Anyone else pissed off?

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

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

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#81 » by Scoot McGroot » Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:25 pm

shrink wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:
shrink wrote: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.



They’re not a threat. They’re simply contractual rights. If they choose to yield them, they they yield them. But we’re discussing protecting the teams abilities to yield their rights, but still maintain contractual control.

But what non compete do you want? It a player is waived, they can’t compete in the nba for the rest of the year? The lakers are barred from ever signing somebody in season?

There’s already things like a hard cap, and salary cap exceptions. If you want to have the ability to sign someone midseason, keep cap space, or a TPE to claim someone, or a salary exception to sign them for more money. Or recruit someone with a reason to come play for you. Indy once did this with Wes Matthews by guaranteeing a starting spot for him midseason.

At a certain point, we’re eliminating a players right to choose completely, or talking about dismantling free agency altogether. I can’t imagine the players union would ever consent to even discussing these things.

Teams made decisions that benefited them. The he fact that it later benefits someone else shouldn’t matter.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 41,418
And1: 23,850
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#82 » by jbk1234 » Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:28 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote: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.


Right, norms and precedent matter. Once one player gives back everything, and it will happen, then that becomes an expectation for players wanting a buyout. But you're attempting to have it both ways on the norms, precedent, and expectations front. It doesn't matter that Drummond opted in, became disgruntled after the Allen trade, and forced a buyout after Allen was made the starter. Andre Drummond is 27 years old, a former all star, and regardless of what people think of what he actually offers, that's a new precedent.

Moreover, it belies the idea that this just about player movement and empowerment. An empowered player would get to make the decision that he'd forgo further payment to go play where he wanted - just like everyone else in America. But in the current paradigm, he doesn't get to make that decision because it's not just about those things. It's about securing as much guaranteed money as you can get, and keeping as much as you can, regardless of whether you want to play somewhere else down the line.
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.
User avatar
RoyceDa59
RealGM
Posts: 21,115
And1: 5,057
Joined: Aug 25, 2002
         

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#83 » by RoyceDa59 » Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:30 pm

I’m not convinced Drummond has a net positive impact on the court. We will finally find out.
Go Raps!!
kobe_vs_jordan
Head Coach
Posts: 7,120
And1: 3,179
Joined: Jan 07, 2012
Location: Atl
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#84 » by kobe_vs_jordan » Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:32 pm

shrink wrote:
kobe_vs_jordan wrote: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)


Work in IT. Non competes aren’t meant to keep hard to find talent from leaving. It’s for protecting trade secrets. And doesn’t prevent an employee from finding a new job and quitting.

It’s a business for players as much as it’s a business for owners. Investing in a player doesn’t buy you loyalty. Owners cut and trade injured and in performing players. They have all the tools they need to invest and build a team.
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#85 » by Texas Chuck » Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:34 pm

Stop framing him as 27 year old former all-star. If teams saw him as some great player, Cleveland would have been able to trade him.

He is not a new paradigm. Dieng is a more significant mover and nobody is remotely suggesting that about him.
bondom34 wrote:This is stupid and you know this is stupid.
sonictecture
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 12,024
And1: 922
Joined: May 26, 2002

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#86 » by sonictecture » Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:36 pm

For me the solution should avoid in anyway directly punishing the players. No NDA’s, no contract language restrictions. The SI article mentioned making teams who want to sign buyout players pay in draft picks for the right.

I like this much better. Perhaps the range of pick would be determined by the amount of the buyout.
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 46,216
And1: 6,478
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#87 » by shrink » Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:40 pm

Scoot McGroot wrote:
shrink wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:

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.



They’re not a threat. They’re simply contractual rights. If they choose to yield them, they they yield them. But we’re discussing protecting the teams abilities to yield their rights, but still maintain contractual control.

But what non compete do you want? It a player is waived, they can’t compete in the nba for the rest of the year? The lakers are barred from ever signing somebody in season?

There’s already things like a hard cap, and salary cap exceptions. If you want to have the ability to sign someone midseason, keep cap space, or a TPE to claim someone, or a salary exception to sign them for more money. Or recruit someone with a reason to come play for you. Indy once did this with Wes Matthews by guaranteeing a starting spot for him midseason.

At a certain point, we’re eliminating a players right to choose completely, or talking about dismantling free agency altogether. I can’t imagine the players union would ever consent to even discussing these things.

Teams made decisions that benefited them. The the fact that it later benefits someone else shouldn’t matter.

