Anyone else pissed off?

[bondom34]

If Drummond gets $50M it better either be a 20 year contract or a GM needs to be dismissed.

[VanWest82]

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.

If that's how it plays out then there won't be any changes. If Lakers win and Drummond signs a decent sized deal (e.g. 4/50+) it's going to get brought up again. As it stands, it's a loophole that's potentially being abused, which means it can be abused even if that's not how it plays out in this case, and therefore probably needs to be fixed.

Edit: how about this for a rule. If you sign a buy out guy who then proceeds to sign for min of 3 years above MLE then you owe your next 2nd round pick.

[Scoot McGroot]

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.

If this is how it plays out then there won't be a rule change. If Lakers win and Drummond signs a decent sized deal (e.g. 4/50+) it's going to get brought up again. As it stands, it's a loophole in the integrity of the game that's potentially being abused, which means it can be abused even if that's not how it plays out in this case, and therefore probably needs to be fixed.

You’re talking about borderline MLE money. League average player type money. In fact, 4/50 would be just about at league average salary.

But otherwise, is the “fix” that teams can’t waive guys? Or, teams can kick guys to the curb but those players then can’t play again? What if the team prefers the roster spot to the player?

[Scoot McGroot]

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.

If that's how it plays out then there won't be any changes. If Lakers win and Drummond signs a decent sized deal (e.g. 4/50+) it's going to get brought up again. As it stands, it's a loophole that's potentially being abused, which means it can be abused even if that's not how it plays out in this case, and therefore probably needs to be fixed.

Edit: how about this for a rule. If you sign a buy out guy who then proceeds to sign for min of 3 years above MLE then you owe your next 2nd round pick.

For your edit, I’m confused. If this act is a loophole that must be closed for the integrity of the game, the only punishment is a 2nd round pick? That’s it?
Won’t this also open the possibility that some vets may get shorter contracts and less money to avoid teams being punished? If Drummond signs a 3 year deal other than LA next year, who pays the 2nd? LA? They didn’t sign him to long-term deal (hypothetically). The new team? Drummond was going to be a free agent this summer anyway.

It just seems like any idea pitched has much deeper issues than we think, as they tend to punish players, and will probably be used to cost players more money, leading to less players accepting buyouts but rather forcing the team to waive them full out and pay out the full deal. And, maybe Drummond is a good role player for LA the rest of the year, but he’s no star. Is there really a problem?

[VanWest82]

For your edit, I’m confused. If this act is a loophole that must be closed for the integrity of the game, the only punishment is a 2nd round pick? That’s it?

It's at least consideration, and an admission that you can't stop player movement.

Won’t this also open the possibility that some vets may get shorter contracts and less money to avoid teams being punished?

Doubtful. There aren't that many of them, and mostly these guys are getting bought out because they're almost done. It's meant to catch situations where you have a really good player with lots of years left joining a contender, and that player typically has options. And if he thinks it might hurt him by signing with the favorite he can always just wait until summer.

If Drummond signs a 3 year deal other than LA next year, who pays the 2nd? LA? They didn’t sign him to long-term deal (hypothetically). The new team? Drummond was going to be a free agent this summer anyway.

LA should have to pay it in either situation. The pick is an acknowledgement that they benefitted unfairly. And if he's worth it they will pay it, and re-sign him.

It just seems like any idea pitched has much deeper issues than we think, as they tend to punish players, and will probably be used to cost players more money, leading to less players accepting buyouts but rather forcing the team to waive them full out and pay out the full deal. And, maybe Drummond is a good role player for LA the rest of the year, but he’s no star. Is there really a problem?

It definitely has unintended consequences, and I hear you on it potentially impacting the buy out process for certain guys. But if you do nothing then you have the perception that you're not running a square game. Again, people aren't freaking out here because public perception is Drummond isn't that good. What if Steph Curry got bought out and joined the Lakers or Brooklyn?

If it turns out he's really good for them in the playoffs people are going to say it's unfair, and that's not a position NBA wants to be in.

