Anyone else pissed off?

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

sonictecture
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 12,024
And1: 922
Joined: May 26, 2002

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#101 » by sonictecture » Tue Mar 30, 2021 2:33 am

Scoot McGroot wrote:
sonictecture wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:
Both sides honored the contract and decided a buyout was mutually beneficial. It’s a 2 way street. Cleveland was under no obligation to buy him out but chose too. Contract fully honored both ways.

Otherwise, this is always how free agency operates. If there was no cap, restrictions, etc, I have no doubt that 15 top notch players would sign with the Lakers. Otherwise, players agree to deals for different reasons. Close to home, more money, more playing time, best long term fits, etc. That’s what happens in buyout season. Even Indy got a guy that was heavily wanted, once. Offer something The player wants and you have a chance of signing them. Here, Drummond is taking a probable starting spot to audition himself, on a team that will be on to one of the most times around the league. I absolutely can’t fault him for that.


The buyout was the end result but how players and agents often get to that point is to say they want out. Once you say you want out you are no longer abiding by the original contract.
This isn’t true, at all. If you abide by the terms of the contract, it’s all fine. If the team tells you that you are welcome to stay home, it’s still abiding by the terms of the contract, as you’ve altered that agreement. What you are hoping for is that a player be contractually obligated to always being happy, no matter what. That a player cannot ever wish to be elsewhere or doing something else. How many times at your job do you, or other people, say “Man, this job sucks”. Is that, in and of itself, fireable (lets ignore right to work states, at will employment, etc, for this exercise). Is saying “I dont like my wife” contractual grounds for divorce? No.
Once again, I don’t have an issue with this and don’t want to punish players, but the signing teams should have to pay a price.


They do. They pay their salary. But once we punish employees for hiring legally unemployed employees, we’re entering dangerous ground, and clearly infringing on the rights of the workers. If a team is willing to fire you, and set you free, you’re not free to find gainful employment elsewhere?
The Lakers used a revenue advantage for decades, but smaller market teams eventually got revenue sharing. The precedent for evening out the field of competition is there.


The Lakers still have a revenue advantage (local broadcasting deal). The Warriors have a revenue advantage with their new arena. The game is inherently fair and square down to every inch. If it was, the league would pay all taxes on contracts to equalize playing in Florida, Texas, Tennessee, etc as to playing in Toronto, Minnesota, Indiana, New York, and elsewhere. Revenue sharing closes the gap a bit, but it doesn’t make things inherently and equally fair, and that was an agreement solely between the owners, big and small. The players inherently neither gained nor lost anything in that agreement.

Again, what we’re asking is for the players to give up their rights in free agency in order to give greater team control over their employment and right to seek employment. I find it hard to do this in any meaningful way without basically saying that “The governors have all the rights, and the players have none.”

It’s naive to believe that every buyout is by the will of the team as well as the player. Whether a player is waived or bought out, the player gets paid. The team takes the loss and another team gets a gain.
I’m not suggesting infringing on player rights, but the imbalance in competition should be addressed.

The meaningful way is not to punish players, but make signing teams pay.
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 62,527
And1: 56,352
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: 403 Minutes in the Bay
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#102 » by Texas Chuck » Tue Mar 30, 2021 2:43 am

It's not naive lol. Literally the buyout cannot happen without the team's agreement. If the team doesn't want to do it, just don't do it.

It's absurd this continues to be a talking point. The teams have agency here.
bondom34 wrote:This is stupid and you know this is stupid.
HardenToSixers
Senior
Posts: 512
And1: 293
Joined: Nov 18, 2020
 

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#103 » by HardenToSixers » Tue Mar 30, 2021 2:46 am

Broken system with too much player leverage
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 41,418
And1: 23,850
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#104 » by jbk1234 » Tue Mar 30, 2021 2:47 am

Texas Chuck wrote:It's not naive lol. Literally the buyout cannot happen without the team's agreement. If the team doesn't want to do it, just don't do it.

It's absurd this continues to be a talking point. The teams have agency here.
Have the Mavericks ever turned down a buyout request?

