-year player!!!

Step 5 – Rinse and repeat.


And yet, if a player is not able to get through Step 1, … well, maybe there are alternatives. They could go play in Europe, or put that Psychology degree to practice in the real world.
 

CL82

NCAA Men’s Basketball National Champions - Again!
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
57,290
Reaction Score
210,420
Again, if someone is willing to take less pay than they are due, it presents a whole host of problems, not the least of which includes the potential of players to be referred to as “scabs” as well as the likely opposition of veteran players who would also be subject to whipsawing by owners.
I guess, but shouldn't that be their choice, rather than someone else's? I'm always wary when people who aren't involved decide that "they know what's best" for people who are actually involved and have an economic interest.

I'm not sure that anyone is going to call a member of the union who is working wow there is no strike in progress "a scab."

I'm also not sure what the "whipsaw" would be to veteran players. For what it's worth veteran players often choose to take less to allow other players on the roster. Stewart did this very recently. Why shouldn't a rookie be able to decide to take 3000 less dollars versus not make the team because of salary cap. Again, trust adults to make their own decisions.

That said, it's all theoretical because the CBA is in place and if that means that some marginal rookies are not going to get to play because of the salary cap, well, it is what it is.
 

oldude

bamboo lover
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
16,949
Reaction Score
150,363
It is Capitalism. Further, these are professional athletes being discussed, not staff at a hair salon. This is a ‘protection’ that has absolutely ship-wrecked players careers in the past and will continue to do so into the future. In addition to being on the bubble and having to outplay other teammates for the roster spot, if your ‘required salary’ is $652 more than others only because you were drafted a few spots higher, and as a result puts the team over the limit, regardless of whether you’re a better player or not you don’t make the team. What is necessary, is to MAKE THE TEAM!!!

Step 1 – Make the team as a rookie!!!

Step 2 – Be a hard worker, be charismatic, become a crowd favorite, but not just in the women’s basketball stadium but rather become a community favorite! (Nika’s personality and attractive appearance certainly will not hurt her).

Step 3 – Appear in commercials and advertising; be compensated an amount that will make the WNBA Salary nothing but what it really is, a pittance, and the $652 makes no dang difference.

Step 4 – Make the team as a second-year player!!!

Step 5 – Rinse and repeat.


And yet, if a player is not able to get through Step 1, … well, maybe there are alternatives. They could go play in Europe, or put that Psychology degree to practice in the real world.
I guess, but shouldn't that be their choice, rather than someone else's? I'm always wary when people who aren't involved decide that "they know what's best" for people who are actually involved and have an economic interest.

I'm not sure that anyone is going to call a member of the union who is working wow there is no strike in progress "a scab."

I'm also not sure what the "whipsaw" would be to veteran players. For what it's worth veteran players often choose to take less to allow other players on the roster. Stewart did this very recently. Why shouldn't a rookie be able to decide to take 3000 less dollars versus not make the team because of salary cap. Again, trust adults to make their own decisions.

That said, it's all theoretical because the CBA is in place and if that means that some marginal rookies are not going to get to play because of the salary cap, well, it is what it is.
Minimum wage laws were implemented following the Great Depression to protect workers and insure they had an acceptable standard of living. Absent such protections, unscrupulous employers were far more likely to drive down compensation for all employees. I was profoundly impacted by reading “The Grapes of Wrath” in HS, which outlined the cruel exploitation of agricultural workers during the Depression.

I know you’re likely to respond, “But these are professional athletes and college graduates?” This is not the NBA where minimum salaries are $1.1 million. The current minimum salary in the W is $64,154. Try living in LA, Chicago, NY, DC on $64k. WBB players should not have to play year round to make a decent living, putting enormous strain on their bodies, while living in a foreign country.

With just 144 precious roster spots available, many teams only filling 11/12 spots and many talented WBB players desperate to make it in the W, just how low should players be forced to go before we are no longer talking about “Capitalism” but rather “Exploitation?”
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
389
Guests online
1,915
Total visitors
2,304

Forum statistics

Threads
157,360
Messages
4,096,410
Members
9,984
Latest member
stanfordnyc


Top Bottom