Thoughts in General, Rumors, etc 3.0

[jbk1234]

This is a great post. And I really appreciate you being the one to elevate the level of the discussion. So I want to credit you for that first.

I am open to improving the CBA. Let me start there. But I'm not in favor of changing this rule. I think if teams and players come to an agreement that neither side wants the partnership to continue that they should be able to end it if they can come to agreeable terms. Teams save a little money. Players get freedom. It feels win/win. And then once they clear waivers and become FA, I hate any rules dictating they can't sign until next year or bad teams get 1st crack or whatever because then its not actual free agency. I just don't see anything that needs fixing here. The truth is the Lakers always have a bit of an advantage. Good teams usually do a bit better on MLE/min guys looking to win a ring. This year the guys had bigger names, but LMA sadly gave the Nets almost nothing and I think we could argue promising Drummond a starting spot actually hurt the Lakers. Griffin helped. Rivers is helping a desperate Nuggets team with minutes but not great play really. And this is pretty typical.

As to your changes, I like limiting the draft to one round. It would make some trades a bit harder as you don't have that currency to juice them but for those fringe NBA guys, I like them getting to choose their own team to go try out for and it encourages more players to stay in school/Europe/G-League an extra year or two which leads to better prospects in the draft.

Unclear on the max one, but I'm thinking you are talking about rookie guys becoming UFA's? Not a fan as that just leads to more bad maxes as teams are already really bad about being afraid of "losing a guy for nothing" when that is clearly the smarter decision.

And hate the idea of creating a bunch more UFAs and having too much player movement by making everyone free every year. I'm all for player empowerment but they should be able to choose between freedom and security and too much player movement while fun for team-building nerds like me would be bad for casual fans who want to root for their guys and not have 12 new players every year.


And look if the buyout freak out guys can make some sound arguments why its a problem, but I haven't heard them yet. Most of it was of the sour grapes variety.

You've heard them and dismissed them. Woj wrote an entire article about how powerful agents actually threaten teams interested in trading for buyout candidates. He's the agents mouthpiece and he wrote it anyway. Things aren't just fine.

How consensual is a buyout agreement if the agent is threatening both the team he's negotiating with, and potential trade partners? It's all well and good to talk about player empowerment, but keep in mind that when the Cavs *buyout* Drummond for 99% of his contract, those dollars can't be spent twice. So to the extent they would've given a disappointing prospect a second look in the last third of a wasted season, that opportunity didn't exist for that player.

Also your TD dance about Drummond is completely misplaced. The test can't be whether Drummond helped the Lakers win a championship when their two best players were hobbled or even unavailable with injury. The Lakers had no real answer for Ayton with or without Drummond on the court. The test is whether Drummond could've added value to any playoff team, whether that team had a shot at signing him, and/or whether a team might have traded for him.

As to your argument that post buyout restrictions aren't real free agency, my response is that having another team pay any portion of your salary isn't real free agency either. You want real free agency? Make the remainder of the contract voidable by mutual agreement. Finish the contract, or not. Then sign with whoever you want for however much you can get. But the CBA prevents that and there isn't a good explanation offered as to why a player shouldn't be able to do that. Seems every bit as win/win as the alternative.

Finally, your argument against one year deals isn't so much based on what's equitable, but based on what casual fans want. Do you really think that casual fans don't resent the idea of their teams paying millions of dollars to a player to go play for another team? Every fan hates that.

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

Just to the bold one…I don’t think they care. I’m a fan, and I don’t. They don’t mind when it happens all the time in baseball as part of trades where the old team eats salary just to be able to trade the player. Or in football, where it’s happening more and more, now. But no fans cry wolf there in either of those sports.

That's funny because MLB is my primary example of where the NBA is headed if they're not careful. They've had declining attendance and ratings for a over a decade now.