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.
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 62,527
And1: 56,352
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: 403 Minutes in the Bay
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#105 » by Texas Chuck » Tue Mar 30, 2021 2:57 am

jbk1234 wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:It's not naive lol. Literally the buyout cannot happen without the team's agreement. If the team doesn't want to do it, just don't do it.

It's absurd this continues to be a talking point. The teams have agency here.
Have the Mavericks ever turned down a buyout request?

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


I'm assuming yes. Only buyout I can even think of in recent years was Zbo and he didn't go sign anywhere else I don't believe. But I'm guessing guys have asked out and Dallas said no, it just wasn't a big scene.


There was some noise this year about Melli wanting a buy out and Dallas saying no, but as always don't know how true any of that is.
bondom34 wrote:This is stupid and you know this is stupid.
Prospect Dong
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,297
And1: 682
Joined: Jun 04, 2008
Location: I come down like a hurricane

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#106 » by Prospect Dong » Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:02 am

Texas Chuck wrote:
Prospect Dong wrote:

Dwight and Morris played a combined 35 playoff minutes per game for the lakers, and the lakers weren't nearly so dominant that they win it all while relying on fringe NBA guys for that amount of court time. Two buyout guys pretty much swung a championship, exactly the measure you said in advance we should be looking at, and you don't seem to have noticed.



Dwight Howard was a Laker all year. He was not an in-season buy out guy. So I don't count him at all. Morris was 8th on the Lakers in mpg in the playoffs. I just don't believe he was a deciding force.

So I disagree wholeheartedly with the premise that buyout guys swung a championship without me noticing. :D


"buyout guys", or "in-season buyout guys"? Because that feels like something that just got added after the fact, to the point where you ditched it before the end of your own post.

I think the easy point here is that you set up your own idiosyncratic criteria for caring about buyout guys a couple of years back: "did any of them play >100 minutes on the ultimate champion?" - a criteria that limits you to about 8 guys in any given season - and when two guys go ahead and do that, it doesn't actually seem to move the needle for you.

There's a tougher argument to be had about pre-season vs in-season, and whether Morris alone was a deciding factor.

I think it's probably fair to say that, without Morris and Dwight, the lakers probably don't win it all, but that's not a slam dunk.

Morris alone? He probably won them a couple of games, probably not a series.

But now your standard for caring about free ("in-season") ring chasers is "did the guy personally win them a championship?" That doesn't feel compatible with a healthy interest in NBA player movement, where the answer to that question isn't often "yes".

Is Dwight a "buyout guy"? I mean, yes? Because of him being "bought out" and all. Are there different considerations applicable to guys who get bought out early, rather than part of the way through the season. I guess? But I don't think you'll find many of the people in this thread who argue for a rule change saying "...unless he gets bought out right at the start of the season, then it's totally cool, lakers all the way".

I think there probably needs to be some sort of structured market for guys who are available at the minimum salary because someone else is paying their salary, the same way there is for every other type of player. I'm not especially interested in when they become available.

And I don't think "those buyout guys never play 100 minutes for the eventual champion/no wait, they never personally win a championship, unless they were signed at the start of the season" is a great counterpoint.
"Bagley's the most unique player we've had. He's an amazing runner. Amazing repeated jumper. He wants to learn, has no demons, he's smart, and has an incredible motor. He's going to be one of the great players in the NBA"

Coach K
Prospect Dong
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,297
And1: 682
Joined: Jun 04, 2008
Location: I come down like a hurricane

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#107 » by Prospect Dong » Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:08 am

Texas Chuck wrote:It's not naive lol. Literally the buyout cannot happen without the team's agreement. If the team doesn't want to do it, just don't do it.

It's absurd this continues to be a talking point. The teams have agency here.


I do basically agree with this. Teams, especially small market teams, should just stop buying guys out.

But there is a collective action problem.

Drummond to the lakers doesn't hurt Cleveland this year, it hurts the Jazz and the Nuggets, and maybe the Mavs.