Good post. But the fact that the team decision benefited someone else SHOULD matter to the NBA, if it doesn’t matter to the team. All 30 teams benefit if the playoffs aren’t perceived crooked. I am an extreme free-market guy, but the NBA can’t function completely free market.

As for “not being a threat,” imagine this scenario. We sign a contract to debate, and in the contract, you have given me the right to stomp on your foot it I disagree. However, you have brought ten armed guards that will shoot me if I do so. The contract can have that provision, but it is not a true threat if it can’t be used without hurting myself worse. This is situation with the NBA. If a team refused to acquiesce to a player’s demands, and fined and suspended him, you can imagine how hard it would be for the team to sign free agents, or even maybe re-sign their own players. Individual head offices need the cover of making things league-wide rules.

I would propose that if a player and team agree to a buy out, the CBA makes them intelligible to join another nba team until the initial contract expires. Very few players get bought out for multiple seasons as it is, so it generally would mean getting out a couple months early, after the trade deadline.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 41,418
And1: 23,850
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#88 » by jbk1234 » Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:40 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:Stop framing him as 27 year old former all-star. If teams saw him as some great player, Cleveland would have been able to trade him.

He is not a new paradigm. Dieng is a more significant mover and nobody is remotely suggesting that about him.


He doesn't need to be a great player. He doesn't even need to be worth the entirety of his $28M deal. That's not the test. The test is how great is the delta between the league minimum and Drummond's worth.

Dieng was flat out cut and has had a noticeable drop in production over the last two seasons. Let's see how it plays out on the court.

Not for nothing, but the Raptors couldn't get what they wanted for Lowry either. That's also not the test.
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#89 » by Scoot McGroot » Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:43 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:Stop framing him as 27 year old former all-star. If teams saw him as some great player, Cleveland would have been able to trade him.

He is not a new paradigm. Dieng is a more significant mover and nobody is remotely suggesting that about him.


Yeah. He was openly on the market for nearly a month. There were largely no reportable offers for him. Cleveland decided he wasn’t in their long term plans and so it wasn’t worth the hassle of getting him to show up AND be a happy camper off the bench. If they wanted him to play off the bench, they could force him. They just can’t force him to be happy about it, and after realizing that, decided it was worth saving a little money and clearing a roster spot. Whatever Drummond decided to do after is none of their concern, nor should it be. It sucks in a way, but they were moving on anyway, and decided it more valuable to just be done than to enforce their contractual rights. :dontknow:
User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,450
And1: 5,481
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#90 » by Scoot McGroot » Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:46 pm

shrink wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:
shrink wrote: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.



They’re not a threat. They’re simply contractual rights. If they choose to yield them, they they yield them. But we’re discussing protecting the teams abilities to yield their rights, but still maintain contractual control.

But what non compete do you want? It a player is waived, they can’t compete in the nba for the rest of the year? The lakers are barred from ever signing somebody in season?

There’s already things like a hard cap, and salary cap exceptions. If you want to have the ability to sign someone midseason, keep cap space, or a TPE to claim someone, or a salary exception to sign them for more money. Or recruit someone with a reason to come play for you. Indy once did this with Wes Matthews by guaranteeing a starting spot for him midseason.

At a certain point, we’re eliminating a players right to choose completely, or talking about dismantling free agency altogether. I can’t imagine the players union would ever consent to even discussing these things.

Teams made decisions that benefited them. The the fact that it later benefits someone else shouldn’t matter.

Good post. But the fact that the team decision benefited someone else SHOULD matter to the NBA, if it doesn’t matter to the team. All 30 teams benefit if the playoffs aren’t perceived crooked. I am an extreme free-market guy, but the NBA can’t function completely free market.

As for “not being a threat,” imagine this scenario. We sign a contract to debate, and in the contract, you have given me the right to stomp on your foot it I disagree. However, you have brought ten armed guards that will shoot me if I do so. The contract can have that provision, but it is not a true threat if it can’t be used without hurting myself worse. This is situation with the NBA. If a team refused to acquiesce to a player’s demands, and fined and suspended him, you can imagine how hard it would be for the team to sign free agents, or even maybe re-sign their own players. Individual head offices need the cover of making things league-wide rules.

I would propose that if a player and team agree to a buy out, the CBA makes them intelligible to join another nba team until the initial contract expires. Very few players get bought out for multiple seasons as it is, so it generally would mean getting out a couple months early, after the trade deadline.



