I hope Perth have their cheque book ready :P

That would be something

Lisch, Ennis and Prather

or

Beal, Ennis and Prather

OR

Ennis, Prather AND DUNIGAN!

A Beal, Prather, Ennis combination would be heaven.

Isn't there still going to be a salary cap?

Ennis, Prather and Baron Davis sounds better.

Lock him up asap!

They are looking at increasing the cap. Plus there is the marquee rule anyway. Plus some teams already ignore the cap including the amount that I heard that they'd possibly increase to.

Isaac: Which teams? You should send your concerns to the NBL straight away! They need to know.

Isaac: If they do increase the cap, add the asian player spot and so on are you expecting any major changes to happen. Will townsville hang in there? How would Adelaide go?

I struggle to see how the Asian player rule will benefit any team but I'm sure Perth will find a way.

Can somebody that follows NBA explain exactly what this means?
My understanding is that Ennis has been mostly assigned to their D-League affiliate anyway? Does this mean he's nolonger connected with the Grizzlies in any way?
What are his chances of remaining in the system? Picking up 10-day contracts like say McRae?
More to the point, what are his chances for next season? Presumably he'll go back to the D-League and keep trying and then Europe would have to be an option?

Questions for Perth:
Can they keep Prather?
Is Ennis better at 3 or 4?
Can they lure Lisch back?
Was the story about Beal getting naturalised just a furphy?
Is Martin contracted?
Would any of the above crack the sads if asked to start on the bench?

No furphy with Beal.

Dazz,

When a player in the NBA is waived they go onto the waiver wire where every other team starting from the team with the worst record can decide to sign the player on the contract terms they were on with their previous team. If every team passes then he becomes a free agent and will no longer have ties with the Grizzlies or any other team.

He can go back to the D-League (or anywhere else for that matter). You don't actually sign with a specific D-League team, you sign a contract with the league (up to about $25K a season) and then the various teams can pick you up. This just happened with Baron Davis trying to make an NBA comeback he signed a contract with the D-League in January but no team picked him up until today when the Delaware 87ers (Philly 76ers affiliate) signed him.

If you're Ennis realistically with the Chinese league wrapping up (their league MVP Michael Beasley is about to sign with Houston) and the Euro leagues coming to a close he's best trying to sign on with a D-League team and hope another NBA team likes what they see and picks him up.

Next season who knows.

Thanks Zodiac,
So does anybody play in the NBA off-season? What about the Summer League, would he be chance of getting a gig there?

Anon #403,
Do you have any further news on the Beal story?

Anon #405,
Yeas, that would be one truly awesome line-up, especially if you consider that Knight could start at centre, and also backup the 4. SO if you come up against a team with a massive line-up on the court, we could run Ennis, Knight, and Jervis.

Anon #407,
Sorry, but I disagree.
Ennis is one of the best rebounders we've had in recent years, Knight is our leading rebounder, whilst Jervis leads in rebounds per minute
Martin, Prather, Hire, and Wagstaff are also good.
Although Lisch may be a pipe-dream, he is also better rebounder than Beal, so reality is that the line-up suggested would be awesome on the boards.

It would have its good and bad nights.
Ennis at the 4 is a bad idea IMO. Why put him in that position? He'd get abused like Oscar Forman does. He's just about the ideal 3 IMO.

He's an excellent rebounder, no doubt. Guess what, so is Damian Martin. That does not qualify him to play the 4 spot.
Yes Ennis could do it, but it's making poor use of his skill set IMO. Additionally he is a foul-prone defender, which is far more costly at the 4 than the 3, because in the paint he'd be physically challenged constantly. He'd get his share of swats, and he'd also spend far too long on the bench in foul trouble.

That's the way I see it anyway. I really don't see why he wouldn't be played at the 3 spot. Makes much better use of his athleticism being able to get a running start at rebounds rather than being camped underneath them and having to use strength for positioning. It's just not his game.

Guys, you do realise that Ennis is over 2.0m?
He's actually taller than players like Conklin, Vukona, etc, not to mention his greater athleticism.
The question would be his strength, and bulk. At 95kg he's probably a little light for a PF, but that's nothing a bit of time in the gym won't fix.