Cleveland gets to stay right with Drummond's agent, save themselves literally tens of dollars and isn't going to run into him in the playoffs. They should have said no, but I get why they didn't. That's why these things work better as a collective bargain. A "collective bargaining agreement" if you will...
"Bagley's the most unique player we've had. He's an amazing runner. Amazing repeated jumper. He wants to learn, has no demons, he's smart, and has an incredible motor. He's going to be one of the great players in the NBA"

Coach K
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 41,418
And1: 23,850
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#108 » by jbk1234 » Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:09 am

Texas Chuck wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:It's not naive lol. Literally the buyout cannot happen without the team's agreement. If the team doesn't want to do it, just don't do it.

It's absurd this continues to be a talking point. The teams have agency here.
Have the Mavericks ever turned down a buyout request?

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


I'm assuming yes. Only buyout I can even think of in recent years was Zbo and he didn't go sign anywhere else I don't believe. But I'm guessing guys have asked out and Dallas said no, it just wasn't a big scene.


There was some noise this year about Melli wanting a buy out and Dallas saying no, but as always don't know how true any of that is.
What's the most famous example you can remember of a team, any team, turning down a buyout request?

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.
User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,450
And1: 5,481
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#109 » by Scoot McGroot » Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:11 am

sonictecture wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:
sonictecture wrote:
The buyout was the end result but how players and agents often get to that point is to say they want out. Once you say you want out you are no longer abiding by the original contract.
This isn’t true, at all. If you abide by the terms of the contract, it’s all fine. If the team tells you that you are welcome to stay home, it’s still abiding by the terms of the contract, as you’ve altered that agreement. What you are hoping for is that a player be contractually obligated to always being happy, no matter what. That a player cannot ever wish to be elsewhere or doing something else. How many times at your job do you, or other people, say “Man, this job sucks”. Is that, in and of itself, fireable (lets ignore right to work states, at will employment, etc, for this exercise). Is saying “I dont like my wife” contractual grounds for divorce? No.
Once again, I don’t have an issue with this and don’t want to punish players, but the signing teams should have to pay a price.


They do. They pay their salary. But once we punish employees for hiring legally unemployed employees, we’re entering dangerous ground, and clearly infringing on the rights of the workers. If a team is willing to fire you, and set you free, you’re not free to find gainful employment elsewhere?
The Lakers used a revenue advantage for decades, but smaller market teams eventually got revenue sharing. The precedent for evening out the field of competition is there.


The Lakers still have a revenue advantage (local broadcasting deal). The Warriors have a revenue advantage with their new arena. The game is inherently fair and square down to every inch. If it was, the league would pay all taxes on contracts to equalize playing in Florida, Texas, Tennessee, etc as to playing in Toronto, Minnesota, Indiana, New York, and elsewhere. Revenue sharing closes the gap a bit, but it doesn’t make things inherently and equally fair, and that was an agreement solely between the owners, big and small. The players inherently neither gained nor lost anything in that agreement.

Again, what we’re asking is for the players to give up their rights in free agency in order to give greater team control over their employment and right to seek employment. I find it hard to do this in any meaningful way without basically saying that “The governors have all the rights, and the players have none.”

It’s naive to believe that every buyout is by the will of the team as well as the player. Whether a player is waived or bought out, the player gets paid. The team takes the loss and another team gets a gain.
I’m not suggesting infringing on player rights, but the imbalance in competition should be addressed.

The meaningful way is not to punish players, but make signing teams pay.

It's absolutely not naive. It's a downright requirement for a buyout to occur. It requires both parties agreeing and signing on the dotted line. A buyout requires the player giving something back that they are contractually obligated to receive. A team just can't unilaterally buy them out and force the player to give so much back. The team's loss is already a sunk cost. They have the right to hold the player to their contract, let them occupy a roster spot, and force them to give up anything they haven't yet been paid, but choose not to because its valuable to them to end it quickly and cleanly. Just like teams will buy out coaches contracts, or companies will give severance when they fire someone. The other team can get a gain by acquiring said player, but there's still a cost to them as well, as they have to pay said player, and fit their salary on the cap/tax. The hope for that team is that the on court benefit outweighs the cost, and sometimes it is. But it isn't always.


