Anyone else pissed off?

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

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#121 » by Prospect Dong » Tue Mar 30, 2021 4:25 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.


Some problems are tough to fix, others are easier. There will always be guys willing to take a discount to play somewhere they want to be. That's a long term problem for competitive balance, but what are you going to do?

But if guys don't care about money because they are already being paid by another team choose teams solely on the basis of location, that both a bigger problem and an easier fix: you don't let them become UFAs while still under contract with another team, instead you put in place a process to determine who they play with for the period for which they are under contract, just like the NBA did post-amnesty when game-breaking guys like Charlie Bell hit the open market.

The continued existence of another, similar problem isn't an argument against fixing this one.
"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
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#122 » by Texas Chuck » Tue Mar 30, 2021 4:26 am

No, I think buyout guys can help. But generally pretty marginally. So I'm not going to lose my mind that a guy takes a buyout and signs with a contender which has happened every year for forever.

I don't think any reasonable interpretation of my comments is me saying these guys will literally never help on any possession in any game. But do I think the Lakers still win the title with a different backup center and not Markief Morris? Yeah probably. I can't say for sure, but I feel confident they were relatively minor factors, yes.


And you keep deciding for me what my view is no matter how many times I have corrected you so my guess is you will still decide what my view is and tell me I'm unreasonable, even if that isn't actually my view so I think we can leave it here. I say a lot of dumb things to have to defend that I'm tired of defending things I didn't say like 2011 Peja set the buyout standard for all-time something I know I never said nor any such thing.
bondom34 wrote:This is stupid and you know this is stupid.
flranger
Ballboy
Posts: 29
And1: 40
Joined: Jan 15, 2021
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#123 » by flranger » Tue Mar 30, 2021 5:12 am

Lakers will win NBA championship because of Lebron and AD
Nets will win NBA championship because of Durant, Harden, Irving
Nuggets will win NBA championship because of Jokic, Murray, MJP, Gordon
Sixers will win NBA championship because of Embiid, Simmons, Harris

Get over these buyout guys. If you want to bitch, bitch about the real top guys. Like top 10 players. Because every year, has been's are going to want to play with multiple top 10 guys if they can at buyout time. They don't care about market, its a rental. They want rings. And the rings go to team with multiple top 10-15 players. Want to avoid the problem......????? Mortgage every asset you have to get two top ten guys because that is what draws in the league minimum vets who want to chase a championship.

I'd love to see OKC trade all 34 picks over the next seven or whatever the **** years for Zion Williamson or Luka Doncic. You know what though.....NO and DAL still wouldn't take it. It's a stars league.
Catchall
RealGM
Posts: 14,174
And1: 6,396
Joined: Jul 06, 2008
     

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#124 » by Catchall » Tue Mar 30, 2021 6:49 am

kobe_vs_jordan wrote:Think there is a false belief that players with trade value are getting brought out. If they have no trade value , they essentially in control of their destiny at that point.

We seen the Spurs , Bucks, sixers, pacers get players in the buyout market. Players migrate to playoff teams to get paid. Just an extension of the ring chaser market in my opinion.


You're missing the point here. A player like Andre Drummond doesn't have trade value because he's on a $28M contract. The team that trades for Drummond would have to absorb that deal and all of its ramifications to its cap structure. But when he's bought out and released, the team he chooses can pick him up basically for free.

Almost any team in the league would offer Andre Drummond a roster spot if it didn't cost them anything.
He/Him, Dude, Bro, Bruh
Catchall
RealGM
Posts: 14,174
And1: 6,396
Joined: Jul 06, 2008
     

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#125 » by Catchall » Tue Mar 30, 2021 6:59 am

HardenToSixers wrote:Broken system with too much player leverage


If agents are really telling teams, "Give my player a buyout so he can join the Lakers, or I won't send you any more of my players," then that is a problem.
He/Him, Dude, Bro, Bruh
kobe_vs_jordan
Head Coach
Posts: 7,120
And1: 3,179
Joined: Jan 07, 2012
Location: Atl
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#126 » by kobe_vs_jordan » Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:04 am

Catchall wrote:
kobe_vs_jordan wrote:Think there is a false belief that players with trade value are getting brought out. If they have no trade value , they essentially in control of their destiny at that point.

We seen the Spurs , Bucks, sixers, pacers get players in the buyout market. Players migrate to playoff teams to get paid. Just an extension of the ring chaser market in my opinion.


You're missing the point here. A player like Andre Drummond doesn't have trade value because he's on a $28M contract. The team that trades for Drummond would have to absorb that deal and all of its ramifications to its cap structure. But when he's bought out and released, the team he chooses can pick him up basically for free.