[Texas Chuck]

As if suggesting there is a small competitive imbalance that could potentially be improved on is some ridiculous position. I know some people take it to the extreme and say outlandish things like it ruins the league, but the vast majority of the people just acknowledge that it's a gap in the system that, in general, favors some teams over others and could be improved upon.

My rant is specifically against the extreme. And no it wasn't remotely the minority here. And I have said repeatedly that the Lakers specifically and other good teams do have an advantage.

I just have not heard a solution to fixing that worth doing.

I mean jbk is suggesting that Blake or Drummond's only options should be completely giving up every cent. That's never going to happen. That's not realistic or worth our time. But if their teams don't want them and want to save even a little money and clear a roster spot they should be allowed. Even if jbk is frustrated about it. And once free those players should be able to sign with whomever they want.

Open to arguments despite what jbk accuses me of. But just because I listen to bad arguments does not require me to accept them. I listen. I strongly disagree with him. Just as he does with me clearly.

[shrink]

I forgot that the Nets, who are steamrolling the Bucks without Harden, are also playing without a cheap Aldridge, since a cheap Blake Griffin is doing so well. Yikes.

The problem to me is always about parity. A buyout may be a win/win/win for the player and both teams. But it is certainly a loss for their rivals, who don’t have agents and destination cities helping specific teams get extra talent at discount prices.

The request has been for simple rule changes to the CBA, and here’s an easy (though not sufficient imho) one:

1. Buyout and team changes need to match the trade deadline.

Ever consider why the CBA even has a trade deadline? I mean, if we removed it completely, players would have more freedom, and teams could do their win/win deals, even during the playoffs! The purpose is so teams have to set playoff rosters. Every major sport embraces the concept. Right now, the buyout avenue come after that, and some sellers say that it keeps them from being able to make small positive trades. Now, we could add more rules to try to distinguish between minor role playing free agents versus more productive ones that provide greater value on their discount deals which are the problem, but removing the extra time to help the buyout avenue would be a step in the right direction.

[jbk1234]

As if suggesting there is a small competitive imbalance that could potentially be improved on is some ridiculous position. I know some people take it to the extreme and say outlandish things like it ruins the league, but the vast majority of the people just acknowledge that it's a gap in the system that, in general, favors some teams over others and could be improved upon.

My rant is specifically against the extreme. And no it wasn't remotely the minority here. And I have said repeatedly that the Lakers specifically and other good teams do have an advantage.

I just have not heard a solution to fixing that worth doing.

I mean jbk is suggesting that Blake or Drummond's only options should be completely giving up every cent. That's never going to happen. That's not realistic or worth our time. But if their teams don't want them and want to save even a little money and clear a roster spot they should be allowed. Even if jbk is frustrated about it. And once free those players should be able to sign with whomever they want.

Open to arguments despite what jbk accuses me of. But just because I listen to bad arguments does not require me to accept them. I listen. I strongly disagree with him. Just as he does with me clearly.

The league specifically limits how much a player can give back and, at a minimum, the NBA should get rid of that rule. If you're okay with a Wild West scenario where agents are circumventing the rules behind the scenes, scaring off potential trade partners, and pressuring teams to pay their guys nearly full freight to go play for another team, then teams ought to be able to take a hardline position as well. What's crazy is that for all the talk about free agency, players are increasingly exercising their player options and then seeking a buyout in the same season. A few years ago, Wade exercised a P.O. in the summer and then negotiated to a buyout a couple weeks later. You could institute a rule where if either the player or the team exercised an option in a season, the player couldn't be bought out or traded. Teams can't exercise their options solely for the purpose of trading a guy and players can't exercise an option solely for the purpose of seeking to get paid by their current team while playing for another one.

[MasterIchiro]

NBA has declining attendance? NBA has me hooked. I will never look at MLB the same. Gary Sheffield says he doesn't watch MLB any longer. NBA is developing talent in places like Serbia. Baseball is pretty much just U.S. and Latin America plus a sprinkle of Japan. NBA is more global. I think the superteam thing needs to be fixed first and foremost. The NBA is pretty diluted as it is like the NHL. How many new teams did NHL add since the glory days of Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemuiex? I can't keep up. The difference is you don't see superstars using agencies to steer themselves to superteams and screwing the fans on their way out.

