Anyone else pissed off?

[Prospect Dong]

This comes up pretty regularly:

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1943781&hilit=buyout&start=40

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1805200&hilit=buyout

This still sounds about right to me:

Beli made a pretty big difference to the 6ers last year. As a fan of a team that never really gets any consideration from ring chasers, even when we're pretty good, I'd like to stop it or at least reduce it. Glamour teams shouldn't be able to sign guys for free who can then swing a close playoff series. They certainly shouldn't be able to replace the pieces they traded away at the deadline.

Deadline ring chasers should count for some amount against the cap, and/or there should be a maximum of one per team over a multi-year period, and/or there should be formalised bidding for them (2nd rounders, cap space) rather than them flocking to refill the benches of the usual suspects.

The post-deadline replacement of the guy you just traded away is exactly what Miami had in mind for LMA, and it's super frustrating. Actions should have consequences!

The lakers won a championship last season starting a center they got for free after a buyout, backed up by another guy they got for free on the buyout market. This year, they'll be giving serious minutes to another guy they got for free on the buyout market, and if they run into the nets in the finals it will be buyout vs buyout+buyout at the 5 for 15 minutes a game. The Grizzlies came into the season paying a pair of not-quite-starting Cs over $17m each, because we can't get them for free...

This one's a small factor compared to star players forcing trades to their preferred markets, but it's a much, much easier fix.

[Prospect Dong]

My crazy idea I just thought of:

The team a guy is signed to gets first chance to trade him, at his current salary, through to the trade deadline, just like how it works now.

Then, if they can agree a buyout, the team is on the hook for the remaining salary (just like now) and the player is assigned to a randomly selected team other than his existing one (or a team from which he was traded this season) at the pro rated minimum salary That team can trade the player, and only that player, at their new min salary, to any other team, through to the playoff roster deadline.

This greases the wheels for player movement, and gives guys like Drummond the chance to boost the quality of someone's playoff roster, but the Lakers no longer get him for free - they need to give up picks and/or prospects and outbid the other teams that could use a borderline starting 5.

The restrictions on the post deadline trade are a bit tricky. Maybe you can only send picks, cash and min-salary guys, maybe you can craft something bigger around the buyout guy, but no three team trades, etc...

Or maybe you move the buyout date to the day before the deadline and teams have 24 hours to go shopping for ring chasers...

Don't tell me it wouldn't be more fun than "Aldridge targeting [contender]"

[Topofthekey]

Do I like this? No

But this is literally just market forces at work

The player's old team wants to buy the player out, because it saves them money

The player wants to be bought out, because he can then chase a ring with another team

The player's new team wants to sign him, because they basically get a free upgrade

Literally everyone involved is getting what they want

Now if you're arguing that there needs to be some kind of league rules against this, maybe

But then how about superteams in general?

It's all the same thing isn't it?

It's all just players joining each other forming superteams hoping to win an easy championship, isn't it

[Coxy]

Sort of just makes you want to throw your hands in the air and give up as a fan, if you'r not either the Lakers or Nets really.

I mean, unless you are a Laker or Nets fan, who cares about the 2021 season?

[VDT]

Honestly, i dont see the reason to even have a buyout, especially with how it is used right now that players barely lose any money. At least force the players to lose a significant amount of their salary if they want to play for another team.

In general, the NBA needs to add some rules to stop the players forcing their way to whatever team they want. There are certain rules imposed on the teams to help with league parity (salary cap, draft etc) but there are no similar rules for the players and it has led to the modern player culture.

[babyjax13]

I think that a solution could be either: a team has to send picks and a predetermined percentage of the remaining salary to the team they are signing a player from, or there is a 'third round' of the draft where if a team has to buy out a player they get 'x' amount of picks (maybe not all in the same year). Or maybe some kind of priority system for signing gleague players. There are always some nice UDFA guys, so I think this would give a realistic chance of finding some long-term role players. e.g. Jae'Sean Tate was a UDFA (UD in 2018) and he is averaging 10/5/2 on good percentages this season. Paul Reed looks nice, etc. There is always someone.

nah this only incentivizes the bad teams to buy out any and all useful vets on a team so they can go and join a title favorite. Completely screws with the parity of the league. You think any of the useful buyout guys are going to a 4-10 seed to help a 1st round team become a 2nd round team? Nope, they're gonna bolt straight for an LA team, Brooklyn, Philly, maybe Milwaukee or Utah. Everybody else gets screwed.

and since everyone likes to get big mad about tanking, it incentivizes that too.

