Anyone else pissed off?

Moderators: Texas Chuck, pacers33granger, HartfordWhalers, Mamba4Goat, Andre Roberstan, Trader_Joe, BullyKing, loserX

User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 62,674
And1: 56,682
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: 403 Minutes in the Bay
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#161 » by Texas Chuck » Thu Apr 8, 2021 3:58 pm

shrink wrote: There is no way LeBron would have come to play for a team that hadn’t even made the playoffs for multiple years, if it wasn’t the historic Lakers.


I mean except that Lebron James himself did exactly that when he signed with the Cleveland Cavaliers a team even worse than LA.....and of no historic significance of note.
bondom34 wrote:This is stupid and you know this is stupid.
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 46,247
And1: 6,498
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#162 » by shrink » Thu Apr 8, 2021 4:04 pm

Let me add that it’s unclear to me whether an NBA Championship has been affected by the buy out market. I agree that most players, SO FAR, have been at a point in their career that they are “more name than game.” However, with many series decided by a single game, or even a stretch of a single game, it is certainly possible.

One argument I keep hearing is:

Does the seller want to buy the player out?
Does the buyer want to pick the player up?

But the third question should be

Is it good for the NBA?

The NBA has shown time and again that it is trying to create a league with parity, because that’s good for everyone. Yes, there are some things they will never be able to make rules to create an equal playing field, like the advantage to free agent destination cities. However, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t make rules that don’t add even more damage.

I don’t worry about Dwight Howard. I worry about what happens when a true star wants to go get a ring. Right now, player empowerment continues to rise, team loyalty ebbs vs playing with friends, and superstar player’s have already made a fortune in their first decade of play, plus their off-court endeavors. Maintaining rules that leave a doorway to allow a superstar player to demand out, say he will only play with one loaded team, and create a false NBA champion is possible. That hurts everyone. The buy out rules need to be closed before that happens.
User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,554
And1: 5,526
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#163 » by Scoot McGroot » Thu Apr 8, 2021 4:11 pm

shrink wrote:Let me add that it’s unclear to me whether an NBA Championship has been affected by the buy out market. I agree that most players, SO FAR, have been at a point in their career that they are “more name than game.” However, with many series decided by a single game, or even a stretch of a single game, it is certainly possible.

One argument I keep hearing is:

Does the seller want to buy the player out?
Does the buyer want to pick the player up?

But the third question should be

Is it good for the NBA?

The NBA has shown time and again that it is trying to create a league with parity, because that’s good for everyone. Yes, there are some things they will never be able to make rules to create an equal playing field, like the advantage to free agent destination cities. However, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t make rules that don’t add even more damage.

I don’t worry about Dwight Howard. I worry about what happens when a true star wants to go get a ring. Right now, player empowerment continues to rise, team loyalty ebbs vs playing with friends, and superstar player’s have already made a fortune in their first decade of play, plus their off-court endeavors. Maintaining rules that leave a doorway to allow a superstar player to demand out, say he will only play with one loaded team, and create a false NBA champion is possible. That hurts everyone. The buy out rules need to be closed before that happens.


If, say, a Bradley Beal wants to opt out of his final year in Washington and sign with LA for the minimum, what can we do...ban players from having sole choice in free agency?

Otherwise, specifically as it pertains to buyouts, if a player can end up where they’re happy, and a team is happy in saving some money, isn’t the NBA happy overall, too?
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 62,674
And1: 56,682
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: 403 Minutes in the Bay
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#164 » by Texas Chuck » Thu Apr 8, 2021 4:16 pm

shrink wrote:I worry about what happens when a true star wants to go get a ring. Right now, player empowerment continues to rise, team loyalty ebbs vs playing with friends, and superstar player’s have already made a fortune in their first decade of play, plus their off-court endeavors. Maintaining rules that leave a doorway to allow a superstar player to demand out, say he will only play with one loaded team, and create a false NBA champion is possible. That hurts everyone. The buy out rules need to be closed before that happens.


