Anyone else pissed off?

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

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

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#141 » by kobe_vs_jordan » Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:13 pm

Not seeing what a cba solution for a player with no trade value and a team not wanting to take longer money back.

Even if Lowry in the extreme case ends up bought it, are we blaming Lowry and his agent for raptors not dealing him.
User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,450
And1: 5,481
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#142 » by Scoot McGroot » Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:49 pm

kobe_vs_jordan wrote:Not seeing what a cba solution for a player with no trade value and a team not wanting to take longer money back.

Even if Lowry in the extreme case ends up bought it, are we blaming Lowry and his agent for raptors not dealing him.


Agreed. Even if we round way up and say it’s a third of NBA contracts that are bloated, how come only a handful of contracts a year are bought out? They’re either traded, outlasted, or built around. Bad, or excessive contracts, are an owner issue. It’s not the players (or employees, rather) responsibility to practice fiscal constraint on behalf of their employers and demand they get paid less.
the_process
RealGM
Posts: 19,646
And1: 4,798
Joined: May 01, 2010

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#143 » by the_process » Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:50 pm

Scoot McGroot wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:
It’s fair for the teams, but takes any and all free will from the players from their own “free agency”. If someone wasnts to claim their contract on waivers, they’re free to do so. But these guys have no chance to say “I’d love to be by my kids in xyz to finish the season, even if it costs me money” or whatnot in that hypothetical.
Here's my problem with that, Drummond had a player option. He was free to exercise it before the season began. He didn't. He could've been a good soldier when the Cavs told him they were starting Allen. He wasn't. The Cavs could've used him off the bench. Instead, the Cavs are paying, at least part of, the delta between the league minimum and his market value - so he can play for the Lakers.

And it's all well and good to talk about player empowerment and freedom of movement, but that's not what's happening. Players are taking as much guaranteed money, for as many years as they can get, and then deciding they'd like to play elsewhere while still under contract. I mean Drummond is going to be a free agent this summer.

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



And cleveland could have held him to the letter of his contract and brought him off the bench. They chose to let him go and avoid the mess/drama of possible suspensions, etc.

I personally hate the concept that if my boss fired me, I have to wait until they tell me where I have to live and work going forward, with no choice of my own.


Happens all the time in the entertainment and technology fields. No compete clauses.
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#144 » by Prospect Dong » Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:56 pm

Scoot McGroot wrote:
Prospect Dong wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:
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.


Every player and every team has obligations both under the contract they signed between themselves and to the league as a whole via the collective bargaining agreement to which they are also a party. The CBA places restrictions on what teams and players can do under their separate contracts all the time. We can argue about what's fair, sure, but let's not begin from a presumption that NBA contracts are just mutual agreements between players and teams.

One thing neither a player nor a team can do is to unilaterally declare that they want to terminate their contract and become a free agent. At the moment, what the CBA says is if they do mutually agree to terminate a contract that player still doesn't become a free agent. Every team in the league then has the option to forcibly take over the rights to that player's contract at their current salary. This may or may not be indentured servitude (note: it isn't) but it's how things work right now. A player can't just get together with their team and decide to become a UFA, that's a status granted by the CBA and it has views...

Now, most people on this thread seem to think the CBA should change to make clearing waivers work differently, so that players are less likely to end up as UFAs after the mutual termination of a contract, on the basis that it would improve competitive balance. These new rules would join the 9,000 existing rules which impinge on the freedom of contract between players and teams for that same purpose - including the existing waiver rules.

So this is very much in line with how the league already interferes with freedom of contract, and mirrors what it did last time it foresaw a big problem with good players getting waived.

Is it too tough on players to tell them they don't have a free choice over what team to play for? We can argue about that, sure, but my view is that players spend a lot of time having to chose from a limited set of teams based on the limits placed on them by the CBA. This would be another one, and that probably sucks if you like LA and/or want a ring, but it doesn't extend beyond the length of the contract they signed. If you want to be a UFA regularly, sign short deals. You sign a long deal, you recognise that you become an asset managed by the terms of the CBA for the life of that deal, even if you manage to make yourself such a pain in the ass that your current team doesn't want you anymore...
"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
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,450
And1: 5,481
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#145 » by Scoot McGroot » Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:36 pm

Prospect Dong wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:
Prospect Dong wrote:
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.