I wish they were coming to Utah, haha : )

It's a double-edged sword, either the players have incentive to get bought out if they are in specific circumstances - and so we are upset contenders get them - or if you make some kind of compensation system now the teams are incentivized to. I think the latter solution at least *could* make teams give up an asset for these moves, and I would prefer that as an option, but I also don't know if teams and the player's association would go for it, which is why I suggest the '3rd round' option.

[Scoot McGroot]

Yes, unless someone wants to get bought out and sign with Utah for the minimum

In general, not really. This does come up almost every year. Someone on this board suggested that, for post-deadline buyouts only, there should be a bidding system like the amnesty waivers. Every team can "bid" on a buyout player, so if all you have left is the veteran minimum, that's all you can offer. If the Knicks (for instance) step in and offer $3M of their capspace for Drummond and nobody else can or will beat it, he goes to New York to finish the season.

I thought that was clever. Doesn't prevent contenders from landing bought-out players (they may need to in case of injury!), but it does mean that 1st-place teams can't just make wink-wink deals with agents beforehand.

It’s fair for the teams, but takes any and all free will from the players from their own “free agency”. If someone wasnts to claim their contract on waivers, they’re free to do so. But these guys have no chance to say “I’d love to be by my kids in xyz to finish the season, even if it costs me money” or whatnot in that hypothetical.

Here's my problem with that, Drummond had a player option. He was free to exercise it before the season began. He didn't. He could've been a good soldier when the Cavs told him they were starting Allen. He wasn't. The Cavs could've used him off the bench. Instead, the Cavs are paying, at least part of, the delta between the league minimum and his market value - so he can play for the Lakers.

And it's all well and good to talk about player empowerment and freedom of movement, but that's not what's happening. Players are taking as much guaranteed money, for as many years as they can get, and then deciding they'd like to play elsewhere while still under contract. I mean Drummond is going to be a free agent this summer.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

And cleveland could have held him to the letter of his contract and brought him off the bench. They chose to let him go and avoid the mess/drama of possible suspensions, etc.

I personally hate the concept that if my boss fired me, I have to wait until they tell me where I have to live and work going forward, with no choice of my own.

[NBADraft2003]

It’s fair for the teams, but takes any and all free will from the players from their own “free agency”. If someone wasnts to claim their contract on waivers, they’re free to do so. But these guys have no chance to say “I’d love to be by my kids in xyz to finish the season, even if it costs me money” or whatnot in that hypothetical.

Here's my problem with that, Drummond had a player option. He was free to exercise it before the season began. He didn't. He could've been a good soldier when the Cavs told him they were starting Allen. He wasn't. The Cavs could've used him off the bench. Instead, the Cavs are paying, at least part of, the delta between the league minimum and his market value - so he can play for the Lakers.

And it's all well and good to talk about player empowerment and freedom of movement, but that's not what's happening. Players are taking as much guaranteed money, for as many years as they can get, and then deciding they'd like to play elsewhere while still under contract. I mean Drummond is going to be a free agent this summer.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

And cleveland could have held him to the letter of his contract and brought him off the bench. They chose to let him go and avoid the mess/drama of possible suspensions, etc.

I personally hate the concept that if my boss fired me, I have to wait until they tell me where I have to live and work going forward, with no choice of my own.

This 10000%.

[shrink]

I personally hate the concept that if my boss fired me, I have to wait until they tell me where I have to live and work going forward, with no choice of my own.

I think you struck on it. Maybe the real-world analog here is that NBA contracts need non-compete clauses if a player leaves the organization? These are not uncommon in highly competitive industries with a limited number of highly-skilled employees.

But the bottom line isn’t whether this is a problem for the player, or the team that let’s him go. It’s whether this is a problem for the parity of the league. And as long as the CBA continues to operate under the false assumption that the best players will only play for teams that offer them the most money, then the buy out market remains an avenue that not only hurts parity, but may help alter who wins an NBA championship.

[Ruzious]

TBH, I thought the best buyout big was Dieng, and he ended up signing with SA.

[penbeast0]

It’s fair for the teams, but takes any and all free will from the players from their own “free agency”. If someone wasnts to claim their contract on waivers, they’re free to do so. But these guys have no chance to say “I’d love to be by my kids in xyz to finish the season, even if it costs me money” or whatnot in that hypothetical.

Seriously, can you name one actual incident of this where things changed during the season (a kid getting cancer maybe?)?

Another option would be that the team picking him up would be charged the amount left on his contract for the rest of the season in the case of a player being waived. But the current system is a ridiculous case of the rules allowing the rich to get richer at the expense of competition.