Almost any team in the league would offer Andre Drummond a roster spot if it didn't cost them anything.

Don't see what point I am missing? Nobody stopped teams from pitching him. All teams could offer him he vet min. He can only play for one team?
kobe_vs_jordan
Head Coach
Posts: 7,120
And1: 3,179
Joined: Jan 07, 2012
Location: Atl
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#127 » by kobe_vs_jordan » Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:06 am

Catchall wrote:
HardenToSixers wrote:Broken system with too much player leverage


If agents are really telling teams, "Give my player a buyout so he can join the Lakers, or I won't send you any more of my players," then that is a problem.

Why would an agent create a problem for other clients to help one client? Most agents clients aren't stars, a role player can't work with an agent that is black balling teams.

Think a team is more likely to blackball an agent than for an agent to black ball a team. Agent gets paid by guys signing contracts.
Catchall
RealGM
Posts: 14,174
And1: 6,396
Joined: Jul 06, 2008
     

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#128 » by Catchall » Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:09 am

kobe_vs_jordan wrote:
Catchall wrote:
HardenToSixers wrote:Broken system with too much player leverage


If agents are really telling teams, "Give my player a buyout so he can join the Lakers, or I won't send you any more of my players," then that is a problem.

Why would an agent create a problem for other clients to help one client? Most agents clients aren't stars, a role player can't work with an agent that is black balling teams.

Think a team is more likely to blackball an agent than for an agent to black ball a team. Agent gets paid by guys signing contracts.


So you didn't read the SI article.
He/Him, Dude, Bro, Bruh
User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,450
And1: 5,481
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#129 » by Scoot McGroot » Tue Mar 30, 2021 2:04 pm

Prospect Dong wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:
jbk1234 wrote: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.


Some problems are tough to fix, others are easier. There will always be guys willing to take a discount to play somewhere they want to be. That's a long term problem for competitive balance, but what are you going to do?

But if guys don't care about money because they are already being paid by another team choose teams solely on the basis of location, that both a bigger problem and an easier fix: you don't let them become UFAs while still under contract with another team, instead you put in place a process to determine who they play with for the period for which they are under contract, just like the NBA did post-amnesty when game-breaking guys like Charlie Bell hit the open market.

The continued existence of another, similar problem isn't an argument against fixing this one.


Drummond didn’t become a UFA while under contract with the Cavs. By definition, he became a free agent because the Cavaliers found it mutually beneficial to end his contract. Then they waived him. At that point, he’s no longer under contract to the Cavaliers.

In a way, we’re creating a system of indentured servitude, where a player cannot leave for anotherteam, even if fired/bought out/waived buy his current team, so long as the team doesn’t wish him to play elsewhere. Or a reserve clause system where every player is kind of a restricted free agent, as signing them would require payment to their former team, as if they’re eternally their property.
User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,450
And1: 5,481
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#130 » by Scoot McGroot » Tue Mar 30, 2021 2:09 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:
Prospect Dong wrote:
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


And most buyout guys are cooked.

But, sure, Drummond is 27 and I’ll ignore the contract size, as a ton of guys bought out every year are on $25m + deals. Just this year, Blake and Aldridge were on huge deals and bought out. But the Cavs decided that they valued Drummond’s impact on the court SO LITTLE, that they were willing to let him go for essentially nothing....just a pro-rated vet minimum. They didn’t have to. They felt it was best for them. Do we instead disallow any buyout/waivers during the season? Whatever 14 or 15 you have is the only ones you can have all year? Disallow 3 for 1 deals midseason, as it would require waiving guys, and that could make potentially useful guys for someone else a free agent?

I get that it stinks to see teams get “free help” midseason, but it’s a system designed where players, once no longer under contract, have free agency rights. Either we have free agency, or we don’t. That’s what the discussion entails. And if the owners want to negotiate such things into the CBA, I imagine we’re going to have an awful long lockout, and we’ll likely see replacement players for multiple seasons. This isn’t like discussing revenue split 1 percentage point at a time. It attacks the very right of free agency that players fought for so long ago.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 41,418
And1: 23,850
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#131 » by jbk1234 » Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:54 pm

Scoot McGroot wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:
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


And most buyout guys are cooked.

