The Buyout Era Is Tainting The Game

[arenas809]

FGump, you've nailed it.

Dunk, you and I have no prior history so I'm not sure where the hostility is coming from.

Regardless of where, let's not act like this issue is irrelevant and doesn't have merit.

Furthermore, this isn't college, I don't need you to teach me what I already know.

I'm well aware of Cassell's history regarding extensions and then his bitching about money later on.

Again, I'm not someone who logged on here to ask why can't David Noel be traded for Shaq straight up.

Please keep that in mind.

From observing this board, for whatever reason, you and some other guys feel the need to jump on people (let's call them newbies) whenever they make a post of anything or feel the need to demonstrate your intelligence and knowledge of the business that is the NBA is vastly superior to theirs.

I get it, thanks.

Greetings from the Ivory Tower.

[Three34]

Again, I'm not someone who logged on here to ask why can't David Noel be traded for Shaq straight up.

Cos Senator Herb Kohl runs the team, not Larry Harris. Harris is a mere email-answering figurehead.

[LarryCoon]

The most obvious change I think most fans would start with would be to outlaw the boomerang move, where a player can be traded, waived, and go back to the original team in 30 days. That just seems wrong, unless no other team offers him a contract.

But that's the whole reason for the 30-day waiting period. The GP Boston-Atlanta-Boston round trip barely qualified as an overnight stay, and was clearly problematic. But eliminating that sort of thing entirely means you could have an able-bodied player, with one (and only one) team that is willing to sign him, who has to remain unemployed. The league would rather have the player employed than not, so the 30-day wait is a compromise that provides a disincentive for the "temporary trade" manuever, gives the other teams a better shot (because they can sign him right away), and still gives the player an employment opportunity if nothing else pans out.

[Cookin Baskets]

I agree with the OP. It makes it hard for the borderline playoff teams like my Hawks to make any noise in the postseason when the teams above them are basically given free gifts.

Such is life in the NBA, I guess.

True but until the bibby deal haven't been smart in the last decade or some of their picks granted they do have a good core, not free gifts afterall there is more then one contending team, and the fact is most of time its best for the player and organazation. Its not just given there is some stiff competition to get some of these buyout players. If neither the team or player is happy with the situation and player is willing to help the team save money why not its not any worse then free agency itself seriously people. Its good to see players be productive, i want to see my favorite veteran players have a chance to win.

[FGump]

But that's the whole reason for the 30-day waiting period. The GP Boston-Atlanta-Boston round trip barely qualified as an overnight stay, and was clearly problematic. But eliminating that sort of thing entirely means you could have an able-bodied player, with one (and only one) team that is willing to sign him, who has to remain unemployed. The league would rather have the player employed than not, so the 30-day wait is a compromise that provides a disincentive for the "temporary trade" manuever, gives the other teams a better shot (because they can sign him right away), and still gives the player an employment opportunity if nothing else pans out.

I understand the 30-day rule was INTENDED to discourage such things, but we can see already it just causes bigger questions.

Other teams have a head start. But given the amount of the season remaining and the relative dollars (minimum, prorated), it's not much of a real disincentive to do it that way.

At the end of the day, it still avoids the bigger issue, Larry, of what if multiple teams do want the player and he has a wink-wink understanding with the team that traded him away. We can't pretend that isn't the case, and the 30-day window really isn't enough to keep it from happening.

You and I both know that if Stackhouse had gone to NJ, and been bought out, then he would have waited for 30 days and gone back to Dallas. And there would have been a huge squawk around the league by GMs and fans and a sense that something unfair or illegal happened under the table, whether it did or not. It's that AURA of "that's not fair" the league should want to erase.

It would be easy enough to do. You make a rule that says if a player is traded away by a team (in this case Stackhouse) and signs with that team after 30 days, then every other team has ROFR on that contract he signs with the original team. You make it like waivers in that it's done by reverse order in the standings, but all you need is signing ability (cap room, exception, etc). If he still ends up with the original team, he truly was going there as a last resort. Otherwise, he doesn't get back.

That way he can get every last cent possible. But the original team is last in line for any sweetheart deal, as it should be.