[Scoot McGroot]

As if suggesting there is a small competitive imbalance that could potentially be improved on is some ridiculous position. I know some people take it to the extreme and say outlandish things like it ruins the league, but the vast majority of the people just acknowledge that it's a gap in the system that, in general, favors some teams over others and could be improved upon.

My rant is specifically against the extreme. And no it wasn't remotely the minority here. And I have said repeatedly that the Lakers specifically and other good teams do have an advantage.

I just have not heard a solution to fixing that worth doing.

I mean jbk is suggesting that Blake or Drummond's only options should be completely giving up every cent. That's never going to happen. That's not realistic or worth our time. But if their teams don't want them and want to save even a little money and clear a roster spot they should be allowed. Even if jbk is frustrated about it. And once free those players should be able to sign with whomever they want.

Open to arguments despite what jbk accuses me of. But just because I listen to bad arguments does not require me to accept them. I listen. I strongly disagree with him. Just as he does with me clearly.

The league specifically limits how much a player can give back and, at a minimum, the NBA should get rid of that rule.

This is more a connection to the Fair Labor practices in basic US law, where if you perform work, you get paid. In the NBA, players can give back any dollar amount they haven’t already earned in their daily/game checks. That’s the only rule that I can think of you might be referencing.

If you're okay with a Wild West scenario where agents are circumventing the rules behind the scenes, scaring off potential trade partners, and pressuring teams to pay their guys nearly full freight to go play for another team, then teams ought to be able to take a hardline position as well.

They absolutely already can. They choose not to of their own volition.

What's crazy is that for all the talk about free agency, players are increasingly exercising their player options and then seeking a buyout in the same season. A few years ago, Wade exercised a P.O. in the summer and then negotiated to a buyout a couple weeks later. You could institute a rule where if either the player or the team exercised an option in a season, the player couldn't be bought out or traded. Teams can't exercise their options solely for the purpose of trading a guy and players can't exercise an option solely for the purpose of seeking to get paid by their current team while playing for another one.

So, you want teams to just have to waive the players, pay them out fully, and still let them sign elsewhere midseason? This suggestion seems to be solely to the detriment of the teams, and something the players would LOVE (more money, same freedom). If it doesn’t work midseason, the only option is for players to make it more miserable, and teams to just waive a player, full cost and full freedom to the player. This one seems like it makes the situation you’re complaining about worse.

But also, players don’t “opt in” to final years on their contract. The contract is fully guaranteed for the full amount of years. The player has the right to “opt out” of the final year, if they so wish. But also, lots of things can change in the time of opt versus the time they’re “bought out”. Team needs and directions change, and teams want the ability to change on the fly.

[HartfordWhalers]

But also, players don’t “opt in” to final years on their contract. The contract is fully guaranteed for the full amount of years. The player has the right to “opt out” of the final year, if they so wish.

No.

Most player options are indeed 'Opt ins', where unless the paperwork is filed the contract does not automatically continue the last year. There used to be a few "Early Termination Options', where the paperwork needed to be filed to cut the deal short.

Course those details mostly don't matter at all.

As for an opt in and then buy out; why is this strange? Players only Opt in if it is for more than they are worth. That means it is the type of contract that might benefit the team to buy out.


Example:
20m player gets a 4/80 last year PO. Team needs to offer this much to get him.

Unfortunately, the player gets injured, and becomes an 5m a year player in year 3 (and projected for year 4).
Last year he absolutely opts in. Effectively the team is down 15m, as the team now has 20m dedicated to an 5m player.

If the player offers to give back 10m, the team is probably best cutting the player and having the extra cap room (if they would).
Player can pick a new team and set up for next contract, ring chase etc.

