Anyone else pissed off?

[loserX]

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.

Oh I don't think you'd see many players giving up money any more. I don't think you'd see as many buyouts at all, at least not after the deadline. It would just be guys who want out, presumably out of losing teams, knowing that they have a chance to be picked up by a playoff team.

If what they want is to go to the Nets (or whomever) and the Nets only, they can wait for regular free agency to do that.

[Texas Chuck]

Not sure why people are even discussing this. It would be a total non-starter for the players and the teams aren't going to concede bigger issues in the next CBA to change something that isn't actually even a problem.

Your team has cut you. Nobody claims you via waivers. You are a free agent. Period. Dallas never benefits from this either unless you count that one Corey Brewer quarter in game 1 against the Lakers in 2011, but I also try and look and things beyond just Dallas.

But I'm seeing lots of fans of teams who bought a guy out, whining about irrelevant things and lots of fans of largely irrelevant teams whining that these guys don't want to sign with them. Like sorry, but none of this is new. The Lakers are always going to get Wes Matthews or Marc Gasol to take less to sign with them in the off-season. The contending teams are always going to get their pick of buyout guys.

No idea why this year everyone is upset unless they believe Blake Griffin, LMA, and Drummond are the caliber of players they in fact are not.

[shrink]

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.

I agree, but you make rules for the past, but also for the future.

If Anthony Davis gets hurt, what rule prevents LeBron from telling the Lakers - “I came here to win rings for my legacy. I don’t care about the money. Waive me, I’m not playing for anyone but the Nets for the minimum?”

[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.

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.

I agree, but you make rules for the past, but also for the future.

If Anthony Davis gets hurt, what rule prevents LeBron from telling the Lakers - “I came here to win rings for my legacy. I don’t care about the money. Waive me, so I can go join the Nets for the minimum?”

I mean if we want to be extremists we can, but everyone understands Lebron is never doing this and I don't see this sort of thing as persuasive argument at all.

[shrink]

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.

I agree, but you make rules for the past, but also for the future.

If Anthony Davis gets hurt, what rule prevents LeBron from telling the Lakers - “I came here to win rings for my legacy. I don’t care about the money. Waive me, so I can go join the Nets for the minimum?”

I mean if we want to be extremists we can, but everyone understands Lebron is never doing this and I don't see this sort of thing as persuasive argument at all.

I disagree, but we can both admit the league is trending that way. So far it’s been “more name than game” players, but as money becomes less and less of a concern for the biggest players, why would you support NOT having a rule that prevents the legitimacy of the NBA and its championship?

After reading Scoot, and the uniqueness of the NBA employees, I don’t understand why there ISN’T a non-compete clause. We have versions for refusing to be drafted, that the entire NBA abides with, that would force a Steve Francis to go play in Europe.

[Troubadour]

Not really. I can't think of the last time a buyout changed the tides in a title race.

[Texas Chuck]

You honestly think a reason for taking away players' rights in terms of choosing their destination is a real concern that Lebron will demand out so he can join a rival superteam for the minimum?

Because I do not. At all.

[jbk1234]

Not sure why people are even discussing this. It would be a total non-starter for the players and the teams aren't going to concede bigger issues in the next CBA to change something that isn't actually even a problem.

Your team has cut you. Nobody claims you via waivers. You are a free agent. Period. Dallas never benefits from this either unless you count that one Corey Brewer quarter in game 1 against the Lakers in 2011, but I also try and look and things beyond just Dallas.

But I'm seeing lots of fans of teams who bought a guy out, whining about irrelevant things and lots of fans of largely irrelevant teams whining that these guys don't want to sign with them. Like sorry, but none of this is new. The Lakers are always going to get Wes Matthews or Marc Gasol to take less to sign with them in the off-season. The contending teams are always going to get their pick of buyout guys.

No idea why this year everyone is upset unless they believe Blake Griffin, LMA, and Drummond are the caliber of players they in fact are not.

A 27 year old former all star managed to arbitrage the system while under contract and is signing with the defending NBA champs. That's new. Blake doesn't bother me, LMA doesn't bother me, heck even Dieng, who was flat out cut, doesn't bother me. But Drummond, and to a lesser extent Horford, was giving OKC decent minutes and is making $27M bothers me not to even suit up, both bother me. It represents the continuation of a trend line in the wrong direction in terms of how contacts are no longer thought of mutually obligatory on both sides.

[MoneyTalks41890]

I agree, but you make rules for the past, but also for the future.