[shrink]

I just want to point out that we are talking about fixing the loophole for buyouts, that almost always only applies to players on an expiring contract, and only the remaining fraction of that deal.

A traditional free agent is not prevented in summer free agency to sign a discount deal to go wherever he chooses. However, in that case, he bears the financial burden over the entire deal for making the cheaper choice. In these current post-deadline buyouts, a player may still gets paid for the bulk of the contract from the team he signed with, including much of the final season, so it encourages the player to demand a buy out to play with a contender. He gets his cake, and gets to eat it too. Also, the market is aware of this, and it stifles the trade market.

I prefer what OKC has done with Horford (though he has two years left on his deal), and if you don’t want a player around the team, just don’t have him spend the last six weeks with the team. A player should finish the contract he signed, and sign a new one elsewhere when it is over if you choose.

[Scoot McGroot]

For your edit, I’m confused. If this act is a loophole that must be closed for the integrity of the game, the only punishment is a 2nd round pick? That’s it?

It's at least consideration, and an admission that you can't stop player movement.

Won’t this also open the possibility that some vets may get shorter contracts and less money to avoid teams being punished?

Doubtful. There aren't that many of them, and mostly these guys are getting bought out because they're almost done. It's meant to catch situations where you have a really good player with lots of years left joining a contender, and that player typically has options. And if he thinks it might hurt him by signing with the favorite he can always just wait until summer.

If Drummond signs a 3 year deal other than LA next year, who pays the 2nd? LA? They didn’t sign him to long-term deal (hypothetically). The new team? Drummond was going to be a free agent this summer anyway.

LA should have to pay it in either situation. The pick is an acknowledgement that they benefitted unfairly. And if he's worth it they will pay it, and re-sign him.

It just seems like any idea pitched has much deeper issues than we think, as they tend to punish players, and will probably be used to cost players more money, leading to less players accepting buyouts but rather forcing the team to waive them full out and pay out the full deal. And, maybe Drummond is a good role player for LA the rest of the year, but he’s no star. Is there really a problem?

It definitely has unintended consequences, and I hear you on it potentially impacting the buy out process for certain guys. But if you do nothing then you have the perception that you're not running a square game. Again, people aren't freaking out here because public perception is Drummond isn't that good. What if Steph Curry got bought out and joined the Lakers or Brooklyn?

If it turns out he's really good for them in the playoffs people are going to say it's unfair, and that's not a position NBA wants to be in.

Why would GS just buyout Steph Curry? Has he had some massive injury that makes his career untenable going forward? Teams don’t have to just buy guys out.

As for Drummond in the playoffs? Who cares? Cleveland decided they didn’t want him around anymore and preferred to save a little money while giving his playing time to Jarrett Allen. They decided to agree to a buyout and waived him. After clearing waivers, he signed where he wanted. It’s free agency, after all. Players are free to choose where they wish to play once they’ve cleared waivers.

But otherwise, how would you feel about Drummond giving back no money, getting waived at full price by Cleveland, and then going to LA? Or Aldridge not having given up $5+m in his buyout and just getting waived post deadline when he couldn’t be moved, and still signing in Brooklyn? You’ve mostly just created a system where players have no motivation to give back anything, and teams just lose both ways.


But also, the players union isn’t going to give up free agency rights lightly in terms of a negotiation like this. You’re going to have to give them a ton more than the teams would “gain”.

[Scoot McGroot]

I just want to point out that we are talking about fixing the loophole for buyouts, that almost always only applies to players on an expiring contract, and only the remaining fraction of that deal.

A traditional free agent is not prevented in summer free agency to sign a discount deal to go wherever he chooses. However, in that case, he bears the financial burden over the entire deal for making the cheaper choice. In these current post-deadline buyouts, a player may still gets paid for the bulk of the contract from the team he signed with, including much of the final season, so it encourages the player to demand a buy out to play with a contender. He gets his cake, and gets to eat it too. Also, the market is aware of this, and it stifles the trade market.