[shrink]

I think the larger question here is parity.

Clearly, the NBA values some amount of league parity, or else we wouldn't have a system of rules for teams on either side of the salary cap or lux, salary matching restrictions in trades, and all the rules on exceptions. However, the NBA's rules for parity only work in a rational, market-based economy where overpaid individuals still want to be fully compensated for their production, and value fair compensation over the chance to get a ring. Without that

I think that buy-outs will always happen, but the problem exists when these talented players can go and join contenders for the vet minimum. Yes, this can be cyclical, but seeing the strong get stronger, and at a discount no less, is clearly a move in the opposite direction of parity. Personally, I don't value the employment of a few individual players for a part of the season to be more important than maintaining competitive balance through all the play-off teams in the NBA.

NBA players get guaranteed contracts, and then want to go join better teams. I have no problem with buy-outs per se, but I do not think its good for the league as a whole to allow bought out players to join other teams for the remained of the season.

EDIT: And while the socialist idea of specific salary minimums is personally appalling to me, if the NBA wants to try to achieve league parity through overall contract prices, then something needs to be done about good players signing on for vet minimums. Certainly, they'd be less willing to do so if it wasn't for just a few months of the season (buy-outs) when they've already received over half their market salary that year. However, a few veterans may still value a championship so much they'd forego a year of salary at a vet minimum to have a ring for the rest of their lives. Paying the vet min for Sam Cassell versus paying the vet minimum for Kevin Willis are two very different things.

[raleigh]

ou make it like waivers in that it's done by reverse order in the standings, but all you need is signing ability (cap room, exception, etc).

This is something like what I was going to suggest.

Perhaps you could allow the player to sign an "offer sheet" with whomever he would like, and then any team with a worse record and the ability to match (cap space/exception) could do so.

At the very least, you would make the championship contenders offer more than the vet minimum. And it would put the onus on the "playoff contenders" to decide just how much they don't want the rich to get richer.

[bgwizarfan]

ou make it like waivers in that it's done by reverse order in the standings, but all you need is signing ability (cap room, exception, etc).

This is something like what I was going to suggest.

Perhaps you could allow the player to sign an "offer sheet" with whomever he would like, and then any team with a worse record and the ability to match (cap space/exception) could do so.

At the very least, you would make the championship contenders offer more than the vet minimum. And it would put the onus on the "playoff contenders" to decide just how much they don't want the rich to get richer.

That's not what Gump is saying - he's saying that provision should only be in place if the player intends to sign back with the team that he was traded from. And that I agree with. The only loophole, however, is what if it's a player that has no value within the league and only his previous team would want to re-sign him. For instance, Bobby Simmons was included in the Rip Hamilton for Jerry Stackhouse deal. The Pistons immediately cut Simmons. At the time, Simmons did not have any other takers (no one in the NBA would have signed him for the min.), but the Wiz wanted him back.

So I don't think the rule should be outlawed because then a guy like Simmons back then could be out of work...but if we do it Gump's way, then the Wiz would get him back (since no one else wanted him),and yet with Stackhouse, a player other teams might want, it would also make sense to have the waiver rule.

Of course the only potential pitfall to the waiver rule is that every team in contention might want to sign him, so teams could potentially have an incentive for losing a regular season game or two if it meant getting stackhouse and being better for the playoffs. But I think that's about as good a solution as I have heard

[arenas809]

Of course the only potential pitfall to the waiver rule is that every team in contention might want to sign him, so teams could potentially have an incentive for losing a regular season game or two if it meant getting stackhouse and being better for the playoffs.

Losing a game or two could be the difference in home court advantage or not or even just making the playoffs or not.

I don't see teams going to that extreme just for the chance to sign a player.

We're talking about teams who are already the creams of the crop in this league, so the question is, do they really NEED the player?

Boston is already 44-12 without Sam Cassell, Brent Barry, or whoever, losing out on another guy isn't going to break their season.

[arenas809]

Add Giricek to the buyout list.

Now I understand he hasn't played much for them, but they're in a playoff race, and in case of injury he might be needed.