If Anthony Davis gets hurt, what rule prevents LeBron from telling the Lakers - “I came here to win rings for my legacy. I don’t care about the money. Waive me, so I can go join the Nets for the minimum?”

I mean if we want to be extremists we can, but everyone understands Lebron is never doing this and I don't see this sort of thing as persuasive argument at all.

I disagree, but we can both admit the league is trending that way. So far it’s been “more name than game” players, but as money becomes less and less of a concern for the biggest players, why would you support NOT having a rule that prevents the legitimacy of the NBA and its championship?

After reading Scoot, and the uniqueness of the NBA employees, I don’t understand why there ISN’T a non-compete clause. We have versions for refusing to be drafted, that the entire NBA abides with, that would force a Steve Francis to go play in Europe.

There's probably someone who has thought about this more intentionally incorporating the negotiated union contract elements and unique NBA issues, but non-competes are generally disfavored unless narrowly drawn and tailored for compelling purposes. They also probably won't exist in 10 years. I think you'd run into real issues trying to do this in the NBA. Of course there are probably other ways to accomplish a similar purpose within the CBA framework without the stigmatizing label.

[Texas Chuck]

Teams still have the option to not buy these guys out. Cavs thought it in their best interest to not play a guy who was making it hard to develop players they actually cared about. Thunder are trying desperately to tank and Horford is still too good of a player.

This idea that the teams aren't doing what's best for them is ridiculous. You are mad because its a Cav. I get that. But we shouldn't change the system because you are mad Drummond dogged it and the team decided to separate him from the team--and wisely so.

[shrink]

You honestly think a reason for taking away players' rights in terms of choosing their destination is a real concern that Lebron will demand out so he can join a rival superteam for the minimum?

Because I do not. At all.

You are not addressing my point. At all.

The trend is players making more money, and choosing teams less and less based on money
The trend is players clumping together to form super teams.
The trend is players showing more loyalty to each other’s friendships than loyalty to a specific team.

But you want to say that, “since a game changer hasn’t happened YET (which is even questionable - one game can turn a series), then let’s ignore the trends and not protect the league from it happening?


NBA players aren’t unskilled labor making sandwiches at Jimmy John’s. In small competitive industries, top employees are often required to sign non-compete clauses - it’s part of the reason they get big salaries. Why should NBA players be different?

[Texas Chuck]

There's probably someone who has thought about this more intentionally incorporating the negotiated union contract elements and unique NBA issues, but non-competes are generally disfavored unless narrowly drawn and tailored for compelling purposes. They also probably won't exist in 10 years. I think you'd run into real issues trying to do this in the NBA. Of course there are probably other ways to accomplish a similar purpose within the CBA framework without the stigmatizing label.

I'm no expert but they probably risk losing their antitrust exemption. You start blackballing players from the league like this and you are going to have lawsuits and opening up a can of worms you are best not opening.

[Texas Chuck]

You honestly think a reason for taking away players' rights in terms of choosing their destination is a real concern that Lebron will demand out so he can join a rival superteam for the minimum?

Because I do not. At all.

You are not addressing my point. At all.

The trend is players making more money, and choosing teams less and less based on money
The trend is players clumping together to form super teams.
The trend is players showing more loyalty to each other’s friendships than loyalty to a specific team.

But you want to say that, “since a game changer hasn’t happened YET (which is even questionable - one game can turn a series), then let’s ignore the trends and not protect the league from it happening?


NBA players aren’t unskilled labor making sandwiches at Jimmy John’s. In small competitive industries, top employees are often required to sign non-compete clauses - it’s part of the reason they get big salaries. Why should NBA players be different?

Name all the superstar players who aren't considering money when they choose a team? They are choosing money still.

This thread is totally wild to me. I just cannot get where you guys are with the sky falling all around us. It is not.

[shrink]

There's probably someone who has thought about this more intentionally incorporating the negotiated union contract elements and unique NBA issues, but non-competes are generally disfavored unless narrowly drawn and tailored for compelling purposes. They also probably won't exist in 10 years. I think you'd run into real issues trying to do this in the NBA. Of course there are probably other ways to accomplish a similar purpose within the CBA framework without the stigmatizing label.

I'm no expert but they probably risk losing their antitrust exemption. You start blackballing players from the league like this and you are going to have lawsuits and opening up a can of worms you are best not opening.

“Blackballing?” A buyout will always be a mutual decision.

[shrink]

You honestly think a reason for taking away players' rights in terms of choosing their destination is a real concern that Lebron will demand out so he can join a rival superteam for the minimum?