So, if a team straight waived someone, their free to continue their career. If they are willing to give back money in order to leave, their banned from the nba for a period equal to the original leng TJ of their contract? Why on earth would any player agree to a buyout? Why wouldn’t they just make it an entirely worse situation that a team gets over fed up? Like, let’s remove the civility of the situation and the option to mutually part ways?

You can see there’s some issues with that concept, right?
sonictecture
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 12,024
And1: 922
Joined: May 26, 2002

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#91 » by sonictecture » Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:48 pm

Scoot McGroot wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:Stop framing him as 27 year old former all-star. If teams saw him as some great player, Cleveland would have been able to trade him.

He is not a new paradigm. Dieng is a more significant mover and nobody is remotely suggesting that about him.


Yeah. He was openly on the market for nearly a month. There were largely no reportable offers for him. Cleveland decided he wasn’t in their long term plans and so it wasn’t worth the hassle of getting him to show up AND be a happy camper off the bench. If they wanted him to play off the bench, they could force him. They just can’t force him to be happy about it, and after realizing that, decided it was worth saving a little money and clearing a roster spot. Whatever Drummond decided to do after is none of their concern, nor should it be. It sucks in a way, but they were moving on anyway, and decided it more valuable to just be done than to enforce their contractual rights. :dontknow:

One side of the equation honored the contract, the other sought a buyout and was able to use leverage to apply pressure to get it. I actually have no issue with this.

What I have issue is a small group of teams using this as the cheapest free agency ever and potentially altering the competitive landscape at no cost.

Teams should have to pay for a player that is under contract.
User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,450
And1: 5,481
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#92 » by Scoot McGroot » Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:54 pm

sonictecture wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:Stop framing him as 27 year old former all-star. If teams saw him as some great player, Cleveland would have been able to trade him.

He is not a new paradigm. Dieng is a more significant mover and nobody is remotely suggesting that about him.


Yeah. He was openly on the market for nearly a month. There were largely no reportable offers for him. Cleveland decided he wasn’t in their long term plans and so it wasn’t worth the hassle of getting him to show up AND be a happy camper off the bench. If they wanted him to play off the bench, they could force him. They just can’t force him to be happy about it, and after realizing that, decided it was worth saving a little money and clearing a roster spot. Whatever Drummond decided to do after is none of their concern, nor should it be. It sucks in a way, but they were moving on anyway, and decided it more valuable to just be done than to enforce their contractual rights. :dontknow:

One side of the equation honored the contract, the other sought a buyout and was able to use leverage to apply pressure to get it. I actually have no issue with this.

What I have issue is a small group of teams using this as the cheapest free agency ever and potentially altering the competitive landscape at no cost.

Teams should have to pay for a player that is under contract.


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

Otherwise, this is always how free agency operates. If there was no cap, restrictions, etc, I have no doubt that 15 top notch players would sign with the Lakers. Otherwise, players agree to deals for different reasons. Close to home, more money, more playing time, best long term fits, etc. That’s what happens in buyout season. Even Indy got a guy that was heavily wanted, once. Offer something The player wants and you have a chance of signing them. Here, Drummond is taking a probable starting spot to audition himself, on a team that will be on to one of the most times around the league. I absolutely can’t fault him for that.
sonictecture
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 12,024
And1: 922
Joined: May 26, 2002

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#93 » by sonictecture » Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:04 pm

Scoot McGroot wrote:
sonictecture wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:
Yeah. He was openly on the market for nearly a month. There were largely no reportable offers for him. Cleveland decided he wasn’t in their long term plans and so it wasn’t worth the hassle of getting him to show up AND be a happy camper off the bench. If they wanted him to play off the bench, they could force him. They just can’t force him to be happy about it, and after realizing that, decided it was worth saving a little money and clearing a roster spot. Whatever Drummond decided to do after is none of their concern, nor should it be. It sucks in a way, but they were moving on anyway, and decided it more valuable to just be done than to enforce their contractual rights. :dontknow:

One side of the equation honored the contract, the other sought a buyout and was able to use leverage to apply pressure to get it. I actually have no issue with this.

What I have issue is a small group of teams using this as the cheapest free agency ever and potentially altering the competitive landscape at no cost.

Teams should have to pay for a player that is under contract.


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

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


The buyout was the end result but how players and agents often get to that point is to say they want out. Once you say you want out you are no longer abiding by the original contract.