Just the fact that they're making a condition of the buyout that he go out West, i.e. Tim Thomas, proves to me they have a capable player on their roster that they wouldn't want to see on another team they could potentially face in the playoffs.

My problem with these buyouts stems from that this is relatively new in the league.

I'm not saying buyouts weren't done before, but not in this fashion.

Now we have guys, whether they are on playoff teams or not, wanting to go free to play for someone else, and in most cases they want to take their money with them, and go get paid by another team for the rest of the season.

In kind, these teams pick up productive players at Black Friday costs late in the season.

In sum these are the problems with these transactions performed in this manner and in this time of the year...

1. A league already filled with parity doesn't need to alter the competitive balance by allowing teams to bring in ringers for the tail-end of the season.

2. Players shouldn't be allowed to feel entitled to just go play elsewhere because that's what they feel like while still under contract.

3. Teams get screwed because instead of being able to get some sort of compensation for these players, other teams rather just wait for a buyout, then grab them on the cheap and not have to give anything in return.

4. Tampering is IMO rampant due to these situations. You've got Doc Rivers, Carmelo Anthony, George Karl, etc. publicly talking about Sam Cassell when as best to our knowledge, no buyout is even imminent and as a result he is STILL under contract with the L.A. Clippers.

I originally conveyed my sentiments incorrectly with the phrase "purity of the game", the game lost that long ago. What I meant to convey is that is my opinion that these buyouts go against the spirit of the competition and business itself.

In terms of the competition, I'd rather grab at least another draft pick or something for a guy like Cassell, rather than just save a couple of bucks. That draft pick can help my team more than that savings can in many cases.

Furthermore, I'm aiding my competition by allowing them to improve by acquiring my players without giving compensation in return. Danny Ainge said a few years ago, "If I'm not winning a championship, I don't care who is." Well Danny, I don't agree with that. My interests fall in line with my team, it's not my job to help you get a backup point guard, especially when you've already won 40+ games and are the favorite to come out of your conference.

What we're seeing right now IMO is unprecedented.

We have great players who can't push their teams to be good that want to be traded to teams that are already good.

We have (average at best) veterans who now feel they are entitled to worm out of their contracts, and be paid most if not all of their guaranteed dollars just to go play for another good team and be paid by that team as well.

We have players being traded and then considering the idea of just waltzing back to their old teams, because the rules allow them to do so.

Yes we're in a different era right now, but the integrity of the game always needs to be preserved, and these transactions are taking away from that, and what has already shaped up to be one of the best and most competitive NBA seasons in recent history.

[FGump]

Arenas, while I agree with your GENERAL premise that the the stacking of rosters at the end of the year somehow seems inequitable, many of your "supporting" points are absurd. You do yourself no service by making weak and invalid arguments.

In particular, I find your assertion that teams are somehow "losing talent" in this process to be a statement that is somewhere between naive and deceptive.

No team loses a player here that they have any desire to keep. Ever. These are players who the team no longer wants, and whom the team feels they will be gaining something by releasing them.

Also, your assertion that the team should trade these players ignores the reality that the teams already tried to do that, with no success. That's why these only occur after the trading deadline, as the teams jockey all the way to the deadline towards the desired trade if possible. And sometimes a player that appears to be headed for a buyout instead moves via trade.

And finally, when you say that "tampering is rampant" you're just flat wrong. The media speculate all day long, but I challenge you to demonstrate a regular pattern of tampering. Instead, just the opposite is true: they avoid it like the plague, because it can lead to penalties that negate the chance to gain any edge.

[arenas809]

Where did I say a team was losing talent?

In Giricek's case I said I know he doesn't even really play for them.

I said I would simply rather receive compensation than just save a few dollars if I had to make a choice.

That being said, I also said I understood it was difficult to get a team to trade for a guy when it's been speculated in the media, and other team officials have made comments publicly, about players with the obvious idea that (insert team) is waiting or hoping for that player to be bought out.

Why would a team give up anything for someone they could just get for free when the time was right?

Denver has been making comments about Cassell for months, we're not just talking about Chad Ford, Sam Smith ramblings filled with speculation.