And this is the argument I keep hearing. And okay if a true star player demands and gets a buyout(a situation that personally I just do not see, but since many of you seem to think we are on a slippery slope leading to it, let's concede it) then we don't have to waste two words talking about it here because the league would erupt and something would get changed prior to the next season. Or we might even have a Chris Paul to the Lakers situation where the league invokes some good of the game clause to prevent it.


I don't think we should prevent players from having agency because of this really scary thing we can imagine might someday happen. At all.
bondom34 wrote:This is stupid and you know this is stupid.
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 46,247
And1: 6,498
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#165 » by shrink » Thu Apr 8, 2021 4:16 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:
shrink wrote: There is no way LeBron would have come to play for a team that hadn’t even made the playoffs for multiple years, if it wasn’t the historic Lakers.


I mean except that Lebron James himself did exactly that when he signed with the Cleveland Cavaliers a team even worse than LA.....and of no historic significance of note.

That’s true, I was wrong, but it still kind of makes my point though, right?

LeBron made his decision to play for a team, not because of any basketball reasons, or any monetary reasons. We have CBA rules to encourage NBA players to stay put and build up fan loyalty, and Miami could offer more money than any other team. Miami had also built an NBA champion. What else could they do?

LeBron chose to forgo that money, to go play where he wanted. The rules entitle him to do so. But it shows that neither money, nor wise franchise moves, is the overriding thing that affects where stars will end up, and which teams have a chance at a championship, and which teams are perennial runners up. For LeBron, the incentive was hometown, then Laker lore. For Harden, and many others, it is “join a team that is already powerful and win a ring.”

The buyout market is a logical extension of where free agency can go, with big gaps between pay and expected production. The CBA knows league parity is valuable, but it was built based on expecting NBA players to go to the cities that pay them the most. LeBron shows this is not the case, and the frustration you hear from many NBA fans is that the system needs some type of change.
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 46,247
And1: 6,498
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#166 » by shrink » Thu Apr 8, 2021 4:18 pm

Scoot McGroot wrote:
shrink wrote:Let me add that it’s unclear to me whether an NBA Championship has been affected by the buy out market. I agree that most players, SO FAR, have been at a point in their career that they are “more name than game.” However, with many series decided by a single game, or even a stretch of a single game, it is certainly possible.

One argument I keep hearing is:

Does the seller want to buy the player out?
Does the buyer want to pick the player up?

But the third question should be

Is it good for the NBA?

The NBA has shown time and again that it is trying to create a league with parity, because that’s good for everyone. Yes, there are some things they will never be able to make rules to create an equal playing field, like the advantage to free agent destination cities. However, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t make rules that don’t add even more damage.

I don’t worry about Dwight Howard. I worry about what happens when a true star wants to go get a ring. Right now, player empowerment continues to rise, team loyalty ebbs vs playing with friends, and superstar player’s have already made a fortune in their first decade of play, plus their off-court endeavors. Maintaining rules that leave a doorway to allow a superstar player to demand out, say he will only play with one loaded team, and create a false NBA champion is possible. That hurts everyone. The buy out rules need to be closed before that happens.


If, say, a Bradley Beal wants to opt out of his final year in Washington and sign with LA for the minimum, what can we do...ban players from having sole choice in free agency?

Otherwise, specifically as it pertains to buyouts, if a player can end up where they’re happy, and a team is happy in saving some money, isn’t the NBA happy overall, too?

No, the NBA isn’t happy if it causes its fans to think the rules are rigged, there isn’t parity, and the NBA needs to step in with “good of the game” vetoes like Paul to LAL.


As for a solution, just spitballing, but minimum salaries based on the player’s expected performance?

For example, if Beal opted out, a rule that said any team that picks him up must pay him at least $15 mil, to help league parity?

Otherwise, we may need to scrap the whole idea of league parity of talent based on salaries. (Cap, lux, etc)
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 62,674
And1: 56,682
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: 403 Minutes in the Bay
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#167 » by Texas Chuck » Thu Apr 8, 2021 4:22 pm

shrink wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:
shrink wrote: There is no way LeBron would have come to play for a team that hadn’t even made the playoffs for multiple years, if it wasn’t the historic Lakers.