The team wins from the buyout, and assuming the player is okay losing money than the player wins too.

Not sure the issue with the concept here.

[Dr Positivity]

They could consider just paying star players what they're worth

On the Simmons podcast they made the point that you're not going to see players like Rodgers, Julio and Zeke or something decide to sign on the same team one year cause it's not possible cap wise. Otherwise I suspect Julio would have just got traded to Green Bay or Seattle instead of Tennessee. The NBA's superteam issue is directly related to how Harden should be probably making 70 million instead of 41.

The main issue would be contracts like Wall would destroy a franchise.

[jbk1234]

My rant is specifically against the extreme. And no it wasn't remotely the minority here. And I have said repeatedly that the Lakers specifically and other good teams do have an advantage.

I just have not heard a solution to fixing that worth doing.

I mean jbk is suggesting that Blake or Drummond's only options should be completely giving up every cent. That's never going to happen. That's not realistic or worth our time. But if their teams don't want them and want to save even a little money and clear a roster spot they should be allowed. Even if jbk is frustrated about it. And once free those players should be able to sign with whomever they want.

Open to arguments despite what jbk accuses me of. But just because I listen to bad arguments does not require me to accept them. I listen. I strongly disagree with him. Just as he does with me clearly.

The league specifically limits how much a player can give back and, at a minimum, the NBA should get rid of that rule.

This is more a connection to the Fair Labor practices in basic US law, where if you perform work, you get paid. In the NBA, players can give back any dollar amount they haven’t already earned in their daily/game checks. That’s the only rule that I can think of you might be referencing.

If you're okay with a Wild West scenario where agents are circumventing the rules behind the scenes, scaring off potential trade partners, and pressuring teams to pay their guys nearly full freight to go play for another team, then teams ought to be able to take a hardline position as well.

They absolutely already can. They choose not to of their own volition.

What's crazy is that for all the talk about free agency, players are increasingly exercising their player options and then seeking a buyout in the same season. A few years ago, Wade exercised a P.O. in the summer and then negotiated to a buyout a couple weeks later. You could institute a rule where if either the player or the team exercised an option in a season, the player couldn't be bought out or traded. Teams can't exercise their options solely for the purpose of trading a guy and players can't exercise an option solely for the purpose of seeking to get paid by their current team while playing for another one.

So, you want teams to just have to waive the players, pay them out fully, and still let them sign elsewhere midseason? This suggestion seems to be solely to the detriment of the teams, and something the players would LOVE (more money, same freedom). If it doesn’t work midseason, the only option is for players to make it more miserable, and teams to just waive a player, full cost and full freedom to the player. This one seems like it makes the situation you’re complaining about worse.

But also, players don’t “opt in” to final years on their contract. The contract is fully guaranteed for the full amount of years. The player has the right to “opt out” of the final year, if they so wish. But also, lots of things can change in the time of opt versus the time they’re “bought out”. Team needs and directions change, and teams want the ability to change on the fly.

There are specific provisions for when contracts can be voided and *via agreement* isn't in there. The union has fought every attempt to void a contract, Spreewell's being the most egregious example, and would surely fight any attempt by a player and team to cancel the remainder of a contract.

As to the latter part of the post, I don't think the semantic difference is what's important. The player had the choice between freedom and money and chose the money. If, for whatever reason, the player becomes unhappy, we're talking about sticking it out for a single season.

But the concept of mutually of obligation that attaches to every contract is becoming illusory in the NBA. One side is absolutely stuck with the downside risk and the other is not. Maybe the market finally catches up with the realities of how the system is currently operating and players options become harder and harder to come by. Maybe contracts exceeding three years in length become harder and harder to come by. If that happens, and there's complaints from agents and players, I promise to be as receptive to those complaints as those who are defending how the current system routinely operates now.

[MoneyTalks41890]

So in terms of fixes, if someone like Blake is willing to give back 13 million dollars, then I don't know that there's a rule that could or should fix that.