But, sure, Drummond is 27 and I’ll ignore the contract size, as a ton of guys bought out every year are on $25m + deals. Just this year, Blake and Aldridge were on huge deals and bought out. But the Cavs decided that they valued Drummond’s impact on the court SO LITTLE, that they were willing to let him go for essentially nothing....just a pro-rated vet minimum. They didn’t have to. They felt it was best for them. Do we instead disallow any buyout/waivers during the season? Whatever 14 or 15 you have is the only ones you can have all year? Disallow 3 for 1 deals midseason, as it would require waiving guys, and that could make potentially useful guys for someone else a free agent?

I get that it stinks to see teams get “free help” midseason, but it’s a system designed where players, once no longer under contract, have free agency rights. Either we have free agency, or we don’t. That’s what the discussion entails. And if the owners want to negotiate such things into the CBA, I imagine we’re going to have an awful long lockout, and we’ll likely see replacement players for multiple seasons. This isn’t like discussing revenue split 1 percentage point at a time. It attacks the very right of free agency that players fought for so long ago.


This is probably the area of disagreement. It's true that the Cavs could've said no, you're coming off the bench or you're giving back real money, but there would have been real consequences for the Cavs, as there would have for almost any mid market team. The decision to let him sit out was, at best, *mutual* after Drummond manifested his displeasure and at worse not really much of a choice on the Cavs end. Draymond Green goes on an uniformed rant and you saw how that played with the usual suspects in sports media. Fast forward past the deadline and the Cavs are releasing a public statement that reads like a hostage plea thanking Drummond for the privilege of paying 99 cents on the dollars so he can go play for the Lakers.

As others have noted, this is why this situation needs to be addressed via the CBA. You can't ask individual teams, particularly ones who would like to exit a rebuild sooner rather than later, to risk years in the F.A. equivalent of Siberia. Make no mistake about it though Jeff Scwhartz will hold up getting Drummond paid his entire contract and getting him to the defending champs as a trophy when it comes to recruiting other players.
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.
Waynearchetype
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,467
And1: 580
Joined: Feb 21, 2011

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#132 » by Waynearchetype » Tue Mar 30, 2021 4:10 pm

Buyouts are a small part of the larger talent parity problem. With our current max contract % of cap, you have a situation where people like CJ McCollum make as much as people like Kyrie Irving. This creates a scenario that forces the top flight of players to look for money outside the NBA contract in larger markets because of the artificial limitation. Let teams spend a larger % of their cap on a single player, and then you'll see players needing to make actual financial decisions in regards to whether they want to team up with other top players or not.

You'd get more parity, less boring games, and better head to head matchups.
User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,450
And1: 5,481
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#133 » by Scoot McGroot » Tue Mar 30, 2021 4:21 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:
jbk1234 wrote: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


And most buyout guys are cooked.

But, sure, Drummond is 27 and I’ll ignore the contract size, as a ton of guys bought out every year are on $25m + deals. Just this year, Blake and Aldridge were on huge deals and bought out. But the Cavs decided that they valued Drummond’s impact on the court SO LITTLE, that they were willing to let him go for essentially nothing....just a pro-rated vet minimum. They didn’t have to. They felt it was best for them. Do we instead disallow any buyout/waivers during the season? Whatever 14 or 15 you have is the only ones you can have all year? Disallow 3 for 1 deals midseason, as it would require waiving guys, and that could make potentially useful guys for someone else a free agent?

I get that it stinks to see teams get “free help” midseason, but it’s a system designed where players, once no longer under contract, have free agency rights. Either we have free agency, or we don’t. That’s what the discussion entails. And if the owners want to negotiate such things into the CBA, I imagine we’re going to have an awful long lockout, and we’ll likely see replacement players for multiple seasons. This isn’t like discussing revenue split 1 percentage point at a time. It attacks the very right of free agency that players fought for so long ago.


This is probably the area of disagreement. It's true that the Cavs could've said no, you're coming off the bench or you're giving back real money, but there would have been real consequences for the Cavs, as there would have for almost any mid market team. The decision to let him sit out was, at best, *mutual* after Drummond manifested his displeasure and at worse not really much of a choice on the Cavs end. Draymond Green goes on an uniformed rant and you saw how that played with the usual suspects in sports media. Fast forward past the deadline and the Cavs are releasing a public statement that reads like a hostage plea thanking Drummond for the privilege of paying 99 cents on the dollars so he can go play for the Lakers.

As others have noted, this is why this situation needs to be addressed via the CBA. You can't ask individual teams, particularly ones who would like to exit a rebuild sooner rather than later, to risk years in the F.A. equivalent of Siberia. Make no mistake about it though Jeff Scwhartz will hold up getting Drummond paid his entire contract and getting him to the defending champs as a trophy when it comes to recruiting other players.