I mean except that Lebron James himself did exactly that when he signed with the Cleveland Cavaliers a team even worse than LA.....and of no historic significance of note.

That’s true, I was wrong, but it still kind of makes my point though, right?

LeBron made his decision to play for a team, not because of any basketball reasons, or any monetary reasons. We have CBA rules to encourage NBA players to stay put and build up fan loyalty, and Miami could offer more money than any other team. Miami had also built an NBA champion. What else could they do?

LeBron chose to forgo that money, to go play where he wanted. The rules entitle him to do so. But it shows that neither money, nor wise franchise moves, is the overriding thing that affects where stars will end up, and which teams have a chance at a championship, and which teams are perennial runners up. For LeBron, the incentive was hometown, then Laker lore. For Harden, and many others, it is “join a team that is already powerful and win a ring.”



I think Lebron James is a massive outlier and should not be used as the template. He chose Miami for basketball reasons. He chose Cleveland for sentimental reasons. He chose LA for business reasons. And all made sense for where he was and his legacy which is just a different animal from even what a KD deals with. His only opponent is history.

So again I don't want to prevent players from picking their teams because of some monster under the bed imaginary scenario and I don't want to make further changes because of Lebron when other players' situations are so drastically different in so many important ways.
bondom34 wrote:This is stupid and you know this is stupid.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 41,430
And1: 23,862
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#168 » by jbk1234 » Thu Apr 8, 2021 4:31 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:
shrink wrote: There is no way LeBron would have come to play for a team that hadn’t even made the playoffs for multiple years, if it wasn’t the historic Lakers.


I mean except that Lebron James himself did exactly that when he signed with the Cleveland Cavaliers a team even worse than LA.....and of no historic significance of note.
This is Miracle at Richfield erasure!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.
hoosierdaddy34
Veteran
Posts: 2,976
And1: 2,523
Joined: Dec 05, 2016
 

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#169 » by hoosierdaddy34 » Thu Apr 8, 2021 10:30 pm

shrink wrote:
hoosierdaddy34 wrote:Cry more. The last thing this board needed was someone striking more false drama over this non-subject after we just got done with an entire week of this same tired post that deals more in emotions than actual facts.

You chose to complain about emotional posters by leading off with, “Cry more?” How hypocritical. :nonono:

Setting aside the self-serving nature of your valueless, “shut up” post, you have to at least realize the Lakers already have a huge advantage in drawing free agents, whether it is from regular free agency or the buy out market. There is no way LeBron would have come to play for a team that hadn’t even made the playoffs for multiple years, if it wasn’t the historic Lakers. But when you already have a huge advantage, you’re going to whine about people that don’t think you need to add icing on your cake, when you are already being gifted a LeBron-size majority of the cake?

So ungrateful for the massive advantage you already have. I hope other Laker (not “NBA”) fans don’t act like you.


I’m going to go ahead and help you out by posting my response from one of the 14 posts on this subject we’ve had in the last few weeks. This whole issue is ridiculous and I really could care less how you think I act. I think you are whining so here we are.

hoosierdaddy34 wrote:These buyout guys, their current teams have been shopping them for months, with no takers. Thry are drastically overpaid. They are faced with not being able to play because their current teams are tanking or going on a youth movement, and have been told they aren’t playing. They are usually past their prime or at the very end of it. But NOW because the Lakers signed one it’s a big **** deal. But nobody gave a damn when three of these guys each year signed the last 15 years. Now all of a sudden it’s a problem.

I believe it was the Athletic did research on this a couple days ago. There have been 39 buyouts of players that averaged at least 10 minutes per game in the last 15 years. 19 went to the 15 biggest market teams and 20 went to the other teams. 19 players went to teams that ultimately made the conference finals or better, of those 19 only 3 were on a 15 biggest market team.

So what are these babies whining about? It’s a total non-issue that these small market whiners are trying to turn into a big deal despite the fact that they have benefitted from it as much as big market teams have.

