What can be done about the number of buyouts?

[jbk1234]

If bad teams traded their good bench players, this would be solved right?

Like NY should have flipped Wes, Atl should have flipped Lin.. Same with Ellington..

I think you've identified the root cause.

I don't think there's a problem with the buyout mechanism. It serves its purpose, and is generally a win-win for both team and player. The real issue is that still useful players are going into buyout rather than getting traded.

And the reason for that is that their contract value is too high for their contributions. Wes Matthews at $18m is very much overpaid, but he becomes a bargain at the vet min. There ought to be a middle way.

I would propose that the system used for amnesty players could be used here. Players who get waived become eligible to be bidded on by teams. Say, the winning bid for Wes is $5m (this assumes available cap space or exception). The winning team then takes on Wes with a $5m cap hit, and with the money partially offsetting the buyout that the original team payed.

In reality of course, nothing will get done because this really isn't that big of an issue. Players would not want to give away the freedom they currently have get with the current system (unless the possibility of double dipping is lucrative enough, I guess). Teams OTOH will be split - teams that can get buyout FAs readily won't want to change a thing.

I actually love this idea. If you don't have cap space, a TPE, or DPE, then you can only bid the vet minimum. Players have to give back a minimum of the vet minimum in their buyout. Go in reverse order of the standings so that the teams on the bubble get the first shot at buyout players.

[flipside21]

I have generally agreed with this premise for the last number of years . . . however about 24 hours ago I acquired new information which has changed my opinion.

No seriously - I don't think it's really a problem. And certainly not from the NBA's perspective. It is another layer of player movement buzz which is strikes me more and more is what the NBA thrives off of when it comes to maintaining interest / popularity / clicks over an 82 game schedule. It provides an opportunity for GMs to differentiate themselves and helps good players play meaningful minutes when they may have been boxed onto mid tier / losing teams for a good part of their career.

It's not like we're seeing stars, or promising young talent change teams - or low seed playoff team / playoff contenders with players forcing their way out. I understand how it can be a bit frustrating - I saw Phili stack up last year and felt like I was subject to an injustice - but I got over it and embraced the story line that our guys were going to war togeather. It creates dynamics, and storylines, and drama - that stuff is better for the league overall.

[the_process]

But as we saw last year, ATL couldn’t get a late first for the package of Ilyasova and Bellinelli - specifically BECAUSE we allow buy outs.

With buy outs in the system, there was no reason for PHI to offer to trade even a late first, since they could get them later for free, and without the cap hit.

There's never a guarantee that players get bought out, and there's never a guarantee you can sign players on the buyout market.

PHI didn't offer a 1st for Beli or Ersan because they weren't worth it.

There was talks about the players going to PHI through buy outs for the week leading up to the trade deadline, just like this year there were several players linked to teams once they were bought out.

And Ilyasova and Belinelli combined were certainly worth trading a late first, if trading was the only way to add two good rotation players to fill out the playoff roster. Unfortunately, buy out rules allow that to be done for free, gaining players on vet min contracts that provide more than vet min production. Nobody is going to be able to sign them to vet min contracts in summer, in a legitimate free agency, the buy out market is clearly an unfair bargain.

Strongly disagree. Beli and Ersan, both expiring at the time, are certainly not worth a first.

Mirotic didn't get a 1st, he's way better than Ilyasova. Ellington is about the same player as Belinelli, and he got straight salary dumped. The thing that depresses trade value is when teams say "I'll just wait till free agency and try to sign them". It's not waiting for the buyout market.

[the_process]

I have generally agreed with this premise for the last number of years . . . however about 24 hours ago I acquired new information which has changed my opinion.

No seriously - I don't think it's really a problem. And certainly not from the NBA's perspective. It is another layer of player movement buzz which is strikes me more and more is what the NBA thrives off of when it comes to maintaining interest / popularity / clicks over an 82 game schedule. It provides an opportunity for GMs to differentiate themselves and helps good players play meaningful minutes when they may have been boxed onto mid tier / losing teams for a good part of their career.

It's not like we're seeing stars, or promising young talent change teams - or low seed playoff team / playoff contenders with players forcing their way out. I understand how it can be a bit frustrating - I saw Phili stack up last year and felt like I was subject to an injustice - but I got over it and embraced the story line that our guys were going to war togeather. It creates dynamics, and storylines, and drama - that stuff is better for the league overall.

And1 for you.

[shrink]

There's never a guarantee that players get bought out, and there's never a guarantee you can sign players on the buyout market.

PHI didn't offer a 1st for Beli or Ersan because they weren't worth it.

There was talks about the players going to PHI through buy outs for the week leading up to the trade deadline, just like this year there were several players linked to teams once they were bought out.

