Anyone else pissed off?

[JasonStern]

Only way to really fix it is a hard cap and no max salary limit. Pay the superstars what they're worth, and they'd have to take a pretty serious pay cut to team up. Problem is that you have 450 players and 30 owners that agreed on the system we have. The few superstars worth 50%+ of the cap have the same voting rights as the Mario Hezonjas of the league, and taking cash out of their pockets to pay star players isn't in their best interest.

[Texas Chuck]

Teams play guys in roles other than what they want all the time. And what team has ever made it clear they are doing so to torpedo the free agency value of a guy they don't want? Makes no sense. They should want that player sucking money out of the market, they should want that agent happy, etc...

You guys are just making up scenarios that will never exist to justify your anger.

[shrink]

Name all the superstar players who aren't considering money when they choose a team? They are choosing money still.

This thread is totally wild to me. I just cannot get where you guys are with the sky falling all around us. It is not.

Several players have chosen to give hometown discounts, or team favorable deals. Huh?

You are not defending the right to work of 1920’s coal workers here.

This makes the opposite argument though. You were mad they were joining other teams but are now pointing out Duncan or Dirk taking less to stay home?

Confused what you are trying to say.

You said, “name players that aren’t considering money.” I pointed out many players don’t make that the ultimate consideration.

I noticed this problem when an aging Karl Malone and Gary Payton went and joined Shaq and Kobe on the Lakers. Even at their age, they could have gone elsewhere for more than the minimum, but they wanted rings. They still didn’t get them, but that had less to do with them than with Shaq and Kobe.

But the bigger one, and I can’t remember the name .. big man, starter, went south to be with a contender .. signed for significantly less than his market value to be on a contender. Can anyone name this guy for me? Here you had a player that would affect a team. And as I said, turning a playoffs is even easier, where one good run can tip a series.

The main problem here is that the CBA tries to establish league parity based on the false idea that players will go to the team that pays them the most. We design this parity through rules on the salary cap, lux, etc. However, money is not the only reason a team signs with a team, and many will take a cheaper-than-market deal to go play where they want. That hurts parity. If this happens during true summer free agency, that’s bad enough - at least the players pay the sting of the cheaper contract for a full year. If it happens through the buyout market, there is little disincentive - they still get paid from their previous team.

[Scoot McGroot]

I agree, but you make rules for the past, but also for the future.

If Anthony Davis gets hurt, what rule prevents LeBron from telling the Lakers - “I came here to win rings for my legacy. I don’t care about the money. Waive me, so I can go join the Nets for the minimum?”

I mean if we want to be extremists we can, but everyone understands Lebron is never doing this and I don't see this sort of thing as persuasive argument at all.

I disagree, but we can both admit the league is trending that way. So far it’s been “more name than game” players, but as money becomes less and less of a concern for the biggest players, why would you support NOT having a rule that prevents the legitimacy of the NBA and its championship?

After reading Scoot, and the uniqueness of the NBA employees, I don’t understand why there ISN’T a non-compete clause. We have versions for refusing to be drafted, that the entire NBA abides with, that would force a Steve Francis to go play in Europe.

I’m not sure what I said that implies this, but the non compete clause is already in place. Hold the player to the contract they’re signed for. Suspend them, fine them, etc, if t refuse to play. But there’s a benefit for the teams too. They save a bit of money and clear a roster spot. They’re not victims in this either.

[Texas Chuck]

The main problem here is that the CBA tries to establish league parity based on the false idea that players will go to the team that pays them the most. We design this parity through rules on the salary cap and lux. However, money is not the only reason a team signs with a team, and many will take a cheaper-than-market deal to go play where they want. If this happens during true free agency, that’s bad enough - at least the players pay the sting of the cheaper contract. If it happens through the buyout market, there is little disincentive - they still get paid from their previous team.

I just don't know how you legislate out the fact that players want to play for glamour franchises in certain cities and want to play with certain players.

Yeah its an advantage for the Lakers always and temporarily for the Nets and Clppers at least--we will see if they can sustain their market advantages. Will Miami keep this up post-Riley or is South Beach not enough without elite management?

But San Antonio has made the playoffs 90% of the time for half a century. Indiana is always good. OKC paid more tax than anyone under this CBA, the Bucks are one of the best teams in the world, the Jazz are too, the Nuggets are incredible and set up for long-term success.