This whole entire issue is stupid.
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 46,247
And1: 6,498
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#170 » by shrink » Fri Apr 9, 2021 1:58 am

What do you guys think would be the ramifications of putting a larger minimum salary on a free agent based on higher production (like $15 mil-to-max for Beal) to try to achieve parity between teams linking salaries and talent?
User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,554
And1: 5,526
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#171 » by Scoot McGroot » Fri Apr 9, 2021 2:52 am

shrink wrote:What do you guys think would be the ramifications of putting a larger minimum salary on a free agent based on higher production (like $15 mil-to-max for Beal) to try to achieve parity between teams linking salaries and talent?


Players won’t go for it, as it will be limiting options of where players can sign, and eliminating suitors or possibilities. There will also always be the possibility that a “cooked” guy will be forced into retirement because some formula will say his minimum salary should be $10m, and he may barely be worth a vet minimum. Will it be based on production? Statistics? Previous salary? Will injuries and age be taken into account? If it’s a formula, there’s no wiggle room for logical reasons, but if it’s not a formula, then who is the one person that decides and sets the minimum salaries?

And why should we stop guys who may just be willing to give up a ton of money to play at home? I don’t even know that the NBA cares too seriously about “parity”, when we’ve had so few teams win so many championships, and there’s always reports that the league wants LA or GS or Miami, or NY in the Finals every year for ratings...etc. I mean, the NBA didn’t veto the Chris Paul to LA trade because they wanted parity per se. They vetoed it because they were acting owners of the Hornets and thought it wasn’t a good deal for the Hornets.
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 62,674
And1: 56,682
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: 403 Minutes in the Bay
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#172 » by Texas Chuck » Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:27 pm

This year we had the fewest buyouts in 5 years. Tells you how much the narrative ran away from the facts here....
bondom34 wrote:This is stupid and you know this is stupid.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 41,430
And1: 23,862
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#173 » by jbk1234 » Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:29 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:This year we had the fewest buyouts in 5 years. Tells you how much the narrative ran away from the facts here....


The number of players getting bought out is not the issue and you know this.
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 62,674
And1: 56,682
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: 403 Minutes in the Bay
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#174 » by Texas Chuck » Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:31 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:This year we had the fewest buyouts in 5 years. Tells you how much the narrative ran away from the facts here....


The number of players getting bought out is not the issue and you know this.


I actually think it is since my point is the caliber of player getting bought out is no different this year--and you definitely know that. :wink:
bondom34 wrote:This is stupid and you know this is stupid.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 41,430
And1: 23,862
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#175 » by jbk1234 » Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:41 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:This year we had the fewest buyouts in 5 years. Tells you how much the narrative ran away from the facts here....


The number of players getting bought out is not the issue and you know this.


I actually think it is since my point is the caliber of player getting bought out is no different this year--and you definitely know that. :wink:


There's never been a player of Drummond's caliber bought out before. You also predicted that Dieng would make more of an impact than Drummond and he's been completely ineffective on the floor in the games he hasn't been DNP'd.
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 62,674
And1: 56,682
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: 403 Minutes in the Bay
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#176 » by Texas Chuck » Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:47 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
The number of players getting bought out is not the issue and you know this.


I actually think it is since my point is the caliber of player getting bought out is no different this year--and you definitely know that. :wink:


There's never been a player of Drummond's caliber bought out before. You also predicted that Dieng would make more of an impact than Drummond and he's been completely ineffective on the floor in the games he hasn't been DNP'd.


TBF I envisioned Dieng on a different level team where his more complimentary game fit better than Drummond. But I can acknowledge Dieng has been underwhelming.

We are never going to agree on Drummond. You believe him to be some high impact player and I just don't. But I always eat my crow so if he's playing meaningful playoff minutes and being a wonderful compliment to the Lakers stars then I will let you serve me all you want about what a huge addition he turned out to be.

But since we haven't seen with him the stars yet neither of us can speak to that with any certainty yet.
bondom34 wrote:This is stupid and you know this is stupid.
VanWest82
RealGM
Posts: 12,092
And1: 12,117
Joined: Dec 05, 2008

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#177 » by VanWest82 » Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:57 pm

Bet this one leads to a rule change in collective bargaining. You can't have guys in their prime who would command 60-80M contracts in FA going to contenders for nothing in the middle of the season.

