NBA's Buy-out Trend

[PR07]

Is anyone else getting slightly annoyed at this recent trend of the NBA? Whatever happened to the days when someone was traded to a team and reported there until there contract was fulfilled or they were traded. I'm sure every player would love to play for a contender, but to hear some of the players complaining or even threatening to not report, really rubs me the wrong way. These teams don't owe the players a shot at a ring. I mean if these teams want to waive these guys...fine...but I don't think the players should dictate everything. It's also not fair to the middle of the pack playoff teams because it's always teams like the Spurs, Mavs, Suns, Celtics etc. who always end up getting richer and just increase the separation. I don't think it's good for the league at all. I'd like to see the league put a stop to this before it starts getting out of hand.

If this needs to be moved somewhere else, feel free to, but I felt it was a worthy of its own thread...at least for now.

[count55]

I would tend to agree with your general principle, but the Pacers actually benefitted back in 2004-2005 when they signed Dale Davis after he was cut loose by the Hornets (during the Baron Davis trade). While they made it to the second round of the playoffs (and gave the Pistons a good run), they were not really contenders due to the Artest suspension.

This is kind of like Universal Health Care to me. I like the idea, but I'm just have no idea how to make it work rationally.

One thing I'd like to see is that a player traded away from a team not be allowed to come back to that same team during the same season. (Currently, I think there's a 30-day wait.) This would at least make sure the team in question would actually have to give up a player on the floor for at least the current season.

[PR07]

That especially needs to be fixed. It's happened with Gary Payton in the past, almost happened with Stackhouse, and it's happening right now with Brent Barry.

[count55]

Of course, this is the side effect of a league where trades are only rarely made based on talent. Generally, anymore, most trades become a swap of talent for financial/capspace considerations. The NBA has become completely skewed in this regard.

I would love to see some unconventional action taken against the "enabling" teams...the ones just looking to clear capspace. I'm not married to any ideas, but one that just jumped into my head would be to either (A) not allow players to be traded in the last year of their contract unless an extension was signed or (B) automatically extend the contract of any player traded with less than two years (the current and the following season) by one year.

Another thing that could be done to avoid some of this crap is to assign a cap number to draft picks. Let's say you get a 1st rounder (that is not your own), that counts $X million against the cap. At least that would cut out some of the filler being passed around, which would cut down on the buyouts.

[joew8302]

I agree with the general principle as well here. But an owner or GM is basically handcuffed when a player demands a trade. Does anyone want to pay a guy 7-8 million dollars to be disgruntled and be a cancer? Not only do you still have to pay them, but a similar situation might run perspective free agents the wrong way. By saying you want out, you are really forcing managements hand a lot of times, which is something that isn't good, but something that must be dealt with.

[Charcoal Filtered]

I will respectfully disagree on this one. The salary cap helps teams financially, but hurts play by making veterans with lofty contracts untradable.

In baseball, teams have traditionally picked up players in the months before the playoffs. The bad teams regroup for next year and let the young guys develop. As count pointed out, we picked up Dale Davis on one of our runs. It makes for more exciting play.

Agree that public crying from a player is not fun, but I want to see the best players compete come playoff time.

[CableKC]

There are 2 parts to this......( 1 ) teams buying out Players with Expiring Contracts and ( 2 ) then that Player decides to resign with another team.

I don't have any problem with buying out Players that have Expiring deals.....I am guessing that as part of the negotiation the Player will accept a lesser payout ( then they are actually owed in their contract ) just so that they have that chance to sign with a Playoff team before the deadline to include them on the Playoff roster.

The part that I have a problem with is if that player was part of some earlier trade that brought them to the team in the first place, then getting bought out and quickly returning to the original team that had them. To me......it seems too much like collusion to get around the Trade restictions that the league has put though.

I have no problem with what Cassell or Ratliff did cuz it's within the rules and in fair play. It's no different then what the Pacers did with Flip. But I have a problem with what Stackhouse was going to do before the League stopped it.

I would hope that the League would amend this loophole to say that a player that is traded cannot resign with it's original team until after the season is done.