You can overcome this market imbalance with good management for the most part. Again the Lakers are just always going to be an exception and even they had a long down period between Kobe/Pau and Lebron. Even they aren't totally immune.

We are overreacting here collectively. Big time.

[shrink]

I mean if we want to be extremists we can, but everyone understands Lebron is never doing this and I don't see this sort of thing as persuasive argument at all.

I disagree, but we can both admit the league is trending that way. So far it’s been “more name than game” players, but as money becomes less and less of a concern for the biggest players, why would you support NOT having a rule that prevents the legitimacy of the NBA and its championship?

After reading Scoot, and the uniqueness of the NBA employees, I don’t understand why there ISN’T a non-compete clause. We have versions for refusing to be drafted, that the entire NBA abides with, that would force a Steve Francis to go play in Europe.

I’m not sure what I said that implies this, but the non compete clause is already in place. Hold the player to the contract they’re signed for. Suspend them, fine them, etc, if t refuse to play. But there’s a benefit for the teams too. They save a bit of money and clear a roster spot. They’re not victims in this either.

These are false threats. No team would use them, because their team would alienate future free agents. Heck, if they couldn’t stand up to Steve Francis, who refused to play for the team that drafted him 20 years ago, they aren’t going to stand up now to current players.

Non-competes need to be a league-wide, CBA rule, which are a part of signing any nba contract.

[kobe_vs_jordan]

Think non compete isn’t even practical. Employee’s sign non competes bc they have access to insider information. Not bc they are so good at their job that their employee wants to keep them to themselves

[jbk1234]

Teams play guys in roles other than what they want all the time. And what team has ever made it clear they are doing so to torpedo the free agency value of a guy they don't want? Makes no sense. They should want that player sucking money out of the market, they should want that agent happy, etc...

You guys are just making up scenarios that will never exist to justify your anger.

Now you're just being obtuse. The point is that teams can't force a player to take a buyout the way a player can force a team to offer one. The ramifications for a team trying to do that, both with the specific agent, and free agents in general, would be too severe.

Again, as a thought exercise, imagine a rule that said if a player wanted a buyout the team had to grant it, but the player had to give back a hundred cents on the dollar in terms of the balance of the contract. That would grant players 100% control over where they worked. Would the union agree to it? No they would not. Even if there were circumstances where an individual player would like to have that option, the union wouldn't agree to it because they know there's an imbalance right now and it's to the players' advantage to maintain that advantage.

[Texas Chuck]

Teams can absolutely just cut a guy. But I'm obtuse? Cmon mate.

And again imagine..... is you inventing scenarios that don't exist in order to argue your point. I'm trying to deal in the reality of where we are today.

[shrink]

The main problem here is that the CBA tries to establish league parity based on the false idea that players will go to the team that pays them the most. We design this parity through rules on the salary cap and lux. However, money is not the only reason a team signs with a team, and many will take a cheaper-than-market deal to go play where they want. If this happens during true free agency, that’s bad enough - at least the players pay the sting of the cheaper contract. If it happens through the buyout market, there is little disincentive - they still get paid from their previous team.

I just don't know how you legislate out the fact that players want to play for glamour franchises in certain cities and want to play with certain players..

It seems strange that you keep saying others are the ones making extreme statements.

Will any rule prevent them WANTING to play for glamour franchises? Of course not. Legislate feelings?
Should the rules help encourage it? Not if we value league parity, and a fair playoff system.

The current buyout system lets players join the glamour teams, and get fully paid by their previous team to make that happen.

Note that the CBA already encourages players to stay put, because it helps with parity and fan loyalty. We have rules like restricted free agency, and a higher max, and Bird rights, and an extra year or higher raises, etc. The NBA already acknowledges that good players want to go elsewhere, and that they need additional incentives to stay with their original teams.

The current buyout rule flies in the face of this. It is an easy way for players to still get the financial incentives of staying put (from the original team), and still join the glamour team for the playoffs. That is certainly an Avenue that can be abused, and I think it will be abused more and more in the future. Thats the trend.

Good rules don’t just “deal with where we are today,” they deal with where we are tomorrow.