And Ilyasova and Belinelli combined were certainly worth trading a late first, if trading was the only way to add two good rotation players to fill out the playoff roster. Unfortunately, buy out rules allow that to be done for free, gaining players on vet min contracts that provide more than vet min production. Nobody is going to be able to sign them to vet min contracts in summer, in a legitimate free agency, the buy out market is clearly an unfair bargain.

Strongly disagree. Beli and Ersan, both expiring at the time, are certainly not worth a first.

Mirotic didn't get a 1st, he's way better than Ilyasova. Ellington is about the same player as Belinelli, and he got straight salary dumped. The thing that depresses trade value is when teams say "I'll just wait till free agency and try to sign them". It's not waiting for the buyout market.

You still keep equating “worth” within the system of pre-arranged buyouts.

The women in my example that didn’t get 15 cents on the dollar because of the rules of the system does not mean women aren’t worth 15 cents for the production they provide.

Five years ago, when these pre-arranged buy-outs weren’t such a big thing, a contender would easily give up a late first for two vet rotation players that gave them a better chance in the playoffs and possibly Bird rights. Even though the expected value of a late first has risen in the past five years as we have younger draft prospects with more variability, it is less than a rotation player - it’s the hope that you get lucky and find a starter. Half will be busts.

[the_process]

There was talks about the players going to PHI through buy outs for the week leading up to the trade deadline, just like this year there were several players linked to teams once they were bought out.

And Ilyasova and Belinelli combined were certainly worth trading a late first, if trading was the only way to add two good rotation players to fill out the playoff roster. Unfortunately, buy out rules allow that to be done for free, gaining players on vet min contracts that provide more than vet min production. Nobody is going to be able to sign them to vet min contracts in summer, in a legitimate free agency, the buy out market is clearly an unfair bargain.

Strongly disagree. Beli and Ersan, both expiring at the time, are certainly not worth a first.

Mirotic didn't get a 1st, he's way better than Ilyasova. Ellington is about the same player as Belinelli, and he got straight salary dumped. The thing that depresses trade value is when teams say "I'll just wait till free agency and try to sign them". It's not waiting for the buyout market.

You still keep equating “worth” within the system of pre-arranged buyouts.

The women in my example that didn’t get 15 cents on the dollar because of the rules of the system does not mean women aren’t worth 15 cents for the production they provide.

Five years ago, when these pre-arranged buy-outs weren’t such a big thing, a contender would easily give up a late first for two vet rotation players that gave them a better chance in the playoffs and possibly Bird rights.

Your premise is still flawed. It's not the buyout market, the value of first round picks has gone way up. Because of the cap spike, the Warriors exist. Because of them, this league has become an escalating arms race. You need at least three stars to win, therefore those teams are capped out and flirting with if not over the tax, but still need cheap bench help to fill out the rotation. The best way to get that is first round picks. Teams are no longer trading 4 years of controlled salary for a half a season of some vet because of the tax implications.

[shrink]

Strongly disagree. Beli and Ersan, both expiring at the time, are certainly not worth a first.

Mirotic didn't get a 1st, he's way better than Ilyasova. Ellington is about the same player as Belinelli, and he got straight salary dumped. The thing that depresses trade value is when teams say "I'll just wait till free agency and try to sign them". It's not waiting for the buyout market.

You still keep equating “worth” within the system of pre-arranged buyouts.

The women in my example that didn’t get 15 cents on the dollar because of the rules of the system does not mean women aren’t worth 15 cents for the production they provide.

Five years ago, when these pre-arranged buy-outs weren’t such a big thing, a contender would easily give up a late first for two vet rotation players that gave them a better chance in the playoffs and possibly Bird rights.

Your premise is still flawed. It's not the buyout market, the value of first round picks has gone way up. Because of the cap spike, the Warriors exist. Because of them, this league has become an escalating arms race. You need at least three stars to win, therefore those teams are capped out and flirting with if not over the tax, but still need cheap bench help to fill out the rotation. The best way to get that is first round picks. Teams are no longer trading 4 years of controlled salary for a half a season of some vet because of the tax implications.

Okay, at least we are just differing on price now. I disliked the argument that “other teams didn’t give a late 1st, so that’s the price,” falls apart when the system is broken. Clearly just because Company X didn’t give the woman 15 cents under the current system because they could get her later for free, doesn’t mean their worth to that team is less than 15 cents.

If the argument has shifted to “how much worth does an expiring Ilyasova and Belinelli provide for a team?” then I will just say this. Even if you believe their contribution is not worth a late first, you must admit it is certainly worth more than what you paid - no picks and vet min deals.

That is not good for league parity.