By definition, a buyout is mutual. 100%. And yes, there would’ve been consequences to the Cavs holding firm to their buyout demands, but in giving up quickly and easily, these are also the consequences to not standing firm. They just can’t have it both ways. You may view it as extortion, but the Cavs placed value in just being done with Drummond, too.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 41,418
And1: 23,850
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#134 » by jbk1234 » Tue Mar 30, 2021 4:23 pm

Scoot McGroot wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:
And most buyout guys are cooked.

But, sure, Drummond is 27 and I’ll ignore the contract size, as a ton of guys bought out every year are on $25m + deals. Just this year, Blake and Aldridge were on huge deals and bought out. But the Cavs decided that they valued Drummond’s impact on the court SO LITTLE, that they were willing to let him go for essentially nothing....just a pro-rated vet minimum. They didn’t have to. They felt it was best for them. Do we instead disallow any buyout/waivers during the season? Whatever 14 or 15 you have is the only ones you can have all year? Disallow 3 for 1 deals midseason, as it would require waiving guys, and that could make potentially useful guys for someone else a free agent?

I get that it stinks to see teams get “free help” midseason, but it’s a system designed where players, once no longer under contract, have free agency rights. Either we have free agency, or we don’t. That’s what the discussion entails. And if the owners want to negotiate such things into the CBA, I imagine we’re going to have an awful long lockout, and we’ll likely see replacement players for multiple seasons. This isn’t like discussing revenue split 1 percentage point at a time. It attacks the very right of free agency that players fought for so long ago.


This is probably the area of disagreement. It's true that the Cavs could've said no, you're coming off the bench or you're giving back real money, but there would have been real consequences for the Cavs, as there would have for almost any mid market team. The decision to let him sit out was, at best, *mutual* after Drummond manifested his displeasure and at worse not really much of a choice on the Cavs end. Draymond Green goes on an uniformed rant and you saw how that played with the usual suspects in sports media. Fast forward past the deadline and the Cavs are releasing a public statement that reads like a hostage plea thanking Drummond for the privilege of paying 99 cents on the dollars so he can go play for the Lakers.

As others have noted, this is why this situation needs to be addressed via the CBA. You can't ask individual teams, particularly ones who would like to exit a rebuild sooner rather than later, to risk years in the F.A. equivalent of Siberia. Make no mistake about it though Jeff Scwhartz will hold up getting Drummond paid his entire contract and getting him to the defending champs as a trophy when it comes to recruiting other players.


By definition, a buyout is mutual. 100%. And yes, there would’ve been consequences to the Cavs holding firm to their buyout demands, but in giving up quickly and easily, these are also the consequences to not standing firm. They just can’t have it both ways. You may view it as extortion, but the Cavs placed value in just being done with Drummond, too.


If part of the value is not having to face the consequences of the extortion, then that's not really what I, nor the law, would view as a consensual agreement.
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#135 » by Scoot McGroot » Tue Mar 30, 2021 5:23 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
This is probably the area of disagreement. It's true that the Cavs could've said no, you're coming off the bench or you're giving back real money, but there would have been real consequences for the Cavs, as there would have for almost any mid market team. The decision to let him sit out was, at best, *mutual* after Drummond manifested his displeasure and at worse not really much of a choice on the Cavs end. Draymond Green goes on an uniformed rant and you saw how that played with the usual suspects in sports media. Fast forward past the deadline and the Cavs are releasing a public statement that reads like a hostage plea thanking Drummond for the privilege of paying 99 cents on the dollars so he can go play for the Lakers.

As others have noted, this is why this situation needs to be addressed via the CBA. You can't ask individual teams, particularly ones who would like to exit a rebuild sooner rather than later, to risk years in the F.A. equivalent of Siberia. Make no mistake about it though Jeff Scwhartz will hold up getting Drummond paid his entire contract and getting him to the defending champs as a trophy when it comes to recruiting other players.


By definition, a buyout is mutual. 100%. And yes, there would’ve been consequences to the Cavs holding firm to their buyout demands, but in giving up quickly and easily, these are also the consequences to not standing firm. They just can’t have it both ways. You may view it as extortion, but the Cavs placed value in just being done with Drummond, too.


If part of the value is not having to face the consequences of the extortion, then that's not really what I, nor the law, would view as a consensual agreement.



It’s only extortion as much as a voluntary boycott of Amazon is extortion. As in, it’s absolutely not legal extortion.