Every player and every team has obligations both under the contract they signed between themselves and to the league as a whole via the collective bargaining agreement to which they are also a party. The CBA places restrictions on what teams and players can do under their separate contracts all the time. We can argue about what's fair, sure, but let's not begin from a presumption that NBA contracts are just mutual agreements between players and teams.

One thing neither a player nor a team can do is to unilaterally declare that they want to terminate their contract and become a free agent. At the moment, what the CBA says is if they do mutually agree to terminate a contract that player still doesn't become a free agent. Every team in the league then has the option to forcibly take over the rights to that player's contract at their current salary. This may or may not be indentured servitude (note: it isn't) but it's how things work right now. A player can't just get together with their team and decide to become a UFA, that's a status granted by the CBA and it has views...
.

Sure, a player or team can’t just unilaterally pull a Michael Scott and “I DECLARE FREE AGENCY!” It. But, they can agree to buyout the contract, end the terms of the contract, and get put on waivers. If they are claimed, they’re claimed. Sure. If they clear waivers, they are free agents. But now, we’re arguing in this thread that they should NOT be free agents, but still be property of the team to be assigned as they wish.
Now, most people on this thread seem to think the CBA should change to make clearing waivers work differently, so that players are less likely to end up as UFAs after the mutual termination of a contract, on the basis that it would improve competitive balance. These new rules would join the 9,000 existing rules which impinge on the freedom of contract between players and teams for that same purpose - including the existing waiver rules.

So this is very much in line with how the league already interferes with freedom of contract, and mirrors what it did last time it foresaw a big problem with good players getting waived.

Is it too tough on players to tell them they don't have a free choice over what team to play for? We can argue about that, sure, but my view is that players spend a lot of time having to chose from a limited set of teams based on the limits placed on them by the CBA. This would be another one, and that probably sucks if you like LA and/or want a ring, but it doesn't extend beyond the length of the contract they signed. If you want to be a UFA regularly, sign short deals. You sign a long deal, you recognise that you become an asset managed by the terms of the CBA for the life of that deal, even if you manage to make yourself such a pain in the ass that your current team doesn't want you anymore...


So, because one layer of waivers exists, you think the NBA can and should unilaterally impose a new, second layer of waivers, controlling where players can play? Ok. Bring it up in the next lockout and see where it goes.

And free agency allows a player to choose anywhere to play in the league. Sure, teams may lack cap space, but players can choose to accept less to play somewhere, or to accept a different exception, or teams figure out how to game the system to acquire their guy. Miami didn’t have cap space to sign Jimmy Butler when he committed to play for them in free agency. They figured it out. Or, in terms of taking less, we’ve seen it happen before, and we’re against it right now in this thread for Drummond taking “less” (in theory, we don’t know what he may have been offered elsewhere, if he was even offered other contracts) to play in a city of his choice for a starting spot on a playoff team.


What are we offering the players to yield the existence of free agency in season, and allow the league and teams to unilaterally place them anywhere? Higher BRI? Longer contracts? Higher max salaries? Won’t that just lead to more contracts being bought out?
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#146 » by Prospect Dong » Wed Mar 31, 2021 12:01 am

Scoot McGroot wrote:
Prospect Dong wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:
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.


Every player and every team has obligations both under the contract they signed between themselves and to the league as a whole via the collective bargaining agreement to which they are also a party. The CBA places restrictions on what teams and players can do under their separate contracts all the time. We can argue about what's fair, sure, but let's not begin from a presumption that NBA contracts are just mutual agreements between players and teams.

One thing neither a player nor a team can do is to unilaterally declare that they want to terminate their contract and become a free agent. At the moment, what the CBA says is if they do mutually agree to terminate a contract that player still doesn't become a free agent. Every team in the league then has the option to forcibly take over the rights to that player's contract at their current salary. This may or may not be indentured servitude (note: it isn't) but it's how things work right now. A player can't just get together with their team and decide to become a UFA, that's a status granted by the CBA and it has views...
.