[PR07]

Dale Davis already had previous established ties to the Pacers, and we were far from a contender. What ties does Cassell have to Boston? What ties does Damon Stoudamire have to San Antonio? None really. They are just ring mercenaries looking to take the easy way out on winning a championship. I think it's so stupid. If you have a contract, you should honor it until it's completion. If Sam Cassell wanted a ring so bad, why did he take the big contract from the Clippers instead of signing cheaper with someone like the Spurs or Suns? I mean let's be honest, when have the Clippers been good? He's basically getting the best of both worlds now. He cashed in, but then dissed his old team, so he could hop on coat-tails for a playoff ride.

I have no problem with Theo Ratliff returning to the Pistons. First of all, he's not that good anymore. Second, he's been a Piston before and was a key contributor there.

[CableKC]

Dale Davis already had previous established ties to the Pacers, and we were far from a contender. What ties does Cassell have to Boston? What ties does Damon Stoudamire have to San Antonio? None really. They are just ring mercenaries looking to take the easy way out on winning a championship. I think it's so stupid. If you have a contract, you should honor it until it's completion. If Sam Cassell wanted a ring so bad, why did he take the big contract from the Clippers instead of signing cheaper with someone like the Spurs or Suns? I mean let's be honest, when have the Clippers been good? He's basically getting the best of both worlds now. He cashed in, but then dissed his old team, so he could hop on coat-tails for a playoff ride.

I have no problem with Theo Ratliff returning to the Pistons. First of all, he's not that good anymore. Second, he's been a Piston before and was a key contributor there.

To me....all FA that are waived are mercenaries....whether it is some lesser sought after FA going to some lottery team to try to showcase his talents to prospective future employers....or players like Cassell or Ratliff that wants to have a chance at getting a Ring. Although I don't like it.....I have no problem with that.

To me...it's irrelevant that Cassell has had no ties to the Celtics.....Cassell has the choice as a FA to go to any team that he wants just like Flip Murray had the choice to go to a Lottery bound team ( Clippers ) but choosing to go to a team that has a slightly better chance at making the Playoffs.

Again...the big problem that I have is with Bought out players like Barry having the choice to go back to teams that they were initially traded for. IMHO...that is a very "nod nod wink wink" that teams have and suspicious to the point of collusion as a way of getting around Trade Restrictions that has been setup by the NBA to trade players that they don't want to trade as a means of reaquiring them.

[chrbal]

Dale Davis already had previous established ties to the Pacers, and we were far from a contender. What ties does Cassell have to Boston? What ties does Damon Stoudamire have to San Antonio? None really. They are just ring mercenaries looking to take the easy way out on winning a championship. I think it's so stupid. If you have a contract, you should honor it until it's completion. If Sam Cassell wanted a ring so bad, why did he take the big contract from the Clippers instead of signing cheaper with someone like the Spurs or Suns? I mean let's be honest, when have the Clippers been good? He's basically getting the best of both worlds now. He cashed in, but then dissed his old team, so he could hop on coat-tails for a playoff ride.

I have no problem with Theo Ratliff returning to the Pistons. First of all, he's not that good anymore. Second, he's been a Piston before and was a key contributor there.

By your own logic, shouldn't Indianas signing of Flip Murray be a problem for you? Hes never been a Pacer.
Sam has Kevin Garnett, Damon has a team with a need.

I love your idea that it should only be players that have previouslly been with a team (guessing how you justify whining about this, but think Dale Davis back to Indi is fine).


I love these threads because they are always done by teams that haven't recently benefitted from them.

Next time the Pacers benefit from this, there won't be a single word said about "how this is bad for the league and blah, blah, blah"

[PR07]

That's the thing though Chrbal, I could really care less about the Flip Murray signing because what exactly do you see it doing for us? We magically make it make to the 8th seed and then get swept by the Celtics? Yippee! If we do somehow make it back into the playoff hunt, it will probably be because of the return of Jermaine O'Neal or Jamaal Tinsley...not because of Flip Murray. I don't think any backup PG in the league is that important to a team's success.

I love your idea that it should only be players that have previouslly been with a team (guessing how you justify whining about this, but think Dale Davis back to Indi is fine).

