ATL - LMA retires with heart issue - pg 78

[humanrefutation]

If his name was Austin Crawford I think there would be a lot less hate from some and for all the talk about the Jerry Stackhouse pick up people seem to forget that most people hated the pick up or how he was one of the most inefficient chuckers of all time.

You actually think the "Rivers" name is his biggest liability? Have you looked at his stat sheet?

[FlagsFlyForever]

I've been watching/following the NBA for almost 50 years. It has just been progressively getting more obvious that there are only a few west coast and east coast teams that matter. You teams with short term success, even mini dynasties but only temporary cuz we all know who the real dynasties are. Compounding matters now the inmates are in charge of the asylum, but nobody cares as long as the owners and league get theirs too. Frankly, I'm tired of being an interested pawn in their game and can find less frustrating and more fair to spend time following.

This has been going on forever. It's been almost 50 years since Kareem forced his way out of Milwaukee to go to LA. You criticize the owners for allowing players to have too much control over where they play but what do you suggest they do to stop it? Players will always prefer to live in LA, New York, Miami, etc. over cities like Milwaukee.

[paulpressey25]

You criticize the owners for allowing players to have too much control over where they play but what do you suggest they do to stop it?

Franchise player tag. Doesn't solve everything, but don't let the perfect get in the way of the good.

The NBA could gladly live with this, because it will only impact 15-20 guys. And if you do it right, those players will be paid handsomely for having the tag put on them. Then you offer higher minimum salaries for the other 420 players, and the union will have to allow the vote to happen.

Would it take time for the league and players to get used to a franchise tag? Sure. But the reality is the 20 or so small and mid-market franchises have always had the votes to get this done, if they had the fortitude to do it. If the Harden/Durant/Kyrie superteam wins the title, maybe they'll act.

[Bucksfan28]

Odd how there's never outrage about teams just deciding to pause a player's career (Drummond, Horford are the two recent examples), but players wanting more control over their livelihood gets them compared to "inmates."

[KidA24]

I've been watching/following the NBA for almost 50 years. It has just been progressively getting more obvious that there are only a few west coast and east coast teams that matter. You teams with short term success, even mini dynasties but only temporary cuz we all know who the real dynasties are. Compounding matters now the inmates are in charge of the asylum, but nobody cares as long as the owners and league get theirs too. Frankly, I'm tired of being an interested pawn in their game and can find less frustrating and more fair to spend time following.

Sent from my SM-A205U using RealGM mobile app

Really? The NBA isn't an asylum. It is a protected monopoly. The players aren't inmates. They are professionals who have unionized and negotiated to get the powers that they want.

Every one of these guys who signed with "super teams" this week took less money for the chance to win a title.

I want to know what these greedy players could do to pacify your ridiculous complaints.

What professional sport are you gonna go watch? European football? Major League Baseball? hahahahaha.

[StickeeFingaz]

Odd how there's never outrage about teams just deciding to pause a player's career (Drummond, Horford are the two recent examples), but players wanting more control over their livelihood gets them compared to "inmates."

I know this is the Draymond argument but seems like Drummond got a pretty sweet deal, no? Gets most of his money, although I don’t think his buyout terms have been made public, and gets to go to a contender to win a ring and earn another big deal next year.

All reports say that Horford and OKC mutually agreed to this plan to not play the rest of the year.

Maybe I’m not interpreting your post correctly.

[EastSideBucksFan]

You criticize the owners for allowing players to have too much control over where they play but what do you suggest they do to stop it?

Franchise player tag. Doesn't solve everything, but don't let the perfect get in the way of the good.

The NBA could gladly live with this, because it will only impact 15-20 guys. And if you do it right, those players will be paid handsomely for having the tag put on them. Then you offer higher minimum salaries for the other 420 players, and the union will have to allow the vote to happen.

Would it take time for the league and players to get used to a franchise tag? Sure. But the reality is the 20 or so small and mid-market franchises have always had the votes to get this done, if they had the fortitude to do it. If the Harden/Durant/Kyrie superteam wins the title, maybe they'll act.

They need to add cap implications to buyouts. That would solve a lot. Championship hopeful teams are rarely sitting on a pile of cap space, enough to add near max or max level players, even a cut rate of their initial cap would reduce the ability of Lakers/Nets from scooping up all stars for basically nothing.