Sure, a player or team can’t just unilaterally pull a Michael Scott and “I DECLARE FREE AGENCY!” It. But, they can agree to buyout the contract, end the terms of the contract, and get put on waivers. If they are claimed, they’re claimed. Sure. If they clear waivers, they are free agents. But now, we’re arguing in this thread that they should NOT be free agents, but still be property of the team to be assigned as they wish.
Now, most people on this thread seem to think the CBA should change to make clearing waivers work differently, so that players are less likely to end up as UFAs after the mutual termination of a contract, on the basis that it would improve competitive balance. These new rules would join the 9,000 existing rules which impinge on the freedom of contract between players and teams for that same purpose - including the existing waiver rules.

So this is very much in line with how the league already interferes with freedom of contract, and mirrors what it did last time it foresaw a big problem with good players getting waived.

Is it too tough on players to tell them they don't have a free choice over what team to play for? We can argue about that, sure, but my view is that players spend a lot of time having to chose from a limited set of teams based on the limits placed on them by the CBA. This would be another one, and that probably sucks if you like LA and/or want a ring, but it doesn't extend beyond the length of the contract they signed. If you want to be a UFA regularly, sign short deals. You sign a long deal, you recognise that you become an asset managed by the terms of the CBA for the life of that deal, even if you manage to make yourself such a pain in the ass that your current team doesn't want you anymore...


So, because one layer of waivers exists, you think the NBA can and should unilaterally impose a new, second layer of waivers, controlling where players can play? Ok. Bring it up in the next lockout and see where it goes.

And free agency allows a player to choose anywhere to play in the league. Sure, teams may lack cap space, but players can choose to accept less to play somewhere, or to accept a different exception, or teams figure out how to game the system to acquire their guy. Miami didn’t have cap space to sign Jimmy Butler when he committed to play for them in free agency. They figured it out. Or, in terms of taking less, we’ve seen it happen before, and we’re against it right now in this thread for Drummond taking “less” (in theory, we don’t know what he may have been offered elsewhere, if he was even offered other contracts) to play in a city of his choice for a starting spot on a playoff team.


What are we offering the players to yield the existence of free agency in season, and allow the league and teams to unilaterally place them anywhere? Higher BRI? Longer contracts? Higher max salaries? Won’t that just lead to more contracts being bought out?


Yes, this is a thread about trying to reduce the impact of buyout guys choosing the same set of teams and upsetting the competitive balance.

The only real way to do that, other than just encouraging teams not to do it (don't do it, teams!), is to change the existing rules, which restrict when a player can become a free agent, to a slightly different set of rules which also restrict when a player can become a free agent. I'm not sure where "unilaterally" comes in - changing the league's rules on clearing waivers feels like a question for the league, but, yes, this is a thread where people are suggesting a change to the CBA.

I think that covers the "can" part of the question, right?

Should they do it? That's obviously a big part of this thread, and I think maybe all the stuff about freedom of contract has distracted people from actually wrestling with that. Without going through it all again (the lakers won the championship playing buyout guys 36mpg in the playoffs, and, contrary to suggestions elsewhere in the thread, Lebron doesn't automatically win the championship every year), I agree that we do need to balance player freedom against competitive balance. To me, this is a big enough deal that making players play out their contract with a team determined by the CBA, not by them, is a reasonable measure. But we can discuss that separately, maybe I'm underrating the relative value of that freedom.

I think you'd instead like to talk about how it would be hard to get the players' association to agree to this change. Maybe, I guess. I think the league should be willing to give something back to get a small number of players to give up the freedom to ring chase before their contract expires, but I'm not the league. How tough that negotiation is probably depends on how many buyout guys there are who teams view as an asset worth fighting over, and it seems like you think that number is small...

But maybe we end up at "the league should fix this, even though it hurts players a little, but they're never going to make it a priority". We're arguing on the internet; that's an acceptable outcome.