I prefer what OKC has done with Horford (though he has two years left on his deal), and if you don’t want a player around the team, just don’t have him spend the last six weeks with the team. A player should finish the contract he signed, and sign a new one elsewhere when it is over if you choose.

Yeah. In a way, OKC is exhibiting what teams can do. Indy did this once upon a time with Jamaal Tinsley, too, when it got to an untenable position.


Otherwise, teams need to start driving harder negotiations in terms of buyouts, if its truly the player that solely wants out. Force them to yield any money remaining they have yet to have earned in the season. But, by agreeing to buyouts of just a vet minimum, they’re agreeing that they’d prefer to be done with the player too and move on and avoid any potential locker room issues. I hate the economics of what’s happening, but I don’t see any reason to change the CBA or bring forth a strike/lock out situation that won’t be easily solved.

[Rapcity_11]

Wake me up when...

1. A buyout isn't mutually beneficial.

and/or:

2. Buyout guys only go to certain markets.

and/or:

3. Buyout guys make a big impact in the playoffs.

[jbk1234]

For your edit, I’m confused. If this act is a loophole that must be closed for the integrity of the game, the only punishment is a 2nd round pick? That’s it?

It's at least consideration, and an admission that you can't stop player movement.

Won’t this also open the possibility that some vets may get shorter contracts and less money to avoid teams being punished?

Doubtful. There aren't that many of them, and mostly these guys are getting bought out because they're almost done. It's meant to catch situations where you have a really good player with lots of years left joining a contender, and that player typically has options. And if he thinks it might hurt him by signing with the favorite he can always just wait until summer.

If Drummond signs a 3 year deal other than LA next year, who pays the 2nd? LA? They didn’t sign him to long-term deal (hypothetically). The new team? Drummond was going to be a free agent this summer anyway.

LA should have to pay it in either situation. The pick is an acknowledgement that they benefitted unfairly. And if he's worth it they will pay it, and re-sign him.

It just seems like any idea pitched has much deeper issues than we think, as they tend to punish players, and will probably be used to cost players more money, leading to less players accepting buyouts but rather forcing the team to waive them full out and pay out the full deal. And, maybe Drummond is a good role player for LA the rest of the year, but he’s no star. Is there really a problem?

It definitely has unintended consequences, and I hear you on it potentially impacting the buy out process for certain guys. But if you do nothing then you have the perception that you're not running a square game. Again, people aren't freaking out here because public perception is Drummond isn't that good. What if Steph Curry got bought out and joined the Lakers or Brooklyn?

If it turns out he's really good for them in the playoffs people are going to say it's unfair, and that's not a position NBA wants to be in.

Why would GS just buyout Steph Curry? Has he had some massive injury that makes his career untenable going forward? Teams don’t have to just buy guys out.

As for Drummond in the playoffs? Who cares? Cleveland decided they didn’t want him around anymore and preferred to save a little money while giving his playing time to Jarrett Allen. They decided to agree to a buyout and waived him. After clearing waivers, he signed where he wanted. It’s free agency, after all. Players are free to choose where they wish to play once they’ve cleared waivers.

But otherwise, how would you feel about Drummond giving back no money, getting waived at full price by Cleveland, and then going to LA? Or Aldridge not having given up $5+m in his buyout and just getting waived post deadline when he couldn’t be moved, and still signing in Brooklyn? You’ve mostly just created a system where players have no motivation to give back anything, and teams just lose both ways.


But also, the players union isn’t going to give up free agency rights lightly in terms of a negotiation like this. You’re going to have to give them a ton more than the teams would “gain”.

Drummond might as well have given nothing back but the very fact that you think teams would be forced to wave guys and pay their full salary kind of undercuts the claim that these buyouts are 100% consensual 100% of the time.

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

[Scoot McGroot]

It's at least consideration, and an admission that you can't stop player movement.