Also, agents will eventually have to work with you. There’s only so many roster spots and so many slots they’re guys can get minutes to excel. I say this as a fellow small market fan. You can choose to exercise your contractual rights or waive them. But wanting both sides, the right to exercise your contractual rights and also restricting the other sides contractual rights isn’t legal either.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 41,418
And1: 23,850
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#136 » by jbk1234 » Tue Mar 30, 2021 5:56 pm

Scoot McGroot wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:
By definition, a buyout is mutual. 100%. And yes, there would’ve been consequences to the Cavs holding firm to their buyout demands, but in giving up quickly and easily, these are also the consequences to not standing firm. They just can’t have it both ways. You may view it as extortion, but the Cavs placed value in just being done with Drummond, too.


If part of the value is not having to face the consequences of the extortion, then that's not really what I, nor the law, would view as a consensual agreement.



It’s only extortion as much as a voluntary boycott of Amazon is extortion. As in, it’s absolutely not legal extortion.

Also, agents will eventually have to work with you. There’s only so many roster spots and so many slots they’re guys can get minutes to excel. I say this as a fellow small market fan. You can choose to exercise your contractual rights or waive them. But wanting both sides, the right to exercise your contractual rights and also restricting the other sides contractual rights isn’t legal either.


What people are suggesting is that the CBA be changed to account for this dynamic. It's easy to point to another mid market team and say someone really needs to jump in the volcano to stop this and that someone should be you.

It has a holistic effect that people are overly dismissive of IMO. The Pelicans would love to get off of Bledsoe's contract but it's proving too expensive to dump because while he'd be fine as a backup, he's not going to do that for a rebuilding team. The receiving team is pricing in the reality of buying Bledsoe out, perhaps for the full amount of his contract, and asking to be compensated for that. If there was a minimum buyout, as there is a maximum buyout, then the receiving team could point to it and say the keys to your freedom are under your control. But expectations and norms matter. A good third of the NBA is old, getting older, and on deals that far exceed their on-the-court worth.
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#137 » by Texas Chuck » Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:12 pm

jbk1234 wrote: A good third of the NBA is old, getting older, and on deals that far exceed their on-the-court worth.


This is not remotely true.
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#138 » by jbk1234 » Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:22 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:
jbk1234 wrote: A good third of the NBA is old, getting older, and on deals that far exceed their on-the-court worth.


This is not remotely true.


It would be more accurate to describe it as a good third of the cap space is tied up on players who fit that description.
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#139 » by Texas Chuck » Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:26 pm

That's not true either. Though I get that a fan of a team paying Love and Drummond almost $60M this year would get that idea.

But Atlanta, Boston, Brooklyn, Charlotte, Chicago, Indiana, Miami, Milwaukee, New York, Orlando, Philly, and Toronto aren't close to this leaving only Cleveland, Detroit, and Washington in this boat in the East.

In the West, Houston and potentially Golden State are the only teams this applies to.

I get how this has impacted you personally with the Cavs, but you are projecting too much from that.
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#140 » by jbk1234 » Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:07 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:That's not true either. Though I get that a fan of a team paying Love and Drummond almost $60M this year would get that idea.

But Atlanta, Boston, Brooklyn, Charlotte, Chicago, Indiana, Miami, Milwaukee, New York, Orlando, Philly, and Toronto aren't close to this leaving only Cleveland, Detroit, and Washington in this boat in the East.

In the West, Houston and potentially Golden State are the only teams this applies to.

I get how this has impacted you personally with the Cavs, but you are projecting too much from that.


Boston has Kemba.

Charlotte is paying Batum $30M, now stretched over three years, to play for the Clippers. They're a Hayward injury away from real trouble.

The Bucks can't let Jrue walk. He'll be on the list next year.

Philly has T. Harris.

If you don't think Lowry's current contract, and his expectations for his next contract, impacted his trade value, then we'll just have disagree. But if they bring him back at the contract he wants, or if any team gives it to him, Lowry goes on the list.

In the West:

The Blazers have McCollumn.

The Pelicans have Bledsoe and Adams is inching closer.

I don't have Morris on the Clippers as positive value -certainly not for a rebuilding team.

The Jazz are in the last year of Conley's $34M deal and will have the same salary with Conley at zero next year. So the Jazz are probably going to have to bring him back at a negative value deal.

OKC has Horford.

No rebuilding team is going to want to trade for any of these players without factoring in whether they're going to have to buy these guys out, and how much it will cost to do so. Then add in Love, Wall, Westbrook, and possibly Klay depending on how he looks. That's a lot of cap space tied up with guys over 30. Now if guys on bad deals who are under 30 join the club, and want near a hundred cents on the dollar for a buyout to go play elsewhere, and you're going to have a real problem.
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.

Return to Trades and Transactions