But it's different from "the league can't fix this because of freedom of contract/the league shouldn't fix this because it doesn't influence competitive balance Lebron will always win the championship anyway"
"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
dakomish23
RealGM
Posts: 43,464
And1: 28,947
Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Location: Empire State
     

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#147 » by dakomish23 » Wed Mar 31, 2021 12:27 am

I have zero problem with ring chasing. I do hate that teams are still left paying hefty sums for the guys they let go.

Yeah, they get some money back, but I wouldn’t be mad if the NBA said you can add the player to your roster but you gotta eat part of the salary.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1592147&start=1720#p57345128
the_process
RealGM
Posts: 19,646
And1: 4,798
Joined: May 01, 2010

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#148 » by the_process » Fri Apr 2, 2021 3:20 am

Just require teams to use cap space and only cap space to sign buyout guys. No exceptions.

Then we have a true test. Is Drummond asking out to sign with the Knicks? Doubtful. He just stays in CLE, probably goes home and gets paid like Horford.
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#149 » by Texas Chuck » Fri Apr 2, 2021 3:31 am

Prospect Dong wrote:But it's different from "the league can't fix this because of freedom of contract/the league shouldn't fix this because it doesn't influence competitive balance Lebron will always win the championship anyway"


Your need to be this reductive doesn't incline one to discuss something with you unfortunately. You continue to cite Dwight Howard even though his situation is completely different(and that difference has been made clear to you which you acknowledged to a point but are now regurgitating the 35 mpg claim) and you continue to build a straw man about others position being Lebron winning the championship every year which isn't remotely the same as someone pointing out Lebron and AD to be far more significant factors than Markief Morris.

I'm open to a disagreement about if this is a problem(I think no, you think yes, most agree with you) and how big of a priority it is to fix(again I don't see a problem in need of as solution, you think strongly enough to suggest preventing buyouts altogether---if I am understanding what making them play out their contract means(assuming it doesn't mean they can't be traded)).

But let's deal with each other's actual positions(so again still don't think Peja is a standard bearer for any of this either :D ), Feels like a standard policy for arguing on the internet--at least in my experience.
bondom34 wrote:This is stupid and you know this is stupid.
User avatar
gambitx777
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,682
And1: 669
Joined: Dec 18, 2012

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#150 » by gambitx777 » Fri Apr 2, 2021 3:36 am

I would have respected him more if he took the money NYK could have given him in stead.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app
Topofthekey
Starter
Posts: 2,346
And1: 900
Joined: Nov 18, 2017

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#151 » by Topofthekey » Fri Apr 2, 2021 5:16 am

Actually, to me the bigger problem is players intentionally playing terrible, until they get a trade to their team of choice

Look back at the entire Kawhi saga

He intentionally missed games with the Spurs, in order to force their hand

The way he went on to play for the Raptors after being traded there clearly showed that his injury issues were overblown

He simply didn't want to play for the Spurs

It's a reason why the Spurs chose to spite him and trade him to the Raptors instead of LA, and it's a reason why Raptors managed to acquire Kawhi for a relatively cheap price

Blake Griffin more or less did the same thing this season

James Harden too, is another example

He went from playing meh to playing at an mvp level after getting traded to the Nets

The problem with this is, there is pretty much nothing you can do about it

It's not like you can prove that a player is intentionally playing worse than he is capable of
User avatar
Prokorov
RealGM
Posts: 38,232
And1: 12,594
Joined: Dec 06, 2013
       

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#152 » by Prokorov » Fri Apr 2, 2021 6:35 am

penbeast0 wrote:Anyone else pissed off that Andre Drummond who is averaging 17.5 points and 13.5 rebounds gets a nudge, nudge, wink, wink buyout so he can go to the Lakers for the minimum and not count against their cap?