I can’t agree with your stance, “well, it’s what the players want, so let’s throw our hands in the air and let it get worse.” Sure, it would have to be negotiated in the next CBA, but both the owners and the players benefit if the league is competitive, and the NBA championship isn’t decided by players seeing which stars will come join their team in March.

[shrink]

Think non compete isn’t even practical. Employee’s sign non competes bc they have access to insider information. Not bc they are so good at their job that their employee wants to keep them to themselves

Not sure what industries you have worked in, but I have signed them, and had employees sign them, for both reasons, as well as the investment in developing the talent.

EDIT: I would add that the NBA seems particularly like an industry that should have non-competes.

Small labor pool, big gaps in production between individuals (superstar vs replacement player), highly competitive rivals, companies making huge investments in certain employees (money, draft capital, etc)

[bondom34]

Teams can absolutely just cut a guy. But I'm obtuse? Cmon mate.

And again imagine..... is you inventing scenarios that don't exist in order to argue your point. I'm trying to deal in the reality of where we are today.

Wanted to pose a question and this seems a good jumping off point because you're talking sense here but I'm thinking the league may want to legislate with an eye on the future. In saying the system doesn't have a problem:

When does it have a problem, and how do you stop that?

And saying this, the Spurs got the best buyout big to me.

[Texas Chuck]

The main problem here is that the CBA tries to establish league parity based on the false idea that players will go to the team that pays them the most. We design this parity through rules on the salary cap and lux. However, money is not the only reason a team signs with a team, and many will take a cheaper-than-market deal to go play where they want. If this happens during true free agency, that’s bad enough - at least the players pay the sting of the cheaper contract. If it happens through the buyout market, there is little disincentive - they still get paid from their previous team.

I just don't know how you legislate out the fact that players want to play for glamour franchises in certain cities and want to play with certain players..

It seems strange that you keep saying others are the ones making extreme statements.

Will any rule prevent them WANTING to play for glamour franchises? Of course not. Legislate feelings?
Should the rules help encourage it? Not if we value league parity, and a fair playoff system.

The current buyout system lets players join the glamour teams, and get fully paid by their previous team to make that happen.

Note that the CBA already encourages players to stay put, because it helps with parity and fan loyalty. We have rules like restricted free agency, and a higher max, and Bird rights, and an extra year or higher raises, etc. The NBA already acknowledges that good players want to go elsewhere, and that they need additional incentives to stay with their original teams.

The current buyout rule flies in the face of this. It is an easy way for players to still get the financial incentives of staying put (from the original team), and still join the glamour team for the playoffs. That is certainly an Avenue that can be abused, and I think it will be abused more and more in the future. Thats the trend.

I can’t agree with your stance, “well, it’s what the players want, so let’s throw our hands in the air and let it get worse.” Sure, it would have to be negotiated in the next CBA, but both the owners and the players benefit if the league is competitive, and the NBA championship isn’t decided by players seeing which stars will come join their team in March.

Man am I setting people off right and left on this issue.



1. Don't buy the player out. There are other negative potential consequences to this that outweigh whatever positive comes from a non-contender not letting a contender rent a player of course, but teams always have this option.

2. Is that my stance? Or is it a stance you are assigning me because I've upset you? My stance is actually quite simple -- the Lakers have advantages over every other team, always have, always will. Do I like it? Nope, hate the Lakers. Is it fair? Nope, but it's not fair that shrink is smarter than me either, but I have to make do. Do I want to try and make anti-players rules because they prefer certain situations? No, no I don't.

3. Related to above, I think it makes sense for teams to remove players they don't want to invest in any further from the team. I see benefits for those teams. I don't see why once they have made a decision in their best interest that the player shouldn't be allowed to make an independent decision in their best interest.

4. Which leads to my belief that most of the people angry about this are angry because their team isn't benefiting. I freely admit this might not be fair, but I believe in being honest and upfront about what I think. I also think their teams aren't really hurting much either and that these buyout players generally have minimal if any impact on the playoffs, but that's kind of a separate argument.

[jbk1234]

Teams can absolutely just cut a guy. But I'm obtuse? Cmon mate.

And again imagine..... is you inventing scenarios that don't exist in order to argue your point. I'm trying to deal in the reality of where we are today.