[loserX]

It’s fair for the teams, but takes any and all free will from the players from their own “free agency”. If someone wasnts to claim their contract on waivers, they’re free to do so. But these guys have no chance to say “I’d love to be by my kids in xyz to finish the season, even if it costs me money” or whatnot in that hypothetical.

Here's my problem with that, Drummond had a player option. He was free to exercise it before the season began. He didn't. He could've been a good soldier when the Cavs told him they were starting Allen. He wasn't. The Cavs could've used him off the bench. Instead, the Cavs are paying, at least part of, the delta between the league minimum and his market value - so he can play for the Lakers.

And it's all well and good to talk about player empowerment and freedom of movement, but that's not what's happening. Players are taking as much guaranteed money, for as many years as they can get, and then deciding they'd like to play elsewhere while still under contract. I mean Drummond is going to be a free agent this summer.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

And cleveland could have held him to the letter of his contract and brought him off the bench. They chose to let him go and avoid the mess/drama of possible suspensions, etc.

I personally hate the concept that if my boss fired me, I have to wait until they tell me where I have to live and work going forward, with no choice of my own.

That already exists in the waiver claim process AND in the amnesty process, though. This wouldn't be *that* different.

[Texas Chuck]

I think the current system is just fine and I'm not remotely bothered by any of it. Every year fans freak out over "names" moving via buy out and every year they are non-factors.

I'm a big believer in worker agency and that includes NBA players. But mostly this is just much ado about very very little.

[Scoot McGroot]

It’s fair for the teams, but takes any and all free will from the players from their own “free agency”. If someone wasnts to claim their contract on waivers, they’re free to do so. But these guys have no chance to say “I’d love to be by my kids in xyz to finish the season, even if it costs me money” or whatnot in that hypothetical.

Seriously, can you name one actual incident of this where things changed during the season (a kid getting cancer maybe?)?

Another option would be that the team picking him up would be charged the amount left on his contract for the rest of the season in the case of a player being waived. But the current system is a ridiculous case of the rules allowing the rich to get richer at the expense of competition.

Huh? I didn’t say that. But if you had a 4 year deal signed, and in that 4th year, a team wants to go a different direction and lets you go, and you clear waivers and are declared a free agent, why would you then want to let the league assign you where to go and without you and your agent having say or negotiating power? It’s absurdly team friendly, and does nothing positive for the players. If you want something like this, you’re going to have to negotiate something massive for the players in the CBA. ESPECIALLY if the player agreed to a buyout and gave money back.

If you want to change the whole waiver claim system, that’s a different story. But eliminating free agency in season for some or all players seems crazy to me. There’s so much more that goes into a players livelihood that its worth taking less money sometimes for a chance to play and be showcased for future deals, rather than letting a team bid $5 more just to keep you away from someone else and let you rot on the bench.

O

[Scoot McGroot]

Here's my problem with that, Drummond had a player option. He was free to exercise it before the season began. He didn't. He could've been a good soldier when the Cavs told him they were starting Allen. He wasn't. The Cavs could've used him off the bench. Instead, the Cavs are paying, at least part of, the delta between the league minimum and his market value - so he can play for the Lakers.

And it's all well and good to talk about player empowerment and freedom of movement, but that's not what's happening. Players are taking as much guaranteed money, for as many years as they can get, and then deciding they'd like to play elsewhere while still under contract. I mean Drummond is going to be a free agent this summer.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

And cleveland could have held him to the letter of his contract and brought him off the bench. They chose to let him go and avoid the mess/drama of possible suspensions, etc.

I personally hate the concept that if my boss fired me, I have to wait until they tell me where I have to live and work going forward, with no choice of my own.

That already exists in the waiver claim process AND in the amnesty process, though. This wouldn't be *that* different.

But this all takes place AFTER the waiver claim system. It’s essentially a 2nd waiver claim, right?

As for amnesty process, there’s a reason that each time its occurred, its had to be negotiated specially into the CBA as a one-off event, rather than a permanent system.

It’s pretty different. And, again, man, if I gave up money in a buyout to go elsewhere, and cleared waivers, I’d be insanely upset at this process.

[NBADraft2003]

I think the current system is just fine and I'm not remotely bothered by any of it. Every year fans freak out over "names" moving via buy out and every year they are non-factors.

I'm a big believer in worker agency and that includes NBA players. But mostly this is just much ado about very very little.