No. Drummond is terrible and only hurts a teams chances. hopefully he gets well soon enough to derail a lakers chance at a repeat
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#153 » by Prospect Dong » Thu Apr 8, 2021 4:41 am

Texas Chuck wrote:
Prospect Dong wrote:But it's different from "the league can't fix this because of freedom of contract/the league shouldn't fix this because it doesn't influence competitive balance Lebron will always win the championship anyway"


Your need to be this reductive doesn't incline one to discuss something with you unfortunately. You continue to cite Dwight Howard even though his situation is completely different(and that difference has been made clear to you which you acknowledged to a point but are now regurgitating the 35 mpg claim) and you continue to build a straw man about others position being Lebron winning the championship every year which isn't remotely the same as someone pointing out Lebron and AD to be far more significant factors than Markief Morris.

I'm open to a disagreement about if this is a problem(I think no, you think yes, most agree with you) and how big of a priority it is to fix(again I don't see a problem in need of as solution, you think strongly enough to suggest preventing buyouts altogether---if I am understanding what making them play out their contract means(assuming it doesn't mean they can't be traded)).

But let's deal with each other's actual positions(so again still don't think Peja is a standard bearer for any of this either :D ), Feels like a standard policy for arguing on the internet--at least in my experience.


Chuck, for the most part I think this is a reasonable disagreement, and I don't think your position is ridiculous or anything like that. What has got me (maybe unnecessarily) antsy is that there's some pretty good new evidence that buyout guys can move the needle for playoff teams and you don't seem to have balanced that against what you thought a couple of years ago. It's fine to say "sure buyout guys played significant minutes with the lakers when they won it all last season, but I still don't think this is that big of a deal", but it's felt to me like you just want to make "move the needle" (and "buyout guy" for that matter) a moving target.

Like, "Lebron and AD [are] far more significant factors than Markief Morris" is a really high bar - teams add players who are worse than those two all the time, and sometimes I still think it's something that might have big playoff implications. But that's not even what you said:

Lebron being in the Finals every year seems like something much more significant than the 8th in minutes guy


So the lakers won the championship not because they got guys on the buyout market, but because Lebron is always in the finals. Sure, it's just a tossed-off observation on your part, and I'm being unfair by using it to summarise your whole case; but it's not a straw man and it doesn't sound much like how you tried to paraphrase it in your "let's accurately summarise each other's positions" post.

As for Dwight: I think he's kinda a "buyout guy" (because he was "bought out") and you think he's not at all a "buyout guy", because he was bought out when lots of teams had cap space. I'm not wholly persuaded by the link between "buyout guy" and "little available cap space" because those guys normally sign for the min anyway; but I also think that arguing about the precise definition of terms we both basically just made up is a huge waste of time. So here's my position expressed using your definition:

I think buyout guys and guys like Dwight Howard do upset the league's competitive balance enough that we should try to find a simple solution that prevents them from congregating on big market/contending teams. Therefore I think the league should change its waiver for procedure for buyout guys and guys like Dwight Howard so that there are more restrictions on when they can choose which team to sign with at the minimum salary. I've floated a bunch of options, including the existing amnesty waiver wire, or giving teams a single biannual exception to sign a buyout guy (and guys like Dwight Howard) for the min. I'm bothered enough that I'd consider just removing the ability to enter free agency entirely, but I'm way less sure about that.

I do think player freedom matters and I think the league is better when good players like LMA and Drummond are in the playoffs instead of sitting at home.

Deciding whether you disagree with me, personally, requires you to have an opinion on the impact of buyout guys and guys like Dwight Howard, because that's the problem I'm proposing to fix. No one's under any obligation to debate just me, personally, but if they do they need to disagree with my diagnosis of the problem and/or my suggested fix. Maybe "buyouts are restricted all the time" is so broad that it wouldn't convince even the other people who think post deadline buyout are a problem, and I'd be interested to hear those arguments.

But I've consistently said that Dwight and co are both part of my problem and my solution - you can engage with the overall thread on other terms, but not really with me.
"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#154 » by Texas Chuck » Thu Apr 8, 2021 4:53 am

Prospect Dong wrote:But I've consistently said that Dwight and co are both part of my problem and my solution - you can engage with the overall thread on other terms, but not really with me.


Don't have the time right now to flesh out a full response, but did see the notification and wanted to acknowledge your post and will respond further tomorrow.