As for the punishment, the players are likely to be punished in that teams won't necessarily want to pay to sign them, so they'll avoid them. A similar thing happened for years and years and the league had to find a way to accommodate it. That's why vet minimum's are billed to the cap/tax at the rate of a 2 year vet, as older vets were being left on the market for super young guys since they were cheaper. Sure, the older guys were better, but they were being "blackballed" for their age. Wouldn't a similar buyout punishment exist?
User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,450
And1: 5,481
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#110 » by Scoot McGroot » Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:19 am

Prospect Dong wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:It's not naive lol. Literally the buyout cannot happen without the team's agreement. If the team doesn't want to do it, just don't do it.

It's absurd this continues to be a talking point. The teams have agency here.


I do basically agree with this. Teams, especially small market teams, should just stop buying guys out.

But there is a collective action problem.

Drummond to the lakers doesn't hurt Cleveland this year, it hurts the Jazz and the Nuggets, and maybe the Mavs.

Cleveland gets to stay right with Drummond's agent, save themselves literally tens of dollars and isn't going to run into him in the playoffs. They should have said no, but I get why they didn't. That's why these things work better as a collective bargain. A "collective bargaining agreement" if you will...


Also, Cleveland benefitted from it, too, signing a Deron Williams that was bought out by the Mavericks in 2017.


I agree, it doesn't feel fair when you're heading toward a championship and one of your biggest contenders just adds someone off the waiver wire they didn't have to trade for, but there's no real way to change this that doesn't either basically eliminate free agency in season, or that punishes players for being waived/bought out, and may lead to them losing any chance at gainful employment that season. But not every buy out helps. For Indy, a Wes Matthews kind of helped. But signing a bought out/waived Andrew Bynum HURT. Bad, in hindsight, as it killed any last chance at confidence in Roy Hibbert's career. Making a move is a risk.
User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,450
And1: 5,481
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#111 » by Scoot McGroot » Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:20 am

jbk1234 wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:Have the Mavericks ever turned down a buyout request?

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


I'm assuming yes. Only buyout I can even think of in recent years was Zbo and he didn't go sign anywhere else I don't believe. But I'm guessing guys have asked out and Dallas said no, it just wasn't a big scene.


There was some noise this year about Melli wanting a buy out and Dallas saying no, but as always don't know how true any of that is.
What's the most famous example you can remember of a team, any team, turning down a buyout request?

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


We generally won't know that a team turned down a buyout request from a player until someone's post career memoirs come out.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 41,418
And1: 23,850
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#112 » by jbk1234 » Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:27 am

Scoot McGroot wrote:
Prospect Dong wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:It's not naive lol. Literally the buyout cannot happen without the team's agreement. If the team doesn't want to do it, just don't do it.

It's absurd this continues to be a talking point. The teams have agency here.


I do basically agree with this. Teams, especially small market teams, should just stop buying guys out.

But there is a collective action problem.

Drummond to the lakers doesn't hurt Cleveland this year, it hurts the Jazz and the Nuggets, and maybe the Mavs.

Cleveland gets to stay right with Drummond's agent, save themselves literally tens of dollars and isn't going to run into him in the playoffs. They should have said no, but I get why they didn't. That's why these things work better as a collective bargain. A "collective bargaining agreement" if you will...


Also, Cleveland benefitted from it, too, signing a Deron Williams that was bought out by the Mavericks in 2017.


I agree, it doesn't feel fair when you're heading toward a championship and one of your biggest contenders just adds someone off the waiver wire they didn't have to trade for, but there's no real way to change this that doesn't either basically eliminate free agency in season, or that punishes players for being waived/bought out, and may lead to them losing any chance at gainful employment that season. But not every buy out helps. For Indy, a Wes Matthews kind of helped. But signing a bought out/waived Andrew Bynum HURT. Bad, in hindsight, as it killed any last chance at confidence in Roy Hibbert's career. Making a move is a risk.
D. Will was cooked before the Cavs acquired him and was nearly unplayable in the postseason.

