What can be done about the number of buyouts?

[City of Trees]

Yes. This is exactly what the lux tax is designed to do - to keep teams over the lux from just buying more talent and wrecking parity.

Are you opposed to the lux tax overall?

But it was not meant to transfer that obligation to a team that never agreed to it. In a trade you are really trading for the guys contract, you accept that contract and it terms. But when the contract is bought out it is terminated. This is a matter of contract law. Causing a part of the old now defunct contract to follow the player to a team that had nothing to do with the obligation is not only unfair it's "Un-American." To me it smells a lot like a Bill of attainder.

We do this all the time with the concept of cap holds, for contracts that haven’t even come into existence, to maintain parity.

If your issue is that teams over the luxury threshold need a break to sign players cheap, then you are defeating the purpose of the luxury threshold.

Exactly.

[DoItALL9]

No issue imo

What buyout player has ever made a difference in determining a champion?

Sent from my LG-H872 using RealGM mobile app

[basketballwacko2]

Yes. This is exactly what the lux tax is designed to do - to keep teams over the lux from just buying more talent and wrecking parity.

Are you opposed to the lux tax overall?

But it was not meant to transfer that obligation to a team that never agreed to it. In a trade you are really trading for the guys contract, you accept that contract and it terms. But when the contract is bought out it is terminated. This is a matter of contract law. Causing a part of the old now defunct contract to follow the player to a team that had nothing to do with the obligation is not only unfair it's "Un-American." To me it smells a lot like a Bill of attainder.

We do this all the time with the concept of cap holds, for contracts that haven’t even come into existence, to maintain parity.

If your issue is that teams over the luxury threshold need a break to sign players cheap, then you are defeating the purpose of the luxury threshold.

The cap hold only applies to the team that the player was under contract with that team can renounce the players rights and the hold is released, how more of "renouncing'' can a buyout be?

The point about the tax payer teams is they are the ones that are gonna want to sign the guy who gets bought out. The player wants to go there because face it, Toronto, GSW, Houston and a couple others have the best shot at making the finals. Like I said before the Suns, Hawks, Bulls and other bottom dwellers are not signing these guys anyhow. If you make it so the top teams can't sign them it means the player is likely out of the league once he's bought out.

[basketballwacko2]

But it was not meant to transfer that obligation to a team that never agreed to it. In a trade you are really trading for the guys contract, you accept that contract and it terms. But when the contract is bought out it is terminated. This is a matter of contract law. Causing a part of the old now defunct contract to follow the player to a team that had nothing to do with the obligation is not only unfair it's "Un-American." To me it smells a lot like a Bill of attainder.

We do this all the time with the concept of cap holds, for contracts that haven’t even come into existence, to maintain parity.

If your issue is that teams over the luxury threshold need a break to sign players cheap, then you are defeating the purpose of the luxury threshold.

Exactly.

I don't know how anyone can think that the terms or consequences of a contract that has been bought out and terminated should carry over to the next team that signs the guy. The Player has to clear waivers right? That means that any team that wants to claim him once waived can just claim him and pay him the remainder of that contract.

What if a player has not played all year, say he was in China or injured and comes back mid to late season? Team A say OKC who is over the tax line wants him all the other teams but one are over the cap. The most any of them can offer is his Veteran Minimum prorated unless the team has space. Are you going to assign some value to the tax computation for what this guys last contract was?

[basketballwacko2]

No issue imo

What buyout player has ever made a difference in determining a champion?

Sent from my LG-H872 using RealGM mobile app

Really I can't think of any who made a difference. This is really an academic debate on contracts for me.

[theocratic_n'_nature]

My issue with any type of restructuring of the buyout system is that if you REALLY wanted the player, you shouldn't have waited until the 4th time to get him:
1) Player is a free agent/rookie signing --> Didn't draft/didn't want to sign with you? okay.
2) Trade for player --> other team doesn't want what you're offering? fine.
3) Pick up on Waivers --> You have 48 hours to bid on their contract...ANY team can do this. Your team is too cheap/can't be bothered to clear salary? Your choice.
4) Player is then an UNRESTRICTED FREE AGENT. At this point you can't dictate where a player goes - you've given up the right to outright claim him especially after option 3.

You can't ask someone who mutually terminates a legally binding contract with their employer to say "wait...you're actually not free to go." It's not fair that the team who, on their part has to pay salary for someone who doesn't work for them, and then that's it for them (mind you, it's only prorated to whatever else is left on their contract - ie, they've been already be paid up until that point of buyout) and then turn around to the player who has to forgo being paid the full amount for their salary and take a secondary hit by limiting their freedom of choosing their destination.
Essentially, the team is dinged once, the player dinged twice.
Say what you will about lazy players, but not all players are like that.
The whole notion is a labor law minefield, not to mention the havok it would cause to teams' accounting if you have only the cap hit or partial cap hit on a player (and are you penalizing both teams for 2 cap hits for 1 player?). It would cause too many complications especially if, like Philly, they sign more than one buyout player.

Plus, the players union would never allow it after a player has to give up their choice to play where they want after 2 and 3. To add another level of non-control will never fly with them.

[theocratic_n'_nature]

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

Would anyone pay a first for beli and illy now? They are the same flawed players, who would offer what for them right now?

My issue on the buyout players is that for a large number of them, if a team wants to trade for them, they can't. I'll go back to Lin and his cap number on the Hawks. A team not only would have to come up with draft capitol for him, but they would have had to find an equal expiring contract. So, let's just say the Wizards would have traded a SRP for Lin...but then they can't trade for him because of salary and tax concerns. But then you have the Raptors, who also have tax concerns, able to add him for peanuts without having to pay draft capitol either. It just doesn't seem right.