On the Lebron stuff briefly--other than 2 years ago when he got hurt he has been in the Finals literally every year for the past decade so that was simply a recording of history. But he's only won the title 4x in that time period, so even Lebron James isn't a guarantee. And he didn't just lose to the Warriors GOAT level teams, but also to the 11 Mavs and the 14 Spurs both great teams certainly, but not an unthinkable level of talent.

So I think I can rightfully say Lebron has basically equaled Finals for a decade while decidedly not saying Lebron equals championship. It's a fine distinction perhaps, but one worth making considering his less than 50% success rate once getting there.


But seeing your explanation I need to acknowledge that you, in fact, were not being reductive as I accused you of, and I need to own that and apologize for being overly harsh.

The Howard stuff I'll hash more in a longer response tomorrow as that's a more substantive debate and not just me having shown my ass a little bit.
bondom34 wrote:This is stupid and you know this is stupid.
TheNewEra
RealGM
Posts: 24,358
And1: 7,689
Joined: Aug 28, 2008
Location: Lob City
       

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#155 » by TheNewEra » Thu Apr 8, 2021 5:09 am

Watching Blake dunk like crazy again on social media I quite the experience. With that said I can absolutely see there being a buyout rule coming soon that each team is only allowed one buyout player per season.

Buyout player being any player that had some type of agreement to have contract modified but allows players that are cut to have more freedom of selection
hoosierdaddy34
Veteran
Posts: 2,941
And1: 2,495
Joined: Dec 05, 2016
 

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#156 » by hoosierdaddy34 » Thu Apr 8, 2021 6:48 am

Cry more. The last thing this board needed was someone striking more false drama over this non-subject after we just got done with an entire week of this same tired post that deals more in emotions than actual facts.
ZombieKilla
Senior
Posts: 691
And1: 744
Joined: Jan 20, 2014
     

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#157 » by ZombieKilla » Thu Apr 8, 2021 2:45 pm

The Pistons should be pissed off that they are paying Griffin $60 Million to play for the Nets.
I think the NBA will fix this buyout nonsense soon.
Easy fix: Any player asking for buyout has to put it in writing, and then the team has the option of voiding the contract.
If the player wants to give up $60 M to play for the minimum, so be it.
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#158 » by Texas Chuck » Thu Apr 8, 2021 3:16 pm

Prospect Dong wrote:
Spoiler:
As for Dwight: I think he's kinda a "buyout guy" (because he was "bought out") and you think he's not at all a "buyout guy", because he was bought out when lots of teams had cap space. I'm not wholly persuaded by the link between "buyout guy" and "little available cap space" because those guys normally sign for the min anyway; but I also think that arguing about the precise definition of terms we both basically just made up is a huge waste of time. So here's my position expressed using your definition:

I think buyout guys and guys like Dwight Howard do upset the league's competitive balance enough that we should try to find a simple solution that prevents them from congregating on big market/contending teams. Therefore I think the league should change its waiver for procedure for buyout guys and guys like Dwight Howard so that there are more restrictions on when they can choose which team to sign with at the minimum salary. I've floated a bunch of options, including the existing amnesty waiver wire, or giving teams a single biannual exception to sign a buyout guy (and guys like Dwight Howard) for the min. I'm bothered enough that I'd consider just removing the ability to enter free agency entirely, but I'm way less sure about that.

I do think player freedom matters and I think the league is better when good players like LMA and Drummond are in the playoffs instead of sitting at home.

Deciding whether you disagree with me, personally, requires you to have an opinion on the impact of buyout guys and guys like Dwight Howard, because that's the problem I'm proposing to fix. No one's under any obligation to debate just me, personally, but if they do they need to disagree with my diagnosis of the problem and/or my suggested fix. Maybe "buyouts are restricted all the time" is so broad that it wouldn't convince even the other people who think post deadline buyout are a problem, and I'd be interested to hear those arguments.

But I've consistently said that Dwight and co are both part of my problem and my solution - you can engage with the overall thread on other terms, but not really with me.