[jbk1234]

So in terms of fixes, if someone like Blake is willing to give back 13 million dollars, then I don't know that there's a rule that could or should fix that.

That's the tougher call because the Pistons clearly benefitted by that transaction. Maybe there should be a minimum amount that a player has to give back.

[Scoot McGroot]

But also, players don’t “opt in” to final years on their contract. The contract is fully guaranteed for the full amount of years. The player has the right to “opt out” of the final year, if they so wish.

No.

Most player options are indeed 'Opt ins', where unless the paperwork is filed the contract does not automatically continue the last year. There used to be a few "Early Termination Options', where the paperwork needed to be filed to cut the deal short.

Course those details mostly don't matter at all.

As for an opt in and then buy out; why is this strange? Players only Opt in if it is for more than they are worth. That means it is the type of contract that might benefit the team to buy out.


Example:
20m player gets a 4/80 last year PO. Team needs to offer this much to get him.

Unfortunately, the player gets injured, and becomes an 5m a year player in year 3 (and projected for year 4).
Last year he absolutely opts in. Effectively the team is down 15m, as the team now has 20m dedicated to an 5m player.

If the player offers to give back 10m, the team is probably best cutting the player and having the extra cap room (if they would).
Player can pick a new team and set up for next contract, ring chase etc.

The team wins from the buyout, and assuming the player is okay losing money than the player wins too.

Not sure the issue with the concept here.

Thanks. I always seem to bork that one up bad.

I guess I should’ve just said that a contract is fully guaranteed, with the player having the right to opt out of it, if they wish, for any reason.

But yes. A team is usually happy to be rid of the player, and save some money. The player is happy to be free. Seems like a win/win.

[Texas Chuck]

Cleveland benefited too you just can't see it. Remember they told him to stay away. Then when as we pretty much all told you, there was no trade for Drummond because he was negative value on his contract and a player whose game is not conducive to winning, they bought him out. They weren't tricked, or forced, or abused in any way. They had no use for him and benefited from him leaving.

[K_chile22]

They could consider just paying star players what they're worth

On the Simmons podcast they made the point that you're not going to see players like Rodgers, Julio and Zeke or something decide to sign on the same team one year cause it's not possible cap wise. Otherwise I suspect Julio would have just got traded to Green Bay or Seattle instead of Tennessee. The NBA's superteam issue is directly related to how Harden should be probably making 70 million instead of 41.

The main issue would be contracts like Wall would destroy a franchise.

I don't really care about buy outs but generally think the league would be in a better place with a hard cap and no max contracts. The current set up is just too favorable to big market teams. The tax was supposed to stop those teams from spending a ton but all it did was make it prohibitive for the smaller markets

[cl2117]

As if suggesting there is a small competitive imbalance that could potentially be improved on is some ridiculous position. I know some people take it to the extreme and say outlandish things like it ruins the league, but the vast majority of the people just acknowledge that it's a gap in the system that, in general, favors some teams over others and could be improved upon.

My rant is specifically against the extreme. And no it wasn't remotely the minority here. And I have said repeatedly that the Lakers specifically and other good teams do have an advantage.

I just have not heard a solution to fixing that worth doing.

I mean jbk is suggesting that Blake or Drummond's only options should be completely giving up every cent. That's never going to happen. That's not realistic or worth our time. But if their teams don't want them and want to save even a little money and clear a roster spot they should be allowed. Even if jbk is frustrated about it. And once free those players should be able to sign with whomever they want.

Open to arguments despite what jbk accuses me of. But just because I listen to bad arguments does not require me to accept them. I listen. I strongly disagree with him. Just as he does with me clearly.

Fair enough, I'm not around enough to claim to know what is/was the majority/minority viewpoint. But I know that the majority of the time I've brought the topic up either here/GB/real life I get shouted down for overengineering or making a mountain out of a molehill. And I'm not out here claiming the sky is falling because Blake Griffin went to the Nets, just pointing out the obvious that it's a competitive advantage for the elite to have that pipeline favor them down the stretch.