Anyway, the question is IF he could play the 4, and the answer is yes.
Most of the better teams try to incorporate some flexibility, and that proposed line-up would. Even your "starting" 5 rarely plays together for more than half the game.
The great advantage that Ennis brings, is that he could play 3 or 4. A rotation including Ennis, Knight, and Jervis would put aside any concerns over being beaten up.

Anyway, the line-up mooted, awesome as it may be, is simply a wish-list at this point.
The only known points of Perth's team next season are Martin, Jervis, and Wagstaff. Still a lot of what-ifs to be answered.

If the question is "who would you prefer at SF, Ennis or Prather?" The answer is "both."

If the game was going to be called the same way it was when Ennis was here last he could probably play PF, but I don't see that happening again when the league's motto in hardball!

I think you can use him there in spurts, but to play him big minutes is just going to wear him down, teams will make him defend on-balls and post-ups relentlessly, and he's a guy who gets a bit lost defensively as it is.

I doubt Ennis would come back to the NBL.
He seemed pretty pissed about that whole MVP thing.

Geez, I hope he does come back though....beast!!

I don't think the "MVP thing" would stop him coming back, if anything it would give him a reason to if he's ego really is that big.

I think the Cats should be looking to sign Prather before going after anyone else at this point. Especially when the cap increases. Get you're own house in order before anything else.

Depending on which of those purported rule changes get up, it could be a whole new ball-game. 4 local Marquees could really change the face of the team.

My concern is how many teams are gonna burn out trying to fund their teams to basically 'catch up' to the others if these new rules come in. Adelaide, Townsville even Cairns could crash and burn.

One other thing.

Am I wrong in thinking that one of the main reasons Ennis picked the NBL was because it was to help out his family financially? (I have this faint memory of him only having a single parent / illness ? and a lot of siblings.?)

Id love to see him back in Cat's Red as much as the next fan

Sydneys owners and their presence in decision making have been almost as mysterious as the collection of Owners of the Wellington Phoenix in the A League. Ill never understand either.

Its possible these rules changes wont happen. Kestleman would obviously be canvasing each club.

"Guys, you do realise that Ennis is over 2.0m?
He's actually taller than players like Conklin, Vukona, etc, not to mention his greater athleticism."

And Vukona is 6"5.5 and Conklin is 6"6 - so by your logic Vukona and Conklin should play SG/SF?

Height doesn't simply dictate position. Vukona and Conklin can't play SG/SF because they don't have the skill to play that position.

Equally, Ennis isn't suited to PF because he doesn't have the skill to excel at that position.

Vukona and Conklin have never played SG/SF AFAIK and never will, so why expect Ennis to just change position at the drop of a hat?

My understanding of the new rules (yet to be officially announced) is that there will be a tax when clubs go 'over the cap', to be distributed to the clubs that are less financial, so teams like TSV and CNS will benefit from Perth and NZ overspending.

It may not be enough to help them win championships but will help make the league competitive without the smaller clubs having to jeopardise their finances.

Matthew,
Yes you are correct about his original reason for choosing the NBL over D-League.
That said, he is also on records about what a pleasant surprise it was, how much he loved Australia and Perth.
If he's a chance of another NBA contract, there's no question he'd prefer that. He would presumably hope to pick up a gig in the Summer League and impress enough to get picked up again. If that doesn't happen, he would presumably consider other options including Europe, NBL, etc.
Depends on what rules get up. Simply changing to 3 imports, (or even staying at 2), would make him attractive as a marquee player. However if we chance to the touted "4 marquee locals" rule that could chance everything.

As for whether he should play 3 or 4, we'd just have to wait and see.
Ignoring everything else, in a perfect squad, he would be BEST (ie awesome) at SF, but there's no denying that he COULD also play the 4. (Whilst accepting that he would struggle if he came up against the equivalent of Knight, Motum, Kickert, etc playing at PF.)

As I said, even assuming we could lock him in as coming back to Perth, we have to wait and see what the rules are, and who else Perth locks in.
As for other teams chasing him, assuming their squads are wide open, they'd be better chasing him for the 3.

I don't understand how a team like Cairns can be considered "less financial" when it's one of the only teams to post a profit.

Just because it reportedly chooses to spend to a budget shouldn't mean it benefits from other teams' spending.