Once again, I don’t have an issue with this and don’t want to punish players, but the signing teams should have to pay a price.

The Lakers used a revenue advantage for decades, but smaller market teams eventually got revenue sharing. The precedent for evening out the field of competition is there.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 41,418
And1: 23,850
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#94 » by jbk1234 » Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:24 pm

Read on Twitter
?s=20
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#95 » by Scoot McGroot » Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:39 pm

sonictecture wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:
sonictecture wrote:One side of the equation honored the contract, the other sought a buyout and was able to use leverage to apply pressure to get it. I actually have no issue with this.

What I have issue is a small group of teams using this as the cheapest free agency ever and potentially altering the competitive landscape at no cost.

Teams should have to pay for a player that is under contract.


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

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


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


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


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

Again, what we’re asking is for the players to give up their rights in free agency in order to give greater team control over their employment and right to seek employment. I find it hard to do this in any meaningful way without basically saying that “The governors have all the rights, and the players have none.”
User avatar
BoyzNTheHood
Analyst
Posts: 3,150
And1: 3,608
Joined: Apr 19, 2015

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#96 » by BoyzNTheHood » Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:35 pm

I'm not sure what to do about this uneven team stacking. Maybe buyouts shouldn't be awarded just because you don't want to play for a team anymore. Maybe buyouts shouldn't be a thing for situations like those, but then I guess a guy could just dog it like Griffin in Detroit and lower his value to the point that the Pistons will pay him to leave. It's a tough situation because not everyone will be honorable to their contract, or the contract that they have offered.

Maybe the easiest solution is that one you have hit the hard cap you're done, you can't sign anyone even if it's for the league/veterans minimum.
deeps6x wrote:I guarantee you that (Jaylen) Brown and (Kris) Dunn are drafted OUT of the top 5.
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#97 » by Texas Chuck » Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:56 pm

BoyzNTheHood wrote:Maybe the easiest solution is that one you have hit the hard cap you're done, you can't sign anyone even if it's for the league/veterans minimum.


This is already the case.

Doesn't apply to the Nets because they didn't trigger a hard cap, but definitely applied to the Lakers who made some moves to gain room under the hard cap.
bondom34 wrote:This is stupid and you know this is stupid.
User avatar
BoyzNTheHood
Analyst
Posts: 3,150
And1: 3,608
Joined: Apr 19, 2015

Re: Anyone else pissed off? 

Post#98 » by BoyzNTheHood » Mon Mar 29, 2021 10:18 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:
BoyzNTheHood wrote:Maybe the easiest solution is that one you have hit the hard cap you're done, you can't sign anyone even if it's for the league/veterans minimum.


This is already the case.

Doesn't apply to the Nets because they didn't trigger a hard cap, but definitely applied to the Lakers who made some moves to gain room under the hard cap.


Oh okay, thanks for clarifying that.
deeps6x wrote:I guarantee you that (Jaylen) Brown and (Kris) Dunn are drafted OUT of the top 5.
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#99 » by Prospect Dong » Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:35 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:I think the current system is just fine and I'm not remotely bothered by any of it. Every year fans freak out over "names" moving via buy out and every year they are non-factors.

I'm a big believer in worker agency and that includes NBA players. But mostly this is just much ado about very very little.


Chuck, two years ago when we discussed this you said more or less the same thing, and threw out the stat that Peja is the only buyout guy to have played >100 playoff minutes for a champion. Set aside that that's a really high bar - do we really only care about the eventual champion? - last year two more guys did it.

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

Frankly, I care if some teams are reliably able to add a tenth man to help keep their stars fresh down the stretch in the regular season, even if they're a non-factor in the playoffs.

It's not a huge deal, but if there's an easy fix we should make it. Getting those guys is costly for teams that can't add ring chasers.

But when you're watching a champion add it's center rotation via buyout and still saying "every year they're non-factors" I don't think you're open to updating your beliefs in response to new evidence.
"Bagley's the most unique player we've had. He's an amazing runner. Amazing repeated jumper. He wants to learn, has no demons, he's smart, and has an incredible motor. He's going to be one of the great players in the NBA"

Coach K
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#100 » by Texas Chuck » Tue Mar 30, 2021 2:14 am

Prospect Dong wrote:

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



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

So I disagree wholeheartedly with the premise that buyout guys swung a championship without me noticing. :D
bondom34 wrote:This is stupid and you know this is stupid.

Return to Trades and Transactions