So getting more into the meat of this which imo requires starting with Dwight Howard specifically. And how he became a Laker. He signs a big contract with the Hawks a move I think most of scratched our heads about when it happened and sure enough that was a bust and they trade him at a loss to the Hornets. Hornets spend a year with him and trade him to the Nets who took him solely as a financial move as they immediately buy him out. Then he signs a small contract with the Wizards who trade him for the corpse of CJ Miles and the Grizzlies buy him out less than 60 days earlier.

Why is it important for me to go back that far on Dwight Howard? Because it goes to my point that buyout guys in general aren't huge difference makers. We had no less than 5 teams give up on Howard in a 2 year time frame. So when he hits free agency at the same time as everyone else and ends up signing a min contract with the Lakers I don't have this as a competitive balance issue. If Dwight Howard is insane value as a minimum player than he was positive value as a $5M player and Memphis wouldn't have bought him out, but traded him for value. Or Washington would have. Or they would have kept him to play basketball.

Now to Dwight's credit, he was a good player for the Lakers. Gave them 15 mpg as a rotation center and even started 7 games in the playoffs. Useful for sure. But I stand by my belief that he's not the difference between a Lakers title and not. Or really close to it.

And I still think he's very different from this thread, but am fine getting into a larger discussion with you that includes him since you don't believe the time is as relevant as I do.


But now let's pull back. And forget that Dwight was bought out. Wes Matthews and Marc Gasol both could have gotten more than min deals with the Lakers but are at a point in their career where trying to win a title was more important than slightly more money. Both have been pretty meh for the Lakers. Wes Matthews notably also signed cheap with the Bucks trying to win a title. David West opted out of $10M with the Pacers to play for the Spurs for the min to win a title. That failed so he signed with the Warriors superteam for a min. Richard Jefferson agreed to terms with Dallas when they signed DeAndre the first time but when he backed out Jefferson went ring chasing with the Cavs and Lebron. Dwight Howard himself was reported to have re-signed with the Lakers for the min before signing with Philly for the min. Jeff Green signed with the Nets for the min.

So we are just always going to have veterans signing for cheap with the best teams trying to win. I don't see any reasonable way of preventing and disagree strongly that we should try and prevent it. They are free agents and shouldn't be forced to always choose money.


Which brings us back to what's gotten everyone so fired up -- the midseason buy outs. Obviously teams sign these players because they believe they will help. We've seen a lot of time arguing about how much they will help, but I would argue really that's irrelevant. So if you want to argue Dwight/Morris were essential to the Lakers title you can. If you think Blake/LMA or Drummond/Ben Mac will be essential this year, great. I would strongly disagree of course, but my position doesn't depend on that.

I just think if buying out those players makes sense for the team and the player then they should be allowed to do so. It's win/win for the teams and players. And then once a player is a free agent, they should be able to decide the best situation for themselves just like at any other time.
bondom34 wrote:This is stupid and you know this is stupid.
HartfordWhalers
Senior Mod - 76ers and NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - 76ers and NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 43,393
And1: 17,530
Joined: Apr 07, 2010
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#159 » by HartfordWhalers » Thu Apr 8, 2021 3:49 pm

Guy worth 5m taking vet money of 2m I won’t ever lose sleep over. And I don’t have this as a real difference maker.

Guy getting paid 30m and worth 15m; negative trade value clearly. Offers his old tanking team to go away for 5m; with no trade value and negative on the court value (team wants youth to play), this makes sense and you see a few of these buyouts.

But then a quasi difference maker is available for the vet min and at only a 5m discount to them.
Seems a bit too much arbitrage gained by the signing team.

Small fix would be allowing a waiver claim like amnesty bidding has been done; as I believe was mentioned earlier in thread.

If 30m player would give back 5m, but say the Knicks would sign them for 10m; then the player has a choice; give back 10.1m or get waiver claimed to the Knicks for 10m.
Would benefit the teams waiving players, and the teams with cap rooms and exceptions, at the cost to the bought out players and teams getting bought out players.

But I’m not sold we see enough of this to really care.
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 46,216
And1: 6,478
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#160 » by shrink » Thu Apr 8, 2021 3:50 pm

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

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

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

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

Return to Trades and Transactions