[ABucksFan]

I've been watching/following the NBA for almost 50 years. It has just been progressively getting more obvious that there are only a few west coast and east coast teams that matter. You teams with short term success, even mini dynasties but only temporary cuz we all know who the real dynasties are. Compounding matters now the inmates are in charge of the asylum, but nobody cares as long as the owners and league get theirs too. Frankly, I'm tired of being an interested pawn in their game and can find less frustrating and more fair to spend time following.

Sent from my SM-A205U using RealGM mobile app

Really? The NBA isn't an asylum. It is a protected monopoly. The players aren't inmates. They are professionals who have unionized and negotiated to get the powers that they want.

Every one of these guys who signed with "super teams" this week took less money for the chance to win a title.

I want to know what these greedy players could do to pacify your ridiculous complaints.

What professional sport are you gonna go watch? European football? Major League Baseball? hahahahaha.

European football? I'm offended I religiously watch that stuff

[crowhead76]

Knicks opened up 2 roster spots this morning.

Teague incoming is my guess for 1 of them.

[FlagsFlyForever]

You criticize the owners for allowing players to have too much control over where they play but what do you suggest they do to stop it?

Franchise player tag. Doesn't solve everything, but don't let the perfect get in the way of the good.

The NBA could gladly live with this, because it will only impact 15-20 guys. And if you do it right, those players will be paid handsomely for having the tag put on them. Then you offer higher minimum salaries for the other 420 players, and the union will have to allow the vote to happen.

Would it take time for the league and players to get used to a franchise tag? Sure. But the reality is the 20 or so small and mid-market franchises have always had the votes to get this done, if they had the fortitude to do it. If the Harden/Durant/Kyrie superteam wins the title, maybe they'll act.

Guaranteed contracts haven't stopped the player movement. Kyrie, Kawhi, Harden were all under contract and still forced their way out. If the Bucks theoretically used their franchise tag on Giannis and he really didn't want to be here, he could force a trade to a big market where the Bucks got pennies on the dollar.

[emunney]

:shrug: Hard salary cap, no max contracts.

[Bucksfan28]

:shrug: Hard salary cap, no max contracts.

I think there's good reasons to keep a luxury tax bracket available in this scenario, but also curtail it, i.e., can't start the season in the tax, can't sign anyone else after entering the tax, etc. Midseason circumstances may dictate a need to add salary.

[Bucksfan28]

Odd how there's never outrage about teams just deciding to pause a player's career (Drummond, Horford are the two recent examples), but players wanting more control over their livelihood gets them compared to "inmates."

I know this is the Draymond argument but seems like Drummond got a pretty sweet deal, no? Gets most of his money, although I don’t think his buyout terms have been made public, and gets to go to a contender to win a ring and earn another big deal next year.

All reports say that Horford and OKC mutually agreed to this plan to not play the rest of the year.

Maybe I’m not interpreting your post correctly.

Both things can be true. My point was that teams seemingly get a pass when they decide not to "honor their contract," but players get dragged for such behavior (being compared to inmates for example). It definitely is in the same mold as Draymond's argument. Admittedly, if that's true about Horford, he's not really representative of the larger point.

[ReasonablySober]

Odd how there's never outrage about teams just deciding to pause a player's career (Drummond, Horford are the two recent examples), but players wanting more control over their livelihood gets them compared to "inmates."

I know this is the Draymond argument but seems like Drummond got a pretty sweet deal, no? Gets most of his money, although I don’t think his buyout terms have been made public, and gets to go to a contender to win a ring and earn another big deal next year.

All reports say that Horford and OKC mutually agreed to this plan to not play the rest of the year.

Maybe I’m not interpreting your post correctly.

Both things can be true. My point was that teams seemingly get a pass when they decide not to "honor their contract," but players get dragged for such behavior (being compared to inmates for example). It definitely is in the same mold as Draymond's argument. Admittedly, if that's true about Horford, he's not really representative of the larger point.

How are teams not honoring the contracts?

[Bucksfan28]

I know this is the Draymond argument but seems like Drummond got a pretty sweet deal, no? Gets most of his money, although I don’t think his buyout terms have been made public, and gets to go to a contender to win a ring and earn another big deal next year.

All reports say that Horford and OKC mutually agreed to this plan to not play the rest of the year.