Nuggets forward Carmelo Anthony wants Sam Cassell as a teammate, but a source expects Cassell to sign with Boston if the Clippers buy out the guard of his contract by Saturday's deadline. "Cassell could help us, especially with his veteran leadership," Anthony said.

Karl said Tuesday he has talked with some of Cassell's "people" about Cassell joining the Nuggets should he reach a buyout agreement with the Los Angeles Clippers. "He's a good player," Karl said. "We'll see what happens. Down the line, maybe we can get something done."

You do yourself a disservice when you refute something someone says only have to direct evidence thrown right back at you.

I don't think any of my ideas were weak or absurd, you just connected dots that weren't there or read what you wanted to read instead of what was actually written.

Seriously, get over the my opinion or evaluation is better than yours nonsense that exists here or save it for the trade threads.

My point has already been made, we're past the stage of this needing the Seal of Approval from the Superfriends group.

The headlines are making my case for me, and it's obvious that there are other people, namely fans of these teams, who feel the same way, I have all the validation I need.

[FGump]

Wow, loser, now I see why Dunkenstein ragged your butt from the outset. I made the mistake it seems of trying to find the value in your point and saying so. But if I don't agree with all of it, now you jump straight to the ad hominem attack rather than just present your opinion? What a loser.

I see that's all Dunkenstein did either. He merely disagreed and offered his views, and all of a sudden you're PMS-ing so badly you probably need a transfusion.

You said (YOU, not me, or anyone else) all those things.

You said in various and repetitious ways ...
1. teams are somehow unfairly "losing talent" in this process when they buy out players ...YOU said it. And you're an idiot for saying it.
2. teams should get something in return - while ignoring the fact they already tried to and couldn't ...YOU said it. And you're an idiot for saying it.
3. teams are tampering - while ignoring the more relevant fact that if tampering is actually going on, in a way that effects the process, someone will complain and the NBA can and will hammer them for doing so ...more stupidity from you.

You pretty much invalidated any point you may have had, by throwing out such crap and then attacking me for objecting to those lame points you tried to float. Your bigger point must be more worthless than I thought. Thanks for making it clear.

And since you have all the validation you need elsewhere, then feel free to go there and revel in your ignorance. I bet they'll love your stupidity there. You might even be proclaimed King of Stupidity there, and get the crown you so covet.

[arenas809]

Pure laughs.

Good job of avoiding the issue.

You attacked what I said.

I refuted what you said, so you start with the name calling.

I didn't call you anything, I just said don't refute something I say when I have evidence in mind as I'm posting.

Dunk is a knowledgable guy, but he stepped up to the plate with a whiffle bat when he felt the need to make a point about my location as if that had anything to do with the discussion.

His location says Santa Monica, California.

Ok, and?

Every thread on here, you, and whoever gets involved in a discussion feels the need to measure your internet penises.

Sorry I'm not going to play along, my real one is big enough.

[lakerfan10770]

Peronally I do not think all of these buyouts are a big problem. And there really isn't a whole lot the league could do to prevent it anyways. At least not until the next CBA is negotiated. Which is when, 2012?

The main reason that buyouts are done instead of trades is the whole salary matching requirement for teams over the cap & the luxury tax implications. If the NBA really feels that this is a problem, a simple solution would be to create a new trade exception. Here is what I would propose:

1. The new exception can only be used to acquire a veteran player (5-8+ years in the league) in the last guaranteed year of his contract.

2. The player has to consent to the trade.

3. The receiving team would not be required to send any salary back, but could. They would however be required to send some sort of compensation, whether it be a draft pick, cash considerations, rights to a player, or even a lesser salaried player as is with all trades.

4. The trading team would not receive any sort of TPE for the transaction.

5. The luxury tax implications could be solved by making only a prorated amount of the salary based on the number of days with each team subject to the luxury tax for both teams. Another option would be to make the incoming player's salary not subject to the luxury tax at all, but I doubt the league would go for that.

If this was the case, then Boston could have traded a 2nd round pick to the Clippers for Cassell, Boston would then be subject to luxury tax on about $2M . The Clippers would be subject to pay Luxury Tax on $4M if they were over the threshold, which they aren't.