Let's try a scenario that does exist. Under the current CBA, there's a maximum amount a player can give back in a buyout scenario. Why does that rule exist? If it's all about what's best for the two parties involved in the transaction, and allowing players freedom of movement, why limit what a player a can give back?

[Texas Chuck]

Teams can absolutely just cut a guy. But I'm obtuse? Cmon mate.

And again imagine..... is you inventing scenarios that don't exist in order to argue your point. I'm trying to deal in the reality of where we are today.

Wanted to pose a question and this seems a good jumping off point because you're talking sense here but I'm thinking the league may want to legislate with an eye on the future. In saying the system doesn't have a problem:

When does it have a problem, and how do you stop that?

I think it does have a problem. The Lakers have advantages over the Wolves just straight from the jump. All things being equal the Lakers will win that decision point the majority of the time.

I think the buyout specifically is a very minor problem. I really do. Contenders are always going to get guys, but I'd say the Spurs signed the best buy out candidate and they are neither a big market nor one of the elite teams.

This point was made by someone else but needs repeating -- teams aren't buying out great players. Kyle Lowry isn't getting bought out. DeMar DeRozan isn't getting bought out.

[Texas Chuck]

Teams can absolutely just cut a guy. But I'm obtuse? Cmon mate.

And again imagine..... is you inventing scenarios that don't exist in order to argue your point. I'm trying to deal in the reality of where we are today.

Let's try a scenario that does exist. Under the current CBA, there's a maximum amount a player can give back in a buyout scenario. Why does that rule exist? If it's all about what's best for the two parties involved in the transaction, and allowing players freedom of movement, why limit what a player a can give back?

Why would the player's Association want to protect earnings of its players? Is this the question? Because that answer feels obvious.

But the real reason is probably also to prevent teams from writing fake contracts where both parties know money will be given back later.

But honestly I don't have a problem if the two sides want to negotiate that change. But its a dangerous idea for the players to start down that road. Because once they concede that then the next time gtd contracts are going to be on the table forcing the players to concede other issues to keep that in place. Players should not agree to anything that collectively gives them less protection.

[shrink]

I just don't know how you legislate out the fact that players want to play for glamour franchises in certain cities and want to play with certain players..

It seems strange that you keep saying others are the ones making extreme statements.

Will any rule prevent them WANTING to play for glamour franchises? Of course not. Legislate feelings?
Should the rules help encourage it? Not if we value league parity, and a fair playoff system.

The current buyout system lets players join the glamour teams, and get fully paid by their previous team to make that happen.

Note that the CBA already encourages players to stay put, because it helps with parity and fan loyalty. We have rules like restricted free agency, and a higher max, and Bird rights, and an extra year or higher raises, etc. The NBA already acknowledges that good players want to go elsewhere, and that they need additional incentives to stay with their original teams.

The current buyout rule flies in the face of this. It is an easy way for players to still get the financial incentives of staying put (from the original team), and still join the glamour team for the playoffs. That is certainly an Avenue that can be abused, and I think it will be abused more and more in the future. Thats the trend.

I can’t agree with your stance, “well, it’s what the players want, so let’s throw our hands in the air and let it get worse.” Sure, it would have to be negotiated in the next CBA, but both the owners and the players benefit if the league is competitive, and the NBA championship isn’t decided by players seeing which stars will come join their team in March.

Man am I setting people off right and left on this issue.



1. Don't buy the player out. There are other negative potential consequences to this that outweigh whatever positive comes from a non-contender not letting a contender rent a player of course, but teams always have this option.

2. Is that my stance? Or is it a stance you are assigning me because I've upset you? My stance is actually quite simple -- the Lakers have advantages over every other team, always have, always will. Do I like it? Nope, hate the Lakers. Is it fair? Nope, but it's not fair that shrink is smarter than me either, but I have to make do. Do I want to try and make anti-players rules because they prefer certain situations? No, no I don't.

3. Related to above, I think it makes sense for teams to remove players they don't want to invest in any further from the team. I see benefits for those teams. I don't see why once they have made a decision in their best interest that the player shouldn't be allowed to make an independent decision in their best interest.