I don't think it is set in concrete that Cairns will benefit from other teams overspending.
We should be mindful the NBL is owned by the owners of NBL teams. It is in their best interest to have an even comp and relatively even playing field and not have teams uncompetitive or in danger of folding. The long term aim must be to have a TV deal where the NBL is paid for TV rights. Having competitive teams in many centres will help this.

I don't understand how a team like Cairns can be considered "less financial" when it's one of the only teams to post a profit.

Just because it reportedly chooses to spend to a budget shouldn't mean it benefits from other teams' spending.

What if you can afford it but choose not to spend to the cap? That's what I don't understand.

If a team is profitable, it should be able to spend to the cap shouldn't it? Or is it profitable because it doesn't spend to the cap?

Currently the tax imposed for marquee salary over the cap is 25%. As far as I am aware, that money is simply collected by the NBL. Whilst many people have discussed the idea of returning the tax to poorer clubs, I have read nothing to indicate that was implemented.
Going back and reading an interview with Fearne when it was announced, there was no mention of Cairns receiving a benefit.

Even if it were, its only 25%.
There are probably only 3 teams that could afford to spend big, but let's say there's 4. Say they overspend on average by $500k. That's a total overspend of $2M, and a tax of $500k. Spread between 5 other teams that would be $100k each. Handy, but not equalising.
Even if you doubled that, it would give the lesser teams an extra $200k to compete with those spending an extra $1M.

The rationale behind a single marquee player, is that grabbing one Euro~quality player, or super-star ex NBA player, whilst obviously advantageous, is only marginally so. So even if you had the cash, a $500k will be better than a $200k player, but not twice as good, and not enough to make your team unstoppable.
But up to 4 marquees? The ability to stack your 5 with $400k players? She-it.
On top of that, with upto 4 marquee players, that still leaves you with $1M to spend on 6 players, so you can still afford a couple of $200k+ imports.

And here's the other thing. I know a lot of dribblers say "oh the NBL is shit, all our best players are in Europe or America". But so what?
Is spending a lot more money on players really going to translate to more bums on seats or TV revenue?

I realise there are those who follow the careers of individual Australians, like some form of religion. And you CLAIM that you would hate the NBL less if Andersen, Broekhoff, Motum, Newley and Maric were all enticed home. But how many extra bums on seats would they really attract?

People at the moment are going nuts over Randle, and that's great. Does anybody really care that if you had $2M to spend on salaries, you could
have gotten a more expensive player?

People complain that the league is "dominated" by Perth and NZ now. Do we really want to see what happens if these proposals got through?
Do we really want to see MU buy a couple of 'ships, then collapse into a black-hole when LK and his mates get bored of pissing their money away?

On top of that, with upto 4 marquee players, that still leaves you with $1M to spend on 6 players, so you can still afford a couple of $200k+ imports.

"If a team is profitable, it should be able to spend to the cap shouldn't it? Or is it profitable because it doesn't spend to the cap?"

It just means it has a budget and sticks to it. Just because CNS make a profit doesn't mean it is a huge profit that they can throw away to spend to the cap. It just means they budget well and don't make a loss, meaning they are a sustainable team.

"Currently the tax imposed for marquee salary over the cap is 25%. As far as I am aware, that money is simply collected by the NBL."

Money is distributed to clubs who are under the cap.

People keep saying that (and I think its a good idea) but I have never seen anything official.
Besides, As I said, distributing 25% amongst upto 5 teams doesn't make equality.
Furthemore, if it is only distributed to teams UNDER the cap, then that is a long way short.

Kober, I have never heard that. Everything I ever read said the Marquee player was a free hit above the salary cap.
If they are going to introduce 4 marquees, then they obviously can't be worth $250k each to a $1M cap.
Even $150k would make no sense.

That said, I have still only seen that one article suggesting this 4 marquee rule change, so who knows what the details are. Maybe a teams can't have both? Perhaps the number of imports reduces the spots available for local marquees?

The Wildcats are yet to decide whether they will take advantage of the new marquee import rule, to be introduced next season.

The rule will see nine players at each club contracted under a salary cap of $850,000, with a marquee player allowed to be paid outside the cap.

But any money the marquee player is paid above a $150,000 ceiling will attract a 25 per cent luxury tax, which will go into a central pool to be redistributed by the league.