Doubtful. There aren't that many of them, and mostly these guys are getting bought out because they're almost done. It's meant to catch situations where you have a really good player with lots of years left joining a contender, and that player typically has options. And if he thinks it might hurt him by signing with the favorite he can always just wait until summer.


LA should have to pay it in either situation. The pick is an acknowledgement that they benefitted unfairly. And if he's worth it they will pay it, and re-sign him.


It definitely has unintended consequences, and I hear you on it potentially impacting the buy out process for certain guys. But if you do nothing then you have the perception that you're not running a square game. Again, people aren't freaking out here because public perception is Drummond isn't that good. What if Steph Curry got bought out and joined the Lakers or Brooklyn?

If it turns out he's really good for them in the playoffs people are going to say it's unfair, and that's not a position NBA wants to be in.

Why would GS just buyout Steph Curry? Has he had some massive injury that makes his career untenable going forward? Teams don’t have to just buy guys out.

As for Drummond in the playoffs? Who cares? Cleveland decided they didn’t want him around anymore and preferred to save a little money while giving his playing time to Jarrett Allen. They decided to agree to a buyout and waived him. After clearing waivers, he signed where he wanted. It’s free agency, after all. Players are free to choose where they wish to play once they’ve cleared waivers.

But otherwise, how would you feel about Drummond giving back no money, getting waived at full price by Cleveland, and then going to LA? Or Aldridge not having given up $5+m in his buyout and just getting waived post deadline when he couldn’t be moved, and still signing in Brooklyn? You’ve mostly just created a system where players have no motivation to give back anything, and teams just lose both ways.


But also, the players union isn’t going to give up free agency rights lightly in terms of a negotiation like this. You’re going to have to give them a ton more than the teams would “gain”.

Drummond might as well have given nothing back but the very fact that you think teams would be forced to wave guys and pay their full salary kind of undercuts the claim that these buyouts are 100% consensual 100% of the time.

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

How so? If they want a guy gone, the player in this hypothetical would be held out of signing wherever he wants if he accepts a buyout, so obviously, they’re not going to accept a buyout. Thus, team wants them gone, they’ll have to waive them instead of saving some money in a buyout.

You seem to think that buyouts are 100% a player wanting out, and that there’s no aspect of the team wanting the guy gone, too.

[Scoot McGroot]

Why would GS just buyout Steph Curry? Has he had some massive injury that makes his career untenable going forward? Teams don’t have to just buy guys out.

As for Drummond in the playoffs? Who cares? Cleveland decided they didn’t want him around anymore and preferred to save a little money while giving his playing time to Jarrett Allen. They decided to agree to a buyout and waived him. After clearing waivers, he signed where he wanted. It’s free agency, after all. Players are free to choose where they wish to play once they’ve cleared waivers.

But otherwise, how would you feel about Drummond giving back no money, getting waived at full price by Cleveland, and then going to LA? Or Aldridge not having given up $5+m in his buyout and just getting waived post deadline when he couldn’t be moved, and still signing in Brooklyn? You’ve mostly just created a system where players have no motivation to give back anything, and teams just lose both ways.


But also, the players union isn’t going to give up free agency rights lightly in terms of a negotiation like this. You’re going to have to give them a ton more than the teams would “gain”.

Drummond might as well have given nothing back but the very fact that you think teams would be forced to wave guys and pay their full salary kind of undercuts the claim that these buyouts are 100% consensual 100% of the time.

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

How so? If they want a guy gone, the player in this hypothetical would be held out of signing wherever he wants if he accepts a buyout, so obviously, they’re not going to accept a buyout. Thus, team wants them gone, they’ll have to waive them instead of saving some money in a buyout.

You seem to think that buyouts are 100% a player wanting out, and that there’s no aspect of the team wanting the guy gone, too.

But also, we were discussing a specific hypothetical in a world where VanWest82 had added an additional rule, not real life.

[shrink]

Wake me up when...