4. Which leads to my belief that most of the people angry about this are angry because their team isn't benefiting. I freely admit this might not be fair, but I believe in being honest and upfront about what I think. I also think their teams aren't really hurting much either and that these buyout players generally have minimal if any impact on the playoffs, but that's kind of a separate argument.

1/3 This is why it needs to be a league rule. The NBA is a closed, economic system, but they need the whole NBA to be profitable to raise all boats. Does CLE care if buying out a player hurts the playoffs? No. But the NBA needs to care.

2/4. Never bought the “this is the way it is, so don’t try to make it better,” line. And I am sure I arrived here through a different path than any other poster, but understanding the parameters for the NBA’s economic system is a bigger deal to me than watching games. Ask the MIN posters about me, and my huge gaps in basketball knowledge!

[bondom34]

Teams can absolutely just cut a guy. But I'm obtuse? Cmon mate.

And again imagine..... is you inventing scenarios that don't exist in order to argue your point. I'm trying to deal in the reality of where we are today.

Wanted to pose a question and this seems a good jumping off point because you're talking sense here but I'm thinking the league may want to legislate with an eye on the future. In saying the system doesn't have a problem:

When does it have a problem, and how do you stop that?

I think it does have a problem. The Lakers have advantages over the Wolves just straight from the jump. All things being equal the Lakers will win that decision point the majority of the time.

I think the buyout specifically is a very minor problem. I really do. Contenders are always going to get guys, but I'd say the Spurs signed the best buy out candidate and they are neither a big market nor one of the elite teams.

This point was made by someone else but needs repeating -- teams aren't buying out great players. Kyle Lowry isn't getting bought out. DeMar DeRozan isn't getting bought out.

OK, actually this is a fair rebuttal. But think the first part is the bigger problem for me I guess.

These guys aren't great, but seeing depth go to bigger markets for a worse opportunity is bothersome as a smaller market fan. Saying that, I'd agree the Spurs got the best guy lol.

I'm not really sure where I stand on this one, but think the problem might be growing and seems to be getting (even if just a bit) worse recently. Maybe not, I'm not sure if it's just the hive mind getting to me.

[shrink]

This point was made by someone else but needs repeating -- teams aren't buying out great players. Kyle Lowry isn't getting bought out. DeMar DeRozan isn't getting bought out.

I want to make sure you understand they don’t need to be great players to turn a playoffs.

Look at Aldridge to the Nets. Aldridge has not been a great player - often this year he hasn’t even been a good player. But Aldridge has the potential to put up 18 great minutes in one playoff game, and that can swing a game and a series.

One way to look at this is that each team wants to accumulate a roster with as much production as possible. If they have a little bit more, hey get a win. They don’t need a lot more - they just need to exceed the tipping point.

I agree with you that no stars have changed teams yet. I suspect this won’t last much longer. But even if it doesn’t, the current system allows championship teams to bolster their roster for players at under market value, which may cause fans to doubt the fairness of the eventual NBA championship. Putting some brakes on the current system would improve the situation.

[Texas Chuck]

2/4. Never bought the “this is the way it is” so don’t try to make it better.

bondom raised this same point to me elsewhere.

I just want to be clear this is not what I'm saying. I am saying this is the way it is. No doubt about that. I think we always have to ground ourselves in as much reality as possible. And the reality is certain markets/teams have advantages.

I definitely want to minimize those as best we can. Baseball got way out of whack for awhile where you only 7-8 teams had any chance to compete. European football is like this. Leicester City being a one-off exception.

But on this specific issue--I don't think restricting players whose teams willingly choose to buy them out from signing where they want for the remainder of the season is the way to address this imbalance.

I'm much more in favor ideas like letting teams re-sign their players to max contracts but only having some of it count against the cap/tax so that small market teams can put more depth around their stars the way the richer markets can. Or providing a way out from albatross contract mistakes that again certain markets just can't spend their way around the way the Warriors can just eat Russell and then Wiggins to gain a premium asset.

But I do admit that without a national TV deal the size of the NFL's or an agreement by big market owners to more revenue sharing from local TV deals/gate that we aren't ever going to get to a totally level playing field. I do believe we have to operate in the reality.

And acknowledging that is the reality is not the same thing as just throwing up my hands and saying oh well. But I do firmly believe I have to understand these realities when discussing these things and letting what I want override what is.