Suddenly I'm whining? I'm sorry, but the point of RealGM is to debate. If you do not agree with me, fine...more power to you. However, I believe that the NBA like most other professional leagues is far from perfect. I just pointed out a flaw I have with the current system, but hey, I guess you think David Stern is perfect.

I love these threads because they are always done by teams that haven't recently benefitted from them.

Also, FYI, the Pacers have actually benefitted from these buy-outs with Dale Davis and now Flip Murray, so this isn't one of your "widely assumed" cases of a fan of a team complaining because another team gets all the players. You contradict yourself in your writing by pointing out that we have benefitted by signing Dale Davis and Flip Murray in the recent past only to further say that these threads are always done by fans of teams that haven't benefitted from them recently. I love breaking down arguments in posts like these. Pick a side of the fence and stay with it. Instead of trying to add personal jabs to your argument, you'd be much better suited in trying to build up your own argument. That is, why you feel that veterans should be able to dictate buy-outs and go to their preferred destination.

It wouldn't matter which side of the table I was on, I'd still have a beef with the current system.

[Grang33r]

-= original quote snipped =-




By your own logic, shouldn't Indianas signing of Flip Murray be a problem for you? Hes never been a Pacer.
Sam has Kevin Garnett, Damon has a team with a need.

I love your idea that it should only be players that have previouslly been with a team (guessing how you justify whining about this, but think Dale Davis back to Indi is fine).


I love these threads because they are always done by teams that haven't recently benefitted from them.

Next time the Pacers benefit from this, there won't be a single word said about "how this is bad for the league and blah, blah, blah"

Are you kidding me. This is DUMB for the league and i've listenend to fox sports radio and sporting news radio the past few days and both of them mentioned how silly it is. People called up. Now there is a topic on a basketball web site. It's obviously a problem. It's bad for the league because it is basically paying teams for players.

Here's how it works. Sam Cassell is owed $6.1 million for this season. At this current stage, he'd owned just under $3 million by the Clippers. They can either A.) Keep him and pay him, no matter if he plays or doesn't, or, B.) Cut him and make room for a youngster and agree to a buyout.

The problem is, teams like Boston, and others with Brent Barry, say Boston negotiates with Cassell. So when he goes to Clippers for a buy-out, they will agree to buy him out for $1 million, then he signs with Boston for $2 million, thus, it's saving Clippers money, Cassell is keeping all the money he signed for and isn't losing any in a buyout.

It's as close to cheating as it gets. Instead of trading player/pick for player, you're buying players past the deadline.

There is a rule that states if you get traded from a team, you can't re-sign with that team for 30 days if you get cut... the rule was made when Boston traded Gary Payton to Atlanta for Antonine Walker and Atlanta quickly cut Payton, and he re-signed in Boston.

I don't know how this can be solved. I wouldn't call it whining. And besides that, you have 13K posts and i've never seen you on this Pacers board where i am every day since May. You come on and rip a respected poster for whining? Like seriously, who are you? Do you think you're someone of importance?

[CableKC]

-= original quote snipped =-
The problem is, teams like Boston, and others with Brent Barry, say Boston negotiates with Cassell. So when he goes to Clippers for a buy-out, they will agree to buy him out for $1 million, then he signs with Boston for $2 million, thus, it's saving Clippers money, Cassell is keeping all the money he signed for and isn't losing any in a buyout.

It's as close to cheating as it gets. Instead of trading player/pick for player, you're buying players past the deadline.

There is a rule that states if you get traded from a team, you can't re-sign with that team for 30 days if you get cut... the rule was made when Boston traded Gary Payton to Atlanta for Antonine Walker and Atlanta quickly cut Payton, and he re-signed in Boston.

I don't know how this can be solved. I wouldn't call it whining.

To be fair......you can't make a distinction between players that garner interest from teams like the Pacers ( Flip ) and teams like the Celtics ( Cassell ).

Would you complain if Cassell got a buy-out from the Clippers and then signed with the Pacers instead of the Celtics?

The answer is probably not. Ignoring that there was no chance that this would happen in real life....the truth is that Cassell....just like Flip...has the right to choose with any team that he wants to. I have no problem with Cassell doing that...the fact that he makes out like a bandit in the end doesn't phase me....he's a highly sought commodity that has the luxury of choosing which top-tier team he can go to.