[FGump]

Loser, go back and look. I disagreed with your lame and insupportable points, and you started acting like a little 3-year-old with the personal attacks.

If you don't see the personal attacks YOU made, go back and look. One after another.

Before that point, I discussed the issue with facts. But you didn't like facts, and turned it into personal attacks. So I'll play, and I'll just turn this whole discussion into a discussion of what a loser you are. Your topic is dead, and you caused it.

And we all know that those who like to boast about their size are the tiny little pipsqueaks who need a magnifying glass. Thanks for identifying yourself.

[FGump]

Laker sorry for peeing all over your good insight, but loserboy Arenas wanted to make this a personal attack conversation rather than rational discussion. I'm sure everything you said went right over his head anyhow. I think he's a disciple of Isiah, judging from his lack of acumen.

[arenas809]

Loser, go back and look. I disagreed with your lame and insupportable points, and you started acting like a little 3-year-old with the personal attacks.

If you don't see the personal attacks YOU made, go back and look. One after another.

Before that point, I discussed the issue with facts. But you didn't like facts, and turned it into personal attacks. So I'll play, and I'll just turn this whole discussion into a discussion of what a loser you are. Your topic is dead, and you caused it.

And we all know that those who like to boast about their size are the tiny little pipsqueaks who need a magnifying glass. Thanks for identifying yourself.

Ya you're right.

When I posted those quotes, that was a personal attack.

[arenas809]

Laker sorry for peeing all over your good insight, but loserboy Arenas wanted to make this a personal attack conversation rather than rational discussion. I'm sure everything you said went right over his head anyhow. I think he's a disciple of Isiah, judging from his lack of acumen.

You're saying I've made this a personal attack, and you've gone out of your way now in several posts to call me a loser.

WOW.

Do us a favor and change your name to BSlapped.

[lakerfan10770]

Laker sorry for peeing all over your good insight, but loserboy wanted to make this a personal attack conversation rather than rational discussion. I'm sure everything you said went right over his head anyhow.

No prob, I started that post quite a while ago and got distracted with work (how dare they!!!), so by the time I actually posted it got in the middle of this argument.


BTW, I think this thread started to turn with this remark (arenas809's first reply):

I guess that's a nice "quip", but you didn't really say anything relevant to the topic at hand.

Most fans in attendance today having ties to Corporate America, has nothing to do with teams being able to grab ringers for the playoffs.

Furthermore, this isn't the WWE, the games aren't staged, the best team still wins, the point of game is still to put the ball in the hole.

What was the point of your response?

and then these comments from Dunk, which I don't think were intended to be fighting words, obviously struck a nerve with arenas809:

I think the point of modern_eoic's comment was that you're living in some Upper East Side (Of New York City, I assume) Ivory Tower, talking about "the purity of the game" and totally ignoring that the NBA game is a business for both the teams, the players and the league.

And before you start calling me a "Silk Stocking District" basher, understand that I was born and raised on the Upper East Side myself.

The game lost its "so-called" purity when $50M+ contracts and $10M endorsement deals became the norm. When Billion Dollar TV deals became the norm. When teams got bought and sold for $300M+ price tags. Much as you would like, we're not going back to the days when guys like Jordan, Bird and Magic played for less than $1M a season. Nor are we going to see the time again when a championship team could be assembled for less than $10M in team payroll.

(clipped)

So take your ideas of "he purity of the game", have another "drink of your choice", and bemoan the fact that you're living in New York where Jimmy Dolan is so stupid that he can't even spend $90M to put a winning team on the floor.

arenas809's reply then sent this thread into a tailspin:

Where I am and where you are has nothing to do with the discussion.

Nor does it have anything to do with Dolan, I didn't advertise here some sort of love for the Knicks.

I've been around this board a while, you seem more intelligent than that, so please act like it if we're going to have a discussion.

I agree with your points about the league as a business, that is obvious. I'm not some dumbass that came here to ask you to interpret a simple CBA related issue for me, so spare me the condescending tone. (clipped)

also, the bolded comment insulted a lot of people that post in here.