I also don't claim to have a solution to the problem, but that shouldn't preclude us from spitballing ideas.

For example I think a totally valid option would be to change the buyout waiver process to a bidding system. Teams can use salary cap space or exceptions to "bid" for a player instead of having to absorb their entire salary, which is unrealistic in basically every scenario and makes the current waiver process pointless. Teams now have to compete for these guys and give up something of genuine value for them instead of waiting to clear and taking them on the minimum.

Does it limit player mobility? Absolutely, but why should we change the competitive landscape for the playoffs so that a player who wants out can get full mobility and double dip with two teams paying him to play 1/4 of the season with a contender?

[Texas Chuck]

I also don't claim to have a solution to the problem, but that shouldn't preclude us from spitballing ideas.

100% agree. We have a bunch of smart and creative people on this board and putting them to work on topics that people perceive as issues is something I will always encourage even when such as this specific case I personally do not see this as an issue that needs addressing.

[MasterIchiro]

J. Michael of the Indianapolis Star believes the Hornets are the team who is most likely to deliver an aggressive offer for Turner.

Music to my ears!

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/262896/Hornets-Lakers-Knicks-Wolves-Interested-In-Myles-Turner

[Scoot McGroot]

J. Michael of the Indianapolis Star believes the Hornets are the team who is most likely to deliver an aggressive offer for Turner.

Music to my ears!

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/262896/Hornets-Lakers-Knicks-Wolves-Interested-In-Myles-Turner

I think the salary part is really hard to make work, straight up, if you have most any intention of keeping Monk. Renouncing him (or getting him to sign really cheap) makes it really easy to make work. But after that, it’d require a Rozier, or a huge deal with Hayward, which is tough for many reasons fiscally.

But certainly seems like if Indy is willing to finally move turner, Charlotte would be near first in line. And, he’d be great on that roster.

[HartfordWhalers]

That's funny because MLB is my primary example of where the NBA is headed if they're not careful. They've had declining attendance and ratings for a over a decade now.

I see this: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/29/sports/baseball/mlb-attendance.html

But then when I try to look not at attendance, but total gate receipts; it looks like it has climbed significantly during that time. (I'm having a hard time getting the best source, so maybe this is wrong; if anyone has great receipts data please share).

It would fit with what I have seen locally though, if tickets cost 10% more on average and attendance is down 3%; the teams are still making 7% more (roughly), just doing it by repositioning their market and restricting who can afford to blow massive sums of money to view a game with worse vision while overpaying for crappy food and drinks.

In contrast:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/193426/average-ticket-price-in-the-mlb-since-2006/

Makes it look more like 3% ticket growth while attendance stays flat or droops so flat revenues?

Kinda curious, but yeah, fully off topic...

[MasterIchiro]

J. Michael of the Indianapolis Star believes the Hornets are the team who is most likely to deliver an aggressive offer for Turner.

Music to my ears!

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/262896/Hornets-Lakers-Knicks-Wolves-Interested-In-Myles-Turner

I think the salary part is really hard to make work, straight up, if you have most any intention of keeping Monk. Renouncing him (or getting him to sign really cheap) makes it really easy to make work. But after that, it’d require a Rozier, or a huge deal with Hayward, which is tough for many reasons fiscally.

But certainly seems like if Indy is willing to finally move turner, Charlotte would be near first in line. And, he’d be great on that roster.

If the deal is Terry + 11 as a conversation starter it doesn't matter what Monk does. The path that requires any action on Monk involves PJ + 2022 first. That's the permutation where Rozier gets a raise from the Hornets and Monk may need to be renounced if he doesn't want to accept the qualifying offer. It's much lower than his cap hold of 13 million. I think Rozier comes to you with higher draft compensation but PJ is worth more and has more control. With Turner on the team with Rozier staying that 2022 is gonna be hell lower than 11.