Getting a solid rotation player for absolutely nothing just doesn't seem right to me.

I don't get it. At this point BOTH the Wizards and Raptors (as well as the Kings) have an equal chance to sign Lin without having to pay draft capitol. It's a free market. A prime example is Ellington, who chose the 8th place Pistons (same place as Kings in the West). He didn't choose Philly (thankfully - sorry philly fans) or the Raptors, who have a better chance of competing for a chip and have real need for him, because he's more comfortable with Detroit's staff and we all figure he can get more playing time presumably to play for another contract.

Trust me, I feel your pain after still stinging from buying out Alonzo Mourning in that godforsaken Vince Carter deal, only to watch him go to Miami and help carry that team to a championship that same year (Shaq had back trouble and Mourning picked up the slack and imo had just as much impact as Shaq).

Fact is, after legally breaking a contract, he's free, hence the designation 'unrestricted free agent'. And whether it's the buyout period or the free agency period in the summer you can't stop a player from signing a vet min to ring chase.

[becorz]

Would anyone pay a first for beli and illy now? They are the same flawed players, who would offer what for them right now?

My issue on the buyout players is that for a large number of them, if a team wants to trade for them, they can't. I'll go back to Lin and his cap number on the Hawks. A team not only would have to come up with draft capitol for him, but they would have had to find an equal expiring contract. So, let's just say the Wizards would have traded a SRP for Lin...but then they can't trade for him because of salary and tax concerns. But then you have the Raptors, who also have tax concerns, able to add him for peanuts without having to pay draft capitol either. It just doesn't seem right.

Getting a solid rotation player for absolutely nothing just doesn't seem right to me.

I don't get it. At this point BOTH the Wizards and Raptors (as well as the Kings) have an equal chance to sign Lin without having to pay draft capitol. It's a free market. A prime example is Ellington, who chose the 8th place Pistons (same place as Kings in the West). He didn't choose Philly (thankfully - sorry philly fans) or the Raptors, who have a better chance of competing for a chip and have real need for him, because he's more comfortable with Detroit's staff and we all figure he can get more playing time presumably to play for another contract.

Trust me, I feel your pain after still stinging from buying out Alonzo Mourning in that godforsaken Vince Carter deal, only to watch him go to Miami and help carry that team to a championship that same year (Shaq had back trouble and Mourning picked up the slack and imo had just as much impact as Shaq).

Fact is, after legally breaking a contract, he's free, hence the designation 'unrestricted free agent'. And whether it's the buyout period or the free agency period in the summer you can't stop a player from signing a vet min to ring chase.

I'm not mad as a Kings fan about Lin. (Honestly, I made this thread for something to do during the dead period on the trade board, I only marginally care about the topic). I would be mad if I was a playoff team in the East though. Say whatever you will, but he can swing a game in a playoff series. Same with Ellington, Mathews, Kanter, etc this year. If I was a Hornets fan, I would be mad that Detroit got Ellington, who can win an extra game for Detroit.

I get the argument that Ellington went to Detroit not for a paycheck, but if he really wanted large amounts of playing time, he might have signed somewhere like Memphis. Or Lin could have signed in Orlando.

I just think there should be some sort of collectively bargained solution that would stop players who would otherwise not be getting cut (so, the Lins and Ellingtons of the world and not the Caboclos and Jenkins's of the world) from going to teams that would otherwise be getting marginal players for upgrades.

My issue with any type of restructuring of the buyout system is that if you REALLY wanted the player, you shouldn't have waited until the 4th time to get him:
1) Player is a free agent/rookie signing --> Didn't draft/didn't want to sign with you? okay.
2) Trade for player --> other team doesn't want what you're offering? fine.
3) Pick up on Waivers --> You have 48 hours to bid on their contract...ANY team can do this. Your team is too cheap/can't be bothered to clear salary? Your choice.
4) Player is then an UNRESTRICTED FREE AGENT. At this point you can't dictate where a player goes - you've given up the right to outright claim him especially after option 3.

The issue on this is with players of Lin's salary, there are not going to be many teams who can take on his salary in a trade and no teams who can pick him up on waivers, this far in the season.

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.

The more I think about it, I like this more and more. Let teams bid portions of their exceptions (I would be OK with trade exceptions too). Ties broken by waiver order.

[shrink]

Maybe it’s a more basic question.

Is it really fair to allow teams to add to their roster after the Trade Deadline? At what point should we say, “that’s your team - now do your best in the playoffs.”


Injuries can happen to any team, to any player, at any time. There is no unfairness to any specific team - that’s random. The only unfairness I see here is a playoff caliber team who’s over the lux, which we specifically created rules to lux teams to keep from adding more talent, to go out and add to their team in the buy out market.

[HartfordWhalers]

Maybe it’s a more basic question.

Is it really fair to allow teams to add to their roster after the Trade Deadline? At what point should we say, “that’s your team - now do your best in the playoffs.”

League very much addressed this and made a deadline specifically for this and this only. Anyone on a different team after that deadline is playoff ineligible for any other team. (Technically those on no teams are fine to join any team).

Moving this deadline forward was suggested I believe on page 1.

I would expect any moved forward deadline to occur no earlier than 1 week after the trade deadline. Allowing those unable to be traded, or traded and then cut to have a chance.