In this specific case to prevent Cassell from going to the Celtics....or more specifically....Players that were bought out and then go chasing a ring once they are Free Agents......the only way to do this is to prohibit ALL players that are bought out from resigning for the rest of that season. Realistically....this won't be fair for players like Flip that has a chance to resign with the Pacers or any other Non-Playoff team that is looking to shore up their lineup.

But keep in mind that there is a distinction between Cassell being bought out and signing with the Celtics and Barry ( likely ) resigning with the Spurs. I agree with you on the other point about players and trades that involve Brent Barry or ( as you pointed out ) Payton where they can be bought out and then resign with their original teams. That is as close as possible to circumventing the Trade Restriction rules as you can get. IMHO...the only way to get around this is to have the NBA expand the rules to say that that player cannot resign with another team for 30-days AND include that they cannot resign with the team that originally traded them for the remainder of that season.

[chrbal]

So should the NBA eliminate the buying out of players? Or maybe there should be a committee to decide whats fair and whats not?

Or maybe the Pacers didn't really get a shot at any of the "top" players available and thats how this thread was born.

It would be a concern if some team bought out someone who was still in his prime so that he could join another team. But lets look at the guys that have been part of this season;

Sam Cassell- The "prize" of this situation (this season) is actually a fairly good pickup and fit for the Celtics. But he wanted out of a 19-39 team so he could join THE best team in the league. What was he thinking??

Tyronn Lue- a 6 foot SG this season (an assist every 10 minutes this season, does not make a PG), who is injured, and the
Kings have no shot at the playoffs...and no need for Lue.

Theo Ratliff- a whopping 12 games this season and last, combined. The team that cut the mid 30 year old, who is injury prone, is 12-47.

Gordon Giriciek- shot 31% from the field in about 9 minutes a game for the Sixers.

Flip Murray- His last game that he played as a Piston was December 12th. Team dropped because they got Dixon and needed Ratliff.

Jamaal Magloire- Nets are out of the playoffs (even in the east), hes having a craptacular season, and the Nets have a pretty good group of young frontcourt players. So why keep him?

Brent Barry- 29 games this season, currently injured, and he was traded to a team that is currently 16-44. Meaning that they had no use for him and were better keeping the roster spot open.

Damon Stoudmire- Grizzlies are currently 14-46 and had stopped using him long before they cut him. He didn't play at all in the month of January. I'm pretty sure he wasn't injured.

Beyond Sam Cassell, do any of these guys really seem like the "missing link" to any of their teams championship efforts.

[Grang33r]

It just seems weird. No other sport, NFL (their trade deadline is like week 4), MLB or NHL has issues of teams cutting players to "save" money and pretty much sell their players to other teams.

Is signing a free agent ok? Sure.

If a player signs a deal with a team, i don't think that team should be able to "buy him out". If Detroit didn't like Murray, they should put him on the inactive list and pay him. If they cut him, maybe he can't sign anywhere for a month. I don't know. It just seems silly.

I understand the logic you're stating. It's borderline cheating though. Team A is buying out Player X for a small amount BECAUSE they already know ahead of time Team B will sign him for the remained of that deal....

[Scoot McGroot]

I don't really have such a huge issue with buyouts in general. If it didn't help both parties, it wouldn't happen.


What I generally do have an issue with is a situation like Brent Barry. A team trades a guy for something of value, the other team buys him out, and he returns to the original team. Essentially, they're chewing up some cap space to get a player they want. The "Gary Payton to the Hawks" situation, if you will.

[PR07]

I'm not sure it benefits the previous team always. Cassell pretty much forced the Clippers' hand by complaining, and no team wants a cancer in the locker room especially when you have a lot of young and impressionable players. It's starting to become where individual players have more power than the organization. I'd like to see this small flame put out before it becomes a forest fire.

Or maybe the Pacers didn't really get a shot at any of the "top" players available and thats how this thread was born.