1. A buyout isn't mutually beneficial.

and/or:

2. Buyout guys only go to certain markets.

and/or:

3. Buyout guys make a big impact in the playoffs.

I agree with you so far.

But are willing to throw away the legitimacy of one NBA Championship in the future, by not closing the loophole before it happens?

Transactions should be beneficial to both buyer, seller, and the NBA as a whole. That’s why we have rules and a CBA.

[jbk1234]

Why would GS just buyout Steph Curry? Has he had some massive injury that makes his career untenable going forward? Teams don’t have to just buy guys out.

As for Drummond in the playoffs? Who cares? Cleveland decided they didn’t want him around anymore and preferred to save a little money while giving his playing time to Jarrett Allen. They decided to agree to a buyout and waived him. After clearing waivers, he signed where he wanted. It’s free agency, after all. Players are free to choose where they wish to play once they’ve cleared waivers.

But otherwise, how would you feel about Drummond giving back no money, getting waived at full price by Cleveland, and then going to LA? Or Aldridge not having given up $5+m in his buyout and just getting waived post deadline when he couldn’t be moved, and still signing in Brooklyn? You’ve mostly just created a system where players have no motivation to give back anything, and teams just lose both ways.


But also, the players union isn’t going to give up free agency rights lightly in terms of a negotiation like this. You’re going to have to give them a ton more than the teams would “gain”.

Drummond might as well have given nothing back but the very fact that you think teams would be forced to wave guys and pay their full salary kind of undercuts the claim that these buyouts are 100% consensual 100% of the time.

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

How so? If they want a guy gone, the player in this hypothetical would be held out of signing wherever he wants if he accepts a buyout, so obviously, they’re not going to accept a buyout. Thus, team wants them gone, they’ll have to waive them instead of saving some money in a buyout.

You seem to think that buyouts are 100% a player wanting out, and that there’s no aspect of the team wanting the guy gone, too.

Here's the problem with the want-a-guy-gone narrative, the player has a say in whether a team wants him gone. The Cavs would preferred that Drummond be a good solider and come of the bench, but it was a contract year and that's not what Drummond wanted.

The primary issue is how incentives line up for players and agents in terms of honoring the remainder of their contract, versus how the incentives line up for teams in terms of requiring a player to honor the remainder of his contract.

The reality is that the outside costs to a mid market team, if teams actually employed suspensions without pay for conduct detrimental, etc. (avenues that are already available under the CBA) when players and/or agents start to make clear that the player is no longer interested in honoring his contract, are prohibitive. The balance, or mutuality of obligation, is illusory.

[Scoot McGroot]

Drummond might as well have given nothing back but the very fact that you think teams would be forced to wave guys and pay their full salary kind of undercuts the claim that these buyouts are 100% consensual 100% of the time.

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

How so? If they want a guy gone, the player in this hypothetical would be held out of signing wherever he wants if he accepts a buyout, so obviously, they’re not going to accept a buyout. Thus, team wants them gone, they’ll have to waive them instead of saving some money in a buyout.

You seem to think that buyouts are 100% a player wanting out, and that there’s no aspect of the team wanting the guy gone, too.

Here's the problem with the want-a-guy-gone narrative, the player has a say in whether a team wants him gone. The Cavs would preferred that Drummond be a good solider and come of the bench, but it was a contract year and that's not what Drummond wanted.

The primary issue is how incentives line up for players and agents in terms of honoring the remainder of their contract, versus how the incentives line up for teams in terms of requiring a player to honor the remainder of his contract.

The reality is that the outside costs to a mid market team, if teams actually employed suspensions without pay for conduct detrimental, etc. (avenues that are already available under the CBA) when players and/or agents start to make clear that the player is no longer interested in honoring his contract, are prohibitive. The balance, or mutuality of obligation, is illusory.

Even if the Cavs state they want Drummond to stick around and end the season with 15ish minutes a night off the bench....do they really? Do they want that possible locker room distraction? Do they want the old guy just still sitting there waiting and ready to reclaim his spot and minutes, and demanding them throughout? Realistically, what would you picture Drummond staying and playing “good soldier” meaning?

