NBA's Buy-out Trend
Moderators: pacers33granger, Grang33r, pacerfan, Jake0890, boomershadow
-
JarrettJackSG
- Rookie
- Posts: 1,190
- And1: 0
- Joined: Nov 01, 2007
DISCLAIMER
I think I must have changed focuses a lot for this post, and it's a lot of rambling, I'll admit. I'm sorry if this is a waste of your time. I haven't gotten a lot of sleep lately...
END DISCLAIMER
Oh, I suppose I might as well, the game is going horribly.
To start off, I would like to say that my first post was in no means offensive in intention, I just really really didn't want to type up something large that I couldn't dedicate my full time towards typing up. I was hoping to watch the game, but it's halftime and its a bit painful to watch at the moment.
Is it wrong for good teams to be rewarded for being good? Is it wrong for veterans to want to play for a team in their twilight years for a ring? I guess I would personally say no, there should not be a problem for that.
A buyout is a term of mutual agreement made by 2 parties. You have the team, which wishes to
A: Pay less for a painful contract
B: Remove a potential problem in the locker room
C: Free up the roster for a legitimate reason to play the youngsters
D: Just gets rid of a untradeable player where it would make more sense to buyout/waive than trade for a worse contract. (Tinsley, I'm looking at you)
From a player perspective:
A: You get cash upfront
B: You get to play for a ring and go to a team that needs your help
C: You remove yourself from a bad situation (Portland)
Now, the issues you bring up are mostly ethical. If a team really just wants to give up players for free, why shouldn't they? Both teams benefit from the deal, and really, who does it really effect? The fans? I think some people practically cheer when some players are bought out.
Now, of course, we come to the idea that a lot of players are waived these days. There is nothing wrong with being waived. If no one wants the contract, then fine, let them play. Brent could have been picked up by the Warriors, for example, but of course, they did not. So, he escaped waivers and now had a choice to sign wherever he wanted. I don't see anything wrong with that at all. Teams had a chance to pick up him, but they just flat out didn't.
You argue for the sanctity of the contract. The players are bound by the contract, yes. But if a player doesn't want to play under the contract, you can fine him, punish him, do all sorts of things, but most teams don't do this. Why? Because its simply so much easier to save the team from the headaches and just buy them out. Would you rather have more of the Marbury/Walker/Miles types, or more of the Cassell types? Obviously, I would think that you would want more Marbury/Walker types, but what do they do anyway? You would rather them just play half-heartly and collect money? Is that much better? I fail to see the merits behind this. It causes the team troubles, it costs them more money than a buyout, and basically doesn't end well.
Is this considered buying players? Isn't just a contract a form of buying the playing services of a team? Aren't players traded for cash? Aren't players traded for Cap Space, or the equivalent of cash for some teams? Isn't just the trading of contracts just trading future cash for future cash? (Hey look, the Pacers are doing well right now..I should end this soon...) Why then, are buyouts so bad? Is it because of the negative connotation? What if we call it "Player Termination Agreements?" There really is nothing wrong with cash payments. (Ah..just my luck, as soon as I start paying attention, we start losing again)
Does this then, violate the sanctity of the game? Maybe, maybe not. Basketball players are human. They have their whims as well. If they don't want to play, what can you do about it? Punish them by not playing them? Thats what they want. Punish them by fining them for bad effort? Not gonna happen. Players are players, and their minds make up a part of the game itself. We blame players for no effort, no heart, no will, no passion, but that's demanding more from the players than what the contract alone demands. The contract demands that you play. Thats it. That's all it's ever been.
I honestly don't know what to say to people calling this "cheating". I don't see where the cheating is at all. I can say, yes, it doesn't seem morally, or ethically right, but the teams really, do they have any other options other than "keep the player" or "buyout the player"?
I suppose, you can argue, that trades such as the Payton/Barry/Almost Stackhouse trades are low. But honestly, its just a business agreement. Those players could have zero worth to them. Expiring contracts are what they are worth. They are money. Money runs the league. Until we have players play for free, this won't ever change.
I think I must have changed focuses a lot for this post, and it's a lot of rambling, I'll admit. I'm sorry if this is a waste of your time. I haven't gotten a lot of sleep lately...
END DISCLAIMER
Oh, I suppose I might as well, the game is going horribly.
To start off, I would like to say that my first post was in no means offensive in intention, I just really really didn't want to type up something large that I couldn't dedicate my full time towards typing up. I was hoping to watch the game, but it's halftime and its a bit painful to watch at the moment.
Is it wrong for good teams to be rewarded for being good? Is it wrong for veterans to want to play for a team in their twilight years for a ring? I guess I would personally say no, there should not be a problem for that.