[Duffman100]

The Pacers got Matthews (great! Keeps them competitive after losing Dipo)
Pistons got Ellington (sure, a fringe playoff team stays fringe!)
Raptors get Lin (Bench guard who will get 12-15 minute a game at most)

Doesn't seem like a huge power shift right now.

[jbk1234]

There's never a guarantee that players get bought out, and there's never a guarantee you can sign players on the buyout market.

PHI didn't offer a 1st for Beli or Ersan because they weren't worth it.

There was talks about the players going to PHI through buy outs for the week leading up to the trade deadline, just like this year there were several players linked to teams once they were bought out.

And Ilyasova and Belinelli combined were certainly worth trading a late first, if trading was the only way to add two good rotation players to fill out the playoff roster. Unfortunately, buy out rules allow that to be done for free, gaining players on vet min contracts that provide more than vet min production. Nobody is going to be able to sign them to vet min contracts in summer, in a legitimate free agency, the buy out market is clearly an unfair bargain.

Strongly disagree. Beli and Ersan, both expiring at the time, are certainly not worth a first.

Mirotic didn't get a 1st, he's way better than Ilyasova. Ellington is about the same player as Belinelli, and he got straight salary dumped. The thing that depresses trade value is when teams say "I'll just wait till free agency and try to sign them". It's not waiting for the buyout market.

Mirotic pulled four seconds and next summer's F.A. options don't help a playoff team in May. There's validity to the claim that anticipation of the buyout market depresses offers for expiring players at the deadline. Maybe not to the extent that selling teams want to believe, but it's a thing.

[winter_mute_13]

I actually love this idea. If you don't have cap space, a TPE, or DPE, then you can only bid the vet minimum. Players have to give back a minimum of the vet minimum in their buyout. Go in reverse order of the standings so that the teams on the bubble get the first shot at buyout players.

It's a system that already exists and is known to work. Coon's FAQ calls it "partial waivers" (link). This is the system the league came up with when they needed to fairly allocate the players who were waived under the 2011 amnesty provision. And we're talking relatively big names here, guys like Scola, Brand, Billups. The buyout guys are small potatoes in comparison.

There's no actual order in the bidding. Interested teams submit their bids blind, and the highest bid wins. If there's a tie, the team with the worst record wins.

It should be fairly easy for the league to implement this for all waivers. The trouble is, no one is going to the hassle of fighting for it. Half-season free agents at the deadline are not the hill that people will die on.

[jayjaysee]

I don’t know why first round picks are being discussed and not second round picks?

If Chicago had insisted on a first for Justin Holiday, he’d have been bought out last week as well. Instead, they took what they could get and moved on.

Now they have extra assets and the teams that didn’t lower their demands don’t.

[shrink]

I don’t know why first round picks are being discussed and not second round picks?

If Chicago had insisted on a first for Justin Holiday, he’d have been bought out last week as well. Instead, they took what they could get and moved on.

Now they have extra assets and the teams that didn’t lower their demands don’t.

“That woman should take her 15 cents and be happy! Who cares if she gives the new employer a dollar?!?”

[the_process]

You still keep equating “worth” within the system of pre-arranged buyouts.

The women in my example that didn’t get 15 cents on the dollar because of the rules of the system does not mean women aren’t worth 15 cents for the production they provide.

Five years ago, when these pre-arranged buy-outs weren’t such a big thing, a contender would easily give up a late first for two vet rotation players that gave them a better chance in the playoffs and possibly Bird rights.

Your premise is still flawed. It's not the buyout market, the value of first round picks has gone way up. Because of the cap spike, the Warriors exist. Because of them, this league has become an escalating arms race. You need at least three stars to win, therefore those teams are capped out and flirting with if not over the tax, but still need cheap bench help to fill out the rotation. The best way to get that is first round picks. Teams are no longer trading 4 years of controlled salary for a half a season of some vet because of the tax implications.

Okay, at least we are just differing on price now. I disliked the argument that “other teams didn’t give a late 1st, so that’s the price,” falls apart when the system is broken. Clearly just because Company X didn’t give the woman 15 cents under the current system because they could get her later for free, doesn’t mean their worth to that team is less than 15 cents.

If the argument has shifted to “how much worth does an expiring Ilyasova and Belinelli provide for a team?” then I will just say this. Even if you believe their contribution is not worth a late first, you must admit it is certainly worth more than what you paid - no picks and vet min deals.

That is not good for league parity.

I still think you are vastly overrating the effect of the buyout market in depressing trade value. And if we're shifting the argument to talk about parity... I would say it's nigh impossible to achieve parity in a sport where the best players can be on the court for the whole game and can affect the entire game unlike any other sport. There's simply a natural scarcity of the most valuable resource: superstars. And it's certainly not going to happen when those superstars that are there can combine together because the market is artificially capped.