Can we talk about what we're actually talking about or are really smart people going to continue to pretend not to understand why a 27-year old player only giving back less than a million, on a $27M deal, is different?

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.
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 62,527
And1: 56,352
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: 403 Minutes in the Bay
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#113 » by Texas Chuck » Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:29 am

Prospect Dong wrote:
I think the easy point here is that you set up your own idiosyncratic criteria for caring about buyout guys a couple of years back: "did any of them play >100 minutes on the ultimate champion?" - a criteria that limits you to about 8 guys in any given season - and when two guys go ahead and do that, it doesn't actually seem to move the needle for you.

There's a tougher argument to be had about pre-season vs in-season, and whether Morris alone was a deciding factor.

I think it's probably fair to say that, without Morris and Dwight, the lakers probably don't win it all, but that's not a slam dunk.

Morris alone? He probably won them a couple of games, probably not a series.

But now your standard for caring about free ("in-season") ring chasers is "did the guy personally win them a championship?" That doesn't feel compatible with a healthy interest in NBA player movement, where the answer to that question isn't often "yes".

Is Dwight a "buyout guy"? I mean, yes? Because of him being "bought out" and all. Are there different considerations applicable to guys who get bought out early, rather than part of the way through the season. I guess? But I don't think you'll find many of the people in this thread who argue for a rule change saying "...unless he gets bought out right at the start of the season, then it's totally cool, lakers all the way".

I think there probably needs to be some sort of structured market for guys who are available at the minimum salary because someone else is paying their salary, the same way there is for every other type of player. I'm not especially interested in when they become available.

And I don't think "those buyout guys never play 100 minutes for the eventual champion/no wait, they never personally win a championship, unless they were signed at the start of the season" is a great counterpoint.



I didn't set that as some criteria. I'd have to see my actual post, but it sounds like more like a fun fact than me attempting to set some sort of arbitrary standard. I just never do that sort of thing so I'd need to see a link showing I did to believe I did here.

I also think there is a notable difference between a guy getting bought out and thus entering a free agency pool where lots of teams have cap space versus midseason when almost no one does. If you want to use that to accuse me of moving goalposts, you can, but that feels pretty weak since the circumstances are meaningful different.

As to the rest it seems like your only interest is playing gotcha on me which is fine--except you seem to be failing at that so....

Obviously I disagree that the Lakers only win with those players. If not Howard they would have had another center to pair with JaVale plus AD at center was always going to be a thing. And Lebron being in the Finals every year seems like something much more significant than the 8th in minutes guy.

But anything else you want to suggest I'm changing my story on?
bondom34 wrote:This is stupid and you know this is stupid.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 41,418
And1: 23,850
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#114 » by jbk1234 » Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:30 am

Scoot McGroot wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:
I'm assuming yes. Only buyout I can even think of in recent years was Zbo and he didn't go sign anywhere else I don't believe. But I'm guessing guys have asked out and Dallas said no, it just wasn't a big scene.


There was some noise this year about Melli wanting a buy out and Dallas saying no, but as always don't know how true any of that is.
What's the most famous example you can remember of a team, any team, turning down a buyout request?

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


We generally won't know that a team turned down a buyout request from a player until someone's post career memoirs come out.
Well, I'm going to go out on a limb and say if it happened in the last five years, we would've read about. First from the team that wanted him for free via sources, then from his agent on the record, and then in the OP-ed columns suggesting that team X was mismanaged.

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.
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 62,527
And1: 56,352
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: 403 Minutes in the Bay
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#115 » by Texas Chuck » Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:31 am

jbk1234 wrote:

Can we talk about what we're actually talking about or are really smart people going to continue to pretend not to understand why a 27-year old player only giving back less than a million, on a $27M deal, is different?

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


I'm not really smart so I'm assuming you are referring to Scoot, but I've explained over and over and over how little I care about age and how little I think Drummond is going to impact games so that's why I don't think its different.
bondom34 wrote:This is stupid and you know this is stupid.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 41,418
And1: 23,850
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#116 » by jbk1234 » Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:36 am

Texas Chuck wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:

Can we talk about what we're actually talking about or are really smart people going to continue to pretend not to understand why a 27-year old player only giving back less than a million, on a $27M deal, is different?