Or, if they see the season slipping away and move to development mode, would they prefer to send Drummond on his way, and fill the backup minutes with other guys that are possibly in the long term picture for them, while clearing a roster spot to try guys out in?

Having seen it happen before around the league and with my own team in the past, I just don’t think that Cleveland is a victim here. They’re better off clearing up the roster spot, and they saved a little money in doing so. Obviously, we quite disagree on the matter, which is fine.

[Resistance]

How so? If they want a guy gone, the player in this hypothetical would be held out of signing wherever he wants if he accepts a buyout, so obviously, they’re not going to accept a buyout. Thus, team wants them gone, they’ll have to waive them instead of saving some money in a buyout.

You seem to think that buyouts are 100% a player wanting out, and that there’s no aspect of the team wanting the guy gone, too.

Here's the problem with the want-a-guy-gone narrative, the player has a say in whether a team wants him gone. The Cavs would preferred that Drummond be a good solider and come of the bench, but it was a contract year and that's not what Drummond wanted.

The primary issue is how incentives line up for players and agents in terms of honoring the remainder of their contract, versus how the incentives line up for teams in terms of requiring a player to honor the remainder of his contract.

The reality is that the outside costs to a mid market team, if teams actually employed suspensions without pay for conduct detrimental, etc. (avenues that are already available under the CBA) when players and/or agents start to make clear that the player is no longer interested in honoring his contract, are prohibitive. The balance, or mutuality of obligation, is illusory.

Even if the Cavs state they want Drummond to stick around and end the season with 15ish minutes a night off the bench....do they really? Do they want that possible locker room distraction? Do they want the old guy just still sitting there waiting and ready to reclaim his spot and minutes, and demanding them throughout? Realistically, what would you picture Drummond staying and playing “good soldier” meaning?

Or, if they see the season slipping away and move to development mode, would they prefer to send Drummond on his way, and fill the backup minutes with other guys that are possibly in the long term picture for them, while clearing a roster spot to try guys out in?

Having seen it happen before around the league and with my own team in the past, I just don’t think that Cleveland is a victim here. They’re better off clearing up the roster spot, and they saved a little money in doing so. Obviously, we quite disagree on the matter, which is fine.

Do they want that possible locker room distraction? Do they want the old guy just still sitting there waiting and ready to reclaim his spot and minutes, and demanding them throughout? Realistically, what would you picture Drummond staying and playing “good soldier” meaning?

In the real world, organizations start stacking paperwork against a disruptive employee. If they can build a strong enough case against the employee, he/she can be discharged and the organization has no further obligation to pay the employee except for owed vacation time and similar.

In the NBA (which isn't the real world), the players are able to get away with quite a bit in terms of being disruptive such as Bledsoe a while back when he wanted out of Phoenix.


I realize that in the real world, the employees are doing something such as:

* Making a purse
* Fixing plumbing
* Driving a truck down the highway
* Building a house
* Etc

while in the NBA, the players are the product that is valued. That gives them much more leverage in negotiating the policies/rules in the CBA for what behavior they can get away with without having their contract voided.


Going back to the Drummond example:

Since he was an expiring and if he became a headache, in the real world, they could have stacked paperwork and then cancelled the remainder of his contract if he didn't fall into line. In the NBA, teams are forced to either make a trade or do a buyout because the mechanisms in the CBA are some combination of not fast enough and strong enough to quell disruptive players in a timely manner.*

I don't see the players willing to allow the rules/policies about behavior being tightened in the CBA to the same level as in the real world. They have a good thing and have no incentive to give it up.

If the league negotiated something between the teams to reimburse teams to some extent for the financial hit of the buyout versus only getting the appropriate veteran minimum given back, then it would at least be some attempt at fairness.


-------------------------------------------------
* There is a related conversation about having to do a non-paid timeout if they have had a contract voided for disruptive behavior.