Maybe I’m not interpreting your post correctly.

Both things can be true. My point was that teams seemingly get a pass when they decide not to "honor their contract," but players get dragged for such behavior (being compared to inmates for example). It definitely is in the same mold as Draymond's argument. Admittedly, if that's true about Horford, he's not really representative of the larger point.

How are teams not honoring the contracts?

I put that in quotes because it's a phrase you hear, but I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment. The argument would be, in Drummond's case for example, that they literally prevented the guy from playing basketball and left him in limbo for over a month. Then there's the part about how teams can just trade guys on a whim with no input from the player, which is the gist of Draymond's point iirc.

Again, I don't like that phrase. I think such is the nature of the business and both sides simply take on that risk when entering a contract. But it's something players get accused of not doing when those situations arise.

[paulpressey25]

Guaranteed contracts haven't stopped the player movement. Kyrie, Kawhi, Harden were all under contract and still forced their way out. If the Bucks theoretically used their franchise tag on Giannis and he really didn't want to be here, he could force a trade to a big market where the Bucks got pennies on the dollar.

We're not going to solve the entire thing overnight. Takes time to free the ship from the Suez.

Also remember, a lot of player movement started with free agency. LeBron, Kyrie, Durant all moved as FA's. If their respective teams could franchise tag them, that wouldn't have happened.

[JayMKE]

:shrug: Hard salary cap, no max contracts.

and no guaranteed contracts, that would be a perfect NBA

[ReasonablySober]

Both things can be true. My point was that teams seemingly get a pass when they decide not to "honor their contract," but players get dragged for such behavior (being compared to inmates for example). It definitely is in the same mold as Draymond's argument. Admittedly, if that's true about Horford, he's not really representative of the larger point.

How are teams not honoring the contracts?

I put that in quotes because it's a phrase you hear, but I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment. The argument would be, in Drummond's case for example, that they literally prevented the guy from playing basketball and left him in limbo for over a month. Then there's the part about how teams can just trade guys on a whim with no input from the player, which is the gist of Draymond's point iirc.

Again, I don't like that phrase. I think such is the nature of the business and both sides simply take on that risk when entering a contract. But it's something players get accused of not doing when those situations arise.

I didn't think Draymond made much of a point at all, to be honest. I can't come up with many instances where it wasn't mutually beneficial to the players for them sitting. They get to rest and avoid injury. If they can come up with a buyout or a waive agreement, the player can go from a bad team to one of their choosing, for whatever their reasons.

If the players did have a problem with it, you would think guys like Blake, Drummond, or Aldridge would be vocal about it.

[Ron Swanson]

Yep, the franchise tag isn't a perfect solution but it's the best, most feasible thing they can incorporate into the next CBA. You're not gonna have the same issues that you do in the NFL because of guaranteed salaries, and you're not gonna be able to tag the same guy in consecutive years. You give franchises some security to compete knowing that they won't lose their most valuable asset for nothing in free agency.

Ultimately, yeah, this really just comes down to a lot of these current superstars being incredibly lame and lacking any semblance of competitiveness or desire to persevere through adversity, but I think a franchise tag has always made a lot of sense, and at this point you have to do something to throw the 20-something "have-not" franchises a bone.

FYI I really don't think the buyout stuff is much of an issue.

[Bucksfan28]

How are teams not honoring the contracts?

I put that in quotes because it's a phrase you hear, but I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment. The argument would be, in Drummond's case for example, that they literally prevented the guy from playing basketball and left him in limbo for over a month. Then there's the part about how teams can just trade guys on a whim with no input from the player, which is the gist of Draymond's point iirc.

Again, I don't like that phrase. I think such is the nature of the business and both sides simply take on that risk when entering a contract. But it's something players get accused of not doing when those situations arise.

I didn't think Draymond made much of a point at all, to be honest. I can't come up with many instances where it wasn't mutually beneficial to the players for them sitting. They get to rest and avoid injury. If they can come up with a buyout or a waive agreement, the player can go from a bad team to one of their choosing, for whatever their reasons.

If the players did have a problem with it, you would think guys like Blake, Drummond, or Aldridge would be vocal about it.

Not really refuting any of that. And I don't mean to advocate for criticism of owners/GM's in this scenario. It's moreso that neither side should really be criticized for exercising what control they have over the situation.