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


I'm not really smart so I'm assuming you are referring to Scoot, but I've explained over and over and over how little I care about age and how little I think Drummond is going to impact games so that's why I don't think its different.
Are you at least willing to allow for the possibility that there were multiple teams, with a lot more cap space than the Lakers, who were interested in signing him, as widely reported, or are you hand waving that away as well?

Because the test here isn't whether Chuck thinks Drummond will move the needle, but whether there were other teams who were ready, willing, and able to pay him to try.

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.
kobe_vs_jordan
Head Coach
Posts: 7,120
And1: 3,179
Joined: Jan 07, 2012
Location: Atl
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#117 » by kobe_vs_jordan » Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:57 am

jbk1234 wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:

Can we talk about what we're actually talking about or are really smart people going to continue to pretend not to understand why a 27-year old player only giving back less than a million, on a $27M deal, is different?

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


I'm not really smart so I'm assuming you are referring to Scoot, but I've explained over and over and over how little I care about age and how little I think Drummond is going to impact games so that's why I don't think its different.
Are you at least willing to allow for the possibility that there were multiple teams, with a lot more cap space than the Lakers, who were interested in signing him, as widely reported, or are you hand waving that away as well?

Because the test here isn't whether Chuck thinks Drummond will move the needle, but whether there were other teams who were ready, willing, and able to pay him to try.

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

The test failed bc teams with cap space didn’t get Drummond ? How were they suppose to get him?
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 62,527
And1: 56,352
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: 403 Minutes in the Bay
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#118 » by Texas Chuck » Tue Mar 30, 2021 4:05 am

jbk1234 wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:

Can we talk about what we're actually talking about or are really smart people going to continue to pretend not to understand why a 27-year old player only giving back less than a million, on a $27M deal, is different?

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


I'm not really smart so I'm assuming you are referring to Scoot, but I've explained over and over and over how little I care about age and how little I think Drummond is going to impact games so that's why I don't think its different.
Are you at least willing to allow for the possibility that there were multiple teams, with a lot more cap space than the Lakers, who were interested in signing him, as widely reported, or are you hand waving that away as well?

Because the test here isn't whether Chuck thinks Drummond will move the needle, but whether there were other teams who were ready, willing, and able to pay him to try.

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


He's a free agent able to sign with the team of his choice. He chose the Lakers over more money. Just like Marc Gasol chose the Lakers over more money this summer. Just like David West did with the Spurs. Just like Wes Matthews did with the Bucks and then the Lakers just like just like just like.
bondom34 wrote:This is stupid and you know this is stupid.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 41,418
And1: 23,850
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#119 » by jbk1234 » Tue Mar 30, 2021 4:10 am

Texas Chuck wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:
I'm not really smart so I'm assuming you are referring to Scoot, but I've explained over and over and over how little I care about age and how little I think Drummond is going to impact games so that's why I don't think its different.
Are you at least willing to allow for the possibility that there were multiple teams, with a lot more cap space than the Lakers, who were interested in signing him, as widely reported, or are you hand waving that away as well?

Because the test here isn't whether Chuck thinks Drummond will move the needle, but whether there were other teams who were ready, willing, and able to pay him to try.

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


He's a free agent able to sign with the team of his choice. He chose the Lakers over more money. Just like Marc Gasol chose the Lakers over more money this summer. Just like David West did with the Spurs. Just like Wes Matthews did with the Bucks and then the Lakers just like just like just like.
No. LMA and Blake chose the Nets over more money. They gave up far more than they got back. Drummond chose to make the full amount of his contract and play for the Lakers.