Do you realize it would take more than Sam Cassell to make this team team legit? That point is null and void. A waiver wire pick-up is not going to drastically change the Pacers' fortunes, it may actually hurt us long-term by impacting our draft position. However, what it will do is separate teams like the Spurs and Celtics from the teams that were nipping on their heels that much more. How would you think teams like New Orleans and Utah feel towards the Spurs right now? How about the Magic and the Cavs to the Celtics? Those are the teams that ultimately suffer and that I feel for.

[chrbal]

Indiana could've gotten all of them and it wouldn't have made a difference, thats not the point.

The point is, every year when these threads show up, they show up on boards where the team didn't get the best of them.

New Orleans got Mike James and Bonzi Wells for Bobby Jackson. The Jazz got Ashton Kutcher for a 1st and Gordo. If teams like them want to get players like Stoudmire and Ratliff ( ) to make such a grand difference then they should work to convince those guys.

If I'm a veteran on a lottery team and I get my team to waive me....if I'm choosing between a top 5 team overall and a team that could make a strong push in the playoffs...i'm choosing top 5.

to grang33r, really? MLB only has trades where a team like the Marlins sell of two of their best players for 6 minor leaguers. They have the most lopsided trades there are.

The NHL has gone a little away from it, but being a Red Wings fan I saw it first hand time and time again.

The NFLs cap is different, its like not stop amnesty...so thats like comparing Oranges and Planes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of the time, its a guy in the last year of his contract who is pretty much on the way out...if that team doesn't want to bring anyone in to replace the guy that they dumped (or were forced to dump), thats their own issue. You can't blame a guy on the latter stage of his career for wanting a chance at a championship.

[PR07]

The point is, every year when these threads show up, they show up on boards where the team didn't get the best of them.

No, the point is that you keep bringing up this point, and that clearly was not the case when I started this thread because it doesn't really matter who the Pacers could get. So why keep bringing it up when it is obviously not true in this instance? As a fan of the NBA, I care about this issue. It makes no difference to me if the Pacers were winners or losers in getting buyout players because it will make no significant impact on their season. Why keep harping on this issue when it's not true in this instance?

The Jazz and Hornets got their talent through trades. There is a big difference. The Hornets had to give up talent to get talent in Bobby Jackson. The Jazz gave away a first round pick. They didn't give them a pocketful of change to obtain their services like other teams have been able to do.

If I'm a veteran on a lottery team and I get my team to waive me....if I'm choosing between a top 5 team overall and a team that could make a strong push in the playoffs...i'm choosing top 5.

That's the whole point. As a veteran, you shouldn't be able to call the shots and get your team to waive you. It should never even get to that point because you are under contract and owe your services to the lottery bound franchise...like it or not.

The NFLs cap is different, its like not stop amnesty...so thats like comparing Oranges and Planes.

I'll list my complaints with the NFL too:

Poison Pill Contracts

In March 2006, Hutchinson, a free agent, was designated as Seattle's transition player. He then signed a controversial offer sheet from the Vikings, for $49 million over seven years, believed to be the richest contract ever offered a guard. The offer sheet, though, contained a poison pill provision that would have guaranteed his entire salary if he was not the highest-paid lineman on the team.
NFL rules require that when a team uses its transition tag on a player, they must either exactly match a competing offer sheet or relinquish their rights to that player. While the tag is unlikely to be triggered during his time with the Vikings (which means he is unlikely to see the entire $49 million), the Seahawks had recently given tackle Walter Jones a contract richer than the one offered to Hutchinson. Thus, they would have triggered the "poison pill" clause immediately, and would have been forced, by NFL rules, to guarantee Hutchinson's entire salary. Since doing so would have destroyed their salary cap, they could not match the offer. Moreover, since they only used their transition tag, rather than naming Hutchinson a franchise player, they received no compensation from Minnesota for their loss. Seattle retaliated, though, by signing Minnesota wide receiver Nate Burleson to an offer sheet containing a similar ploy. These contracts prompted criticism of the legality of this maneuver, but no action has been taken to ban such clauses from contracts.

Oh wait, I guess I'm only complaining because my team hasn't benefitted from it. (Even though the Colts haven't been affected)

[JarrettJackSG]

I had this long post with counterarguments, but decided it wasn't worth posting. I respectfully disagree with all your points PacersRule07, as I find the logic you use in regards to these situations a bit weird.