It's also pretty clear given the way it was reported that Lakers knew well ahead of time this was a likely scenario which means they had an unfair team building advantage. Did they know going all the way back to the off season? Probably.

I don't think NBA can regulate whether a player wants to give up money or where they get to sign, so the change would probably have to be at the team level. Maybe you have to surrender a pick or have a portion of their next contract charged against your future cap.

The only reason people aren't going crazier about this is because of the big names (who are mostly washed and in their mid-late 30s) going to Brooklyn, and because it's become en vogue to claim Drummond is overrated / not good.
User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,554
And1: 5,526
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#178 » by Scoot McGroot » Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:22 pm

VanWest82 wrote:Bet this one leads to a rule change in collective bargaining. You can't have guys in their prime who would command 60-80M contracts in FA going to contenders for nothing in the middle of the season.

It's also pretty clear given the way it was reported that Lakers knew well ahead of time this was a likely scenario which means they had an unfair team building advantage. Did they know going all the way back to the off season? Probably.

I don't think NBA can regulate whether a player wants to give up money or where they get to sign, so the change would probably have to be at the team level. Maybe you have to surrender a pick or have a portion of their next contract charged against your future cap.

The only reason people aren't going crazier about this is because of the big names (who are mostly washed and in their mid-late 30s) going to Brooklyn, and because it's become en vogue to claim Drummond is overrated / not good.


I doubt any of these guys get $60m in free agency. Aldridge definitely won’t. I highly doubt Blake or Drummond will, either. Dieng definitely won’t. And we don’t even need to mention Khem Birch in that range.

Is this a case of big names sounding much worse than their actual impact on the court will provide?
VanWest82
RealGM
Posts: 12,092
And1: 12,117
Joined: Dec 05, 2008

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#179 » by VanWest82 » Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:54 pm

Scoot McGroot wrote:I doubt any of these guys get $60m in free agency. Aldridge definitely won’t. I highly doubt Blake or Drummond will, either. Dieng definitely won’t. And we don’t even need to mention Khem Birch in that range.

Is this a case of big names sounding much worse than their actual impact on the court will provide?


But this is the issue I have, lumping Drummond into a category with current Blake, LMA, and Dieng. Maybe Drummond only gets 50M this summer, but he's averaging 17 and 13 this year in only 28 mins, and he's only 27 years old. He's proven to be very productive and durable. If you want to say that overstates his impact then ok, and I will even agree with you, but there are very few guys on the planet who can put up those kinds of numbers (regardless of whether he should be).

Someone will pay him. No one is going to pay Dieng or Blake or LaMarcus, and that's the issue. Lakers are getting a 50M asset (or whatever) for free, and because they likely knew he was coming well ahead of time, they could commit cap space elsewhere and not have to trade assets to get what he provides. It's an unfair cap advantage.
User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,554
And1: 5,526
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#180 » by Scoot McGroot » Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:05 pm

VanWest82 wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:I doubt any of these guys get $60m in free agency. Aldridge definitely won’t. I highly doubt Blake or Drummond will, either. Dieng definitely won’t. And we don’t even need to mention Khem Birch in that range.

Is this a case of big names sounding much worse than their actual impact on the court will provide?


But this is the issue I have, lumping Drummond into a category with current Blake, LMA, and Dieng. Maybe Drummond only gets 50M this summer, but he's averaging 17 and 13 this year in only 28 mins, and he's only 27 years old. He's proven to be very productive and durable. If you want to say that overstates his impact then ok, and I will even agree with you, but there are very few guys on the planet who can put up those kinds of numbers (regardless of whether he should be).

Someone will pay him. No one is going to pay Dieng or Blake or LaMarcus, and that's the issue. Lakers are getting a 50M asset (or whatever) for free, and because they likely knew he was coming well ahead of time, they could commit cap space elsewhere and not have to trade assets to get what he provides. It's an unfair cap advantage.



I would doubt he gets $50m. I’m assuming he’ll be MLE or such going forward on 1-2 year deals at a time.

Return to Trades and Transactions