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.
Prospect Dong
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,297
And1: 682
Joined: Jun 04, 2008
Location: I come down like a hurricane

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#120 » by Prospect Dong » Tue Mar 30, 2021 4:18 am

Texas Chuck wrote:
Prospect Dong wrote:
I think the easy point here is that you set up your own idiosyncratic criteria for caring about buyout guys a couple of years back: "did any of them play >100 minutes on the ultimate champion?" - a criteria that limits you to about 8 guys in any given season - and when two guys go ahead and do that, it doesn't actually seem to move the needle for you.

There's a tougher argument to be had about pre-season vs in-season, and whether Morris alone was a deciding factor.

I think it's probably fair to say that, without Morris and Dwight, the lakers probably don't win it all, but that's not a slam dunk.

Morris alone? He probably won them a couple of games, probably not a series.

But now your standard for caring about free ("in-season") ring chasers is "did the guy personally win them a championship?" That doesn't feel compatible with a healthy interest in NBA player movement, where the answer to that question isn't often "yes".

Is Dwight a "buyout guy"? I mean, yes? Because of him being "bought out" and all. Are there different considerations applicable to guys who get bought out early, rather than part of the way through the season. I guess? But I don't think you'll find many of the people in this thread who argue for a rule change saying "...unless he gets bought out right at the start of the season, then it's totally cool, lakers all the way".

I think there probably needs to be some sort of structured market for guys who are available at the minimum salary because someone else is paying their salary, the same way there is for every other type of player. I'm not especially interested in when they become available.

And I don't think "those buyout guys never play 100 minutes for the eventual champion/no wait, they never personally win a championship, unless they were signed at the start of the season" is a great counterpoint.



I didn't set that as some criteria. I'd have to see my actual post, but it sounds like more like a fun fact than me attempting to set some sort of arbitrary standard. I just never do that sort of thing so I'd need to see a link showing I did to believe I did here.

I also think there is a notable difference between a guy getting bought out and thus entering a free agency pool where lots of teams have cap space versus midseason when almost no one does. If you want to use that to accuse me of moving goalposts, you can, but that feels pretty weak since the circumstances are meaningful different.

As to the rest it seems like your only interest is playing gotcha on me which is fine--except you seem to be failing at that so....

Obviously I disagree that the Lakers only win with those players. If not Howard they would have had another center to pair with JaVale plus AD at center was always going to be a thing. And Lebron being in the Finals every year seems like something much more significant than the 8th in minutes guy.

But anything else you want to suggest I'm changing my story on?


The point about preseason cap space is fair enough, but I don't think it makes a huge difference when these guys aren't really looking for money in the first place because they are already under contract. I feel like Dwight was both literally a buyout guy and spiritually pretty close to Morris (who was picked up using an injury exception) and Drummond. People in this thread are complaining about contenders, especially big market contenders, adding players for free. You don't think those guys help much. It's not clear to me why none of that applies to Dwight.

As for the rest of it: it's no longer clear to me how you, personally, would be convinced that a player helped a team in the playoffs, which means that "these guys never help in the playoffs" is no longer much of a prediction.

If your analysis of the lakers lineup is "Lebron just makes the finals every year" then obviously you're not going to be too worried who sign to play next to him, but there may be some gaps in your recent memory.

If you don't think the lakers would have noticeably been worse without guys they played for 35 minutes a game in the playoffs, because they had other players (who they decided were worse than those guys in those minutes), again, I just think you've reached the point where you're not open to agreeing a player helped. Like, Davis averaged 37 minutes per game in the playoffs - how many more are you penciling him in for?

We can absolutely tell a more complicated story about them replacing those guys in a world where they have to pay full freight for solid veteran backups, which is why I don't think it's a slam dunk that losing them costs them a championship, but you seem awfully certain that non-stars just don't matter.

Like, do you get excited about trades where the guys involved probably won't win a championship and/or if they do someone else on the roster could have played those minutes anyway?

I feel like you came to the view that buyouts don't really help much a couple of years back, and you're not really open to reevaluating based on some pretty significant new evidence.
"Bagley's the most unique player we've had. He's an amazing runner. Amazing repeated jumper. He wants to learn, has no demons, he's smart, and has an incredible motor. He's going to be one of the great players in the NBA"

Coach K

Return to Trades and Transactions