This and only this, all name factor and no context of how the player is currently. If they were still as good as people are claiming, they wouldn’t be bought out and signing for minimum contracts.

[Scoot McGroot]

It’s fair for the teams, but takes any and all free will from the players from their own “free agency”. If someone wasnts to claim their contract on waivers, they’re free to do so. But these guys have no chance to say “I’d love to be by my kids in xyz to finish the season, even if it costs me money” or whatnot in that hypothetical.

Seriously, can you name one actual incident of this where things changed during the season (a kid getting cancer maybe?)?

Another option would be that the team picking him up would be charged the amount left on his contract for the rest of the season in the case of a player being waived. But the current system is a ridiculous case of the rules allowing the rich to get richer at the expense of competition.

Huh? I didn’t say that. But if you had a 4 year deal signed, and in that 4th year, a team wants to go a different direction and lets you go, and you clear waivers and are declared a free agent, why would you then want to let the league assign you where to go and without you and your agent having say or negotiating power? It’s absurdly team friendly, and does nothing positive for the players. If you want something like this, you’re going to have to negotiate something massive for the players in the CBA. ESPECIALLY if the player agreed to a buyout and gave money back.

If you want to change the whole waiver claim system, that’s a different story. But eliminating free agency in season for some or all players seems crazy to me. There’s so much more that goes into a players livelihood that its worth taking less money sometimes for a chance to play and be showcased for future deals, rather than letting a team bid $5 more just to keep you away from someone else and let you rot on the bench.

O

The kids reference was in regard to time from when you sign a contract and when the contract ends. A lot can happen in 4 years, including the teams can trade you without any regard to what you want. Who knows how far away you might end up from your kids/family, or what might change in your life to make you want to go home. I never wanted to live near home until I was 28, and my father died suddenly. After that, I only wanted to move closer and closer to home. Things change. Players are people and have personal interests that may dictate where they want to play. Even if it’s as simple as “I want to play for the Lakers”.

[sonictecture]

Apparently small and mid market teams have concerns.

https://www.si.com/nba/2021/03/29/nba-buyouts-andre-drummond-blake-griffin

[kobe_vs_jordan]

Think there is a false belief that players with trade value are getting brought out. If they have no trade value , they essentially in control of their destiny at that point.

We seen the Spurs , Bucks, sixers, pacers get players in the buyout market. Players migrate to playoff teams to get paid. Just an extension of the ring chaser market in my opinion.

[jbk1234]

It’s fair for the teams, but takes any and all free will from the players from their own “free agency”. If someone wasnts to claim their contract on waivers, they’re free to do so. But these guys have no chance to say “I’d love to be by my kids in xyz to finish the season, even if it costs me money” or whatnot in that hypothetical.

Here's my problem with that, Drummond had a player option. He was free to exercise it before the season began. He didn't. He could've been a good soldier when the Cavs told him they were starting Allen. He wasn't. The Cavs could've used him off the bench. Instead, the Cavs are paying, at least part of, the delta between the league minimum and his market value - so he can play for the Lakers.

And it's all well and good to talk about player empowerment and freedom of movement, but that's not what's happening. Players are taking as much guaranteed money, for as many years as they can get, and then deciding they'd like to play elsewhere while still under contract. I mean Drummond is going to be a free agent this summer.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

And cleveland could have held him to the letter of his contract and brought him off the bench. They chose to let him go and avoid the mess/drama of possible suspensions, etc.

I personally hate the concept that if my boss fired me, I have to wait until they tell me where I have to live and work going forward, with no choice of my own.

Except Drummond wasn't "fired." He was demoted to the second unit. Yes, the Cavs could've held him to the letter of his contract but he made it pretty clear he was unhappy and his unhappiness regarding minute distribution pre-demotion was already starting to manifest itself on the court so it's a little more complicated than that.

Just as a thought exercise, ask yourself what the reaction of the players union would be if the owners asked for 1-year non-rookie contracts next CBA. Also, a player could trigger a buyout upon request, but they have to give back the entirety of what's owed on the single year deal. Purely as a theoretical matter, players would have maximum control over their career and where they played. Not just once every four years either, but every single off season - even within that season itself. Can you even imagine a scenario where the players union would accept that proposal? If it's all about player empowerment and freedom of movement, why did the union insist on a maximum amount a player could give back in a buyout?

It's not just about player movement or freedom. It's also about, and predominately about, as securing as much guaranteed money as they can get. That's fine except what's started to happen is that, after securing that commitment from a team, players and agents are getting better at pushing levers to get them to where they want to go anyway and that's a problem.