A buyout is a term of mutual agreement made by 2 parties. You have the team, which wishes to
A: Pay less for a painful contract
B: Remove a potential problem in the locker room
C: Free up the roster for a legitimate reason to play the youngsters
D: Just gets rid of a untradeable player where it would make more sense to buyout/waive than trade for a worse contract. (Tinsley, I'm looking at you)
From a player perspective:
A: You get cash upfront
B: You get to play for a ring and go to a team that needs your help
C: You remove yourself from a bad situation (Portland)
Now, the issues you bring up are mostly ethical. If a team really just wants to give up players for free, why shouldn't they? Both teams benefit from the deal, and really, who does it really effect? The fans? I think some people practically cheer when some players are bought out.
Now, of course, we come to the idea that a lot of players are waived these days. There is nothing wrong with being waived. If no one wants the contract, then fine, let them play. Brent could have been picked up by the Warriors, for example, but of course, they did not. So, he escaped waivers and now had a choice to sign wherever he wanted. I don't see anything wrong with that at all. Teams had a chance to pick up him, but they just flat out didn't.
You argue for the sanctity of the contract. The players are bound by the contract, yes. But if a player doesn't want to play under the contract, you can fine him, punish him, do all sorts of things, but most teams don't do this. Why? Because its simply so much easier to save the team from the headaches and just buy them out. Would you rather have more of the Marbury/Walker/Miles types, or more of the Cassell types? Obviously, I would think that you would want more Marbury/Walker types, but what do they do anyway? You would rather them just play half-heartly and collect money? Is that much better? I fail to see the merits behind this. It causes the team troubles, it costs them more money than a buyout, and basically doesn't end well.
Is this considered buying players? Isn't just a contract a form of buying the playing services of a team? Aren't players traded for cash? Aren't players traded for Cap Space, or the equivalent of cash for some teams? Isn't just the trading of contracts just trading future cash for future cash? (Hey look, the Pacers are doing well right now..I should end this soon...) Why then, are buyouts so bad? Is it because of the negative connotation? What if we call it "Player Termination Agreements?" There really is nothing wrong with cash payments. (Ah..just my luck, as soon as I start paying attention, we start losing again)
Does this then, violate the sanctity of the game? Maybe, maybe not. Basketball players are human. They have their whims as well. If they don't want to play, what can you do about it? Punish them by not playing them? Thats what they want. Punish them by fining them for bad effort? Not gonna happen. Players are players, and their minds make up a part of the game itself. We blame players for no effort, no heart, no will, no passion, but that's demanding more from the players than what the contract alone demands. The contract demands that you play. Thats it. That's all it's ever been.
I honestly don't know what to say to people calling this "cheating". I don't see where the cheating is at all. I can say, yes, it doesn't seem morally, or ethically right, but the teams really, do they have any other options other than "keep the player" or "buyout the player"?
I suppose, you can argue, that trades such as the Payton/Barry/Almost Stackhouse trades are low. But honestly, its just a business agreement. Those players could have zero worth to them. Expiring contracts are what they are worth. They are money. Money runs the league. Until we have players play for free, this won't ever change.
Rest in Peace, Pacerfan
Will eat crow if Brandon Rush turns out good.
Will eat crow if Brandon Rush turns out good.
-
chrbal
- RealGM
- Posts: 21,526
- And1: 1,976
- Joined: Mar 02, 2001
- Contact:
So I kind of reread this and I think maybe I misread the problem.
The Problem being "Brent Barry traded to Seattle, to take a break, before he returns to the Spurs.
Heres why I don't have a problem with it. Seattle got a 1st round pick to turn one expiring contract into two. They wanted the expiring contracts back more then they wanted Francisco Elson and Brent Barry back. So they got what they wanted.
Gary Payton to the Hawks, so he could get cut and rejoin the Celtics was annoying...but I have no problem with these kind of moves happening, because the alternative is worse (only be able to cut players in the offseason? or only certain players?).
I don't like when a guy like Sam Cassell demands a buyout because he sees an oppurtunity in Boston..but again thats better then the alternative.
The Problem being "Brent Barry traded to Seattle, to take a break, before he returns to the Spurs.
Heres why I don't have a problem with it. Seattle got a 1st round pick to turn one expiring contract into two. They wanted the expiring contracts back more then they wanted Francisco Elson and Brent Barry back. So they got what they wanted.
Gary Payton to the Hawks, so he could get cut and rejoin the Celtics was annoying...but I have no problem with these kind of moves happening, because the alternative is worse (only be able to cut players in the offseason? or only certain players?).
I don't like when a guy like Sam Cassell demands a buyout because he sees an oppurtunity in Boston..but again thats better then the alternative.