Because I do not. At all.

You are not addressing my point. At all.

The trend is players making more money, and choosing teams less and less based on money
The trend is players clumping together to form super teams.
The trend is players showing more loyalty to each other’s friendships than loyalty to a specific team.

But you want to say that, “since a game changer hasn’t happened YET (which is even questionable - one game can turn a series), then let’s ignore the trends and not protect the league from it happening?


NBA players aren’t unskilled labor making sandwiches at Jimmy John’s. In small competitive industries, top employees are often required to sign non-compete clauses - it’s part of the reason they get big salaries. Why should NBA players be different?

Name all the superstar players who aren't considering money when they choose a team? They are choosing money still.

This thread is totally wild to me. I just cannot get where you guys are with the sky falling all around us. It is not.

Several players have chosen to give hometown discounts, or team favorable deals. Huh?

You are not defending the right to work of 1920’s coal workers here.

[Texas Chuck]

There's probably someone who has thought about this more intentionally incorporating the negotiated union contract elements and unique NBA issues, but non-competes are generally disfavored unless narrowly drawn and tailored for compelling purposes. They also probably won't exist in 10 years. I think you'd run into real issues trying to do this in the NBA. Of course there are probably other ways to accomplish a similar purpose within the CBA framework without the stigmatizing label.

I'm no expert but they probably risk losing their antitrust exemption. You start blackballing players from the league like this and you are going to have lawsuits and opening up a can of worms you are best not opening.

“Blackballing?” A buyout will always be a mutual decision.

I'm referencing the idea that they would have to sign non-compete's to get out and thus couldn't sign with another NBA team. A terrible, terrible idea.

[Texas Chuck]

You are not addressing my point. At all.

The trend is players making more money, and choosing teams less and less based on money
The trend is players clumping together to form super teams.
The trend is players showing more loyalty to each other’s friendships than loyalty to a specific team.

But you want to say that, “since a game changer hasn’t happened YET (which is even questionable - one game can turn a series), then let’s ignore the trends and not protect the league from it happening?


NBA players aren’t unskilled labor making sandwiches at Jimmy John’s. In small competitive industries, top employees are often required to sign non-compete clauses - it’s part of the reason they get big salaries. Why should NBA players be different?

Name all the superstar players who aren't considering money when they choose a team? They are choosing money still.

This thread is totally wild to me. I just cannot get where you guys are with the sky falling all around us. It is not.

Several players have chosen to give hometown discounts, or team favorable deals. Huh?

You are not defending the right to work of 1920’s coal workers here.

This makes the opposite argument though. You were mad they were joining other teams but are now pointing out Duncan or Dirk taking less to stay home?

Confused what you are trying to say.

[jbk1234]

Teams still have the option to not buy these guys out. Cavs thought it in their best interest to not play a guy who was making it hard to develop players they actually cared about. Thunder are trying desperately to tank and Horford is still too good of a player.

This idea that the teams aren't doing what's best for them is ridiculous. You are mad because its a Cav. I get that. But we shouldn't change the system because you are mad Drummond dogged it and the team decided to separate him from the team--and wisely so.

Except bringing in Drummond off the bench was what was best for the Cavs and Drummond's response to the news made it otherwise. Yes, the Cavs could've forced the issue. But think about what would happen if a player wanted to come off the bench and play, and the organization made it clear that they'd torpedo his market value by playing a bunch of G league guys with him in that second unit and that player should accept a buyout on the team's terms. The union would raise holy hell. You brushing off a big chunk of reality here.

For the record, I'm not mad at the Cavs. I wasn't mad when they gifted away KPJ and I'm not mad that they decided to grant Drummond his wish rather than deal with the drama that would've resulted from forcing the issue. I'm angry that the incentives favor mischief on the part of over paid players in order to get what they want.

[sonictecture]

In my view player buyouts are not about players rights, but league competition. Players have more rights and leverage than ever before and I think it is a good thing for the league, but when those rights are manipulated to help a very small number of teams each season, that creates an unleveled field of competition that can and should be dealt with.

This isn't just about the teams who are forced to buyout the players, but the small and mid market teams who have carefully prepared to contend and then see a small group of small market teams loophole the system to get a guy who was making 30M for less than 1M, with no repercussions.

Anyone using an excuse that this is the way it's always been is wrong in my view as the number of high dollar buyouts is only increasing and this is an issue that can be made better. The league and it's fans deserve better.

[bondom34]

Edit: Maybe it's just a this year thing lol. I'm not sure. Generally I haven't minded so not sure.