[Mykhyn]

If bad teams traded their good bench players, this would be solved right?

Idk I think theres a lot more people interested in Wes Matthews at the min than having to salary match him.

If they went that route thered need to be some mechanism in place to allow the team trading the player to absorb some of the cap hit / financial cost.

[HartfordWhalers]

I cannot imagine Beli and Illy being actually worth a first, with or without buyouts.

[MartinToVaught]

The buyout market is one of the most overrated things in sports. Take it from someone who watched GM Doc throw all our assets away and get stuck pinning the entire season on whatever old fossil we could get from the buyout market, who would then be unplayable in the playoffs anyway. These guys are getting bought out for a reason.

How many buyout players have actually made an impact on their new teams when it mattered? Chris Webber, PJ Brown, and Boris Diaw are the only ones I can think of.

[basketballwacko2]

I am of the opinion that buyouts are becoming too commonplace in the NBA. Buyout players are actually improving the best teams at little cost while smaller teams are being forced to lose some pretty good players because it "is the right thing to do for your veteran players". A team like the Hawks should not be losing a good player like Jeremy Lin so he can sign with the best team in the east for very little money, for example. That just doesn't make sense to me. Good teams should not get better for free and bad teams shouldn't be tanking by giving up the players they have.

Do you all think this is as big of an issue as I do?

What steps do you think the league can take to fix the issue?

One thing I thought of was not allowing teams to save small amounts of money when they cut a player. For example, I don't think that Lin should be able to give back like $50,000 back to the Hawks to obtain a buyout. The Hawks should be forced to pay full Lin price. But I think if the Thunder and Alex Abrines want to agree to a buyout where Abrines doesn't earn the remainder of his contract, that is fine. But I don't think that would work entirely because I think the Hawks would still release Lin at full price, simply because they want to do right for the veteran.

What do you all think?

(Mods, if you think this is better off in the general board, please move. But I felt it belonged here?)

The best way to stop it is for the teams to stop giving bloated contracts to average or slightly above average guys for 4 or 5 years with raises making them crazy expensive by the end of their deals. Example: Noah, Mozgov, Biyombo, Kanter, Lin.

[kobe_vs_jordan]

Suppose there was a rule where women were only allowed to be paid 10 cents on the dollar. If they chose not to trade their efforts for that price, people shouldn’t focus on “they were too greedy for not going to work, and now they get nothing.” They should focus on creating a fair rule.

It is especially important in the NBA that players cost teams what they are worth, because we use a salary cap to help league parity. It’s true Wes Matthews wasn’t worth $20 mil, but it’s also true that he’s worth far more than the minimum, as a fifth starter on a playoff contender. The current rule is broken.

Woman analogy a bit broken. There is no rule forcing teams to undersell their players. The market determines the price. If you want to sell a 5 dollar item for 10 dollars then you shouldn't be shocked that you have no buyers till you throw the item away.

[shrink]

Suppose there was a rule where women were only allowed to be paid 10 cents on the dollar. If they chose not to trade their efforts for that price, people shouldn’t focus on “they were too greedy for not going to work, and now they get nothing.” They should focus on creating a fair rule.

It is especially important in the NBA that players cost teams what they are worth, because we use a salary cap to help league parity. It’s true Wes Matthews wasn’t worth $20 mil, but it’s also true that he’s worth far more than the minimum, as a fifth starter on a playoff contender. The current rule is broken.

Woman analogy a bit broken. There is no rule forcing teams to undersell their players. The market determines the price. If you want to sell a 5 dollar item for 10 dollars then you shouldn't be shocked that you have no buyers till you throw the item away.

I am saying that BECAUSE we have a buy out system, the market for those players is reduced, and selling teams are forced to get less than fair value or else they get nothing.

If a system is in place where women are forced to either work for 15 cents on the dollar, or not work at all, yeah, no one is forcing them to work for 15 cents. However, the market is unfairly restricted because of that system, and they are not given fair value for their contributions.

[yosemiteben]

I tend to support restrictions on buyouts. My thought is that the NBA's biggest problem (from my perspective) is a lack of parity, and while top tier teams gobbling up buyout candidates is not the primary culprit I do think allowing a flow of very cheap talent to playoff teams after the trade deadline contributes to that lack of parity.

I'm not particularly sympathetic to the plight of buyout candidates, and I'm also not sympathetic to teams that might face injury issues. I really like the idea of messaging to teams that their rosters are set the day at the trade deadline, with the possible exception of the ability to sign G league players or players that have been active (regardless of whether they played) below a certain number of games, with some way to account for players that are "injured" like a Kawhi situation.

If you don't want to get bitten in the ass with an injury, then try to address depth at the trade deadline.