Larry Sanders contract

[ranger001]

Looks like Larry Sanders does not want to play in the NBA anymore.
http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/23 ... ll-Anymore

Can the Bucks void his contract if he is reluctant to play or playing lazily? Or is it more likely they will have to buy him out?

[Smitty731]

Looks like Larry Sanders does not want to play in the NBA anymore.
http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/23 ... ll-Anymore

Can the Bucks void his contract if he is reluctant to play or playing lazily? Or is it more likely they will have to buy him out?

Voiding a guaranteed contract is nearly impossible under the CBA. The Bucks only real leverage is a buyout. Of course, Sanders can say no and just collect money. I don't know if there is a precedent of a player refusing to play. Playing lazy, there are dozens and nothing can be done about that. But refusing to play isn't something I can remember.

[DBoys]

If he simply refused to show up and play anymore, voiding his contract would be relatively easy, assuming that's what MIL wanted to do. There's also the issue of what happens if he later decides to play again, since voiding the contract also removes any rights to his services, so it's a tricky tightrope to walk.

Supposedly he's going to play, and it's going to go away. So we won't find out how MIL wants to respond to such a situation.

[Smitty731]

If he simply refused to show up and play anymore, voiding his contract would be relatively easy.

If he refused to show up, sure. But I doubt that would happen. He'd probably just show up and then refuse to play or practice with and "injury" of some sort. That could get very hard to prove.

Can you think of a case where this has actually happened? I am wracking my brain and can't come up with one. Unhappy guys, sure. Guys refusing to show up, I can't come up with one.

My guess is that this is sorted out with some form of trade. I really hope the Bucks aren't put in a situation to just eat his deal, as they were building something nice. Whether eating it year over year or stretched, they don't need to be carrying all that extra money.

[DBoys]

Yes it's happened. Derek Fisher twice (in UT, and in DAL). Probably more, but those are off the top of my head. And it was that very scenario - simply didn't want to play anymore - that MIL was reportedly dealing with. Reportedly.

[Smitty731]

Yes it's happened. Derek Fisher twice (in UT, and in DAL). Probably more, but those are off the top of my head. And it was that very scenario - simply didn't want to play anymore - that MIL was reportedly dealing with. Reportedly.

But both of those ended in buyouts not voided contracts, if I remember correctly. I think the Dallas situation was a fully non-guaranteed deal that he was released from. I remember both situations were him asking for his release. I don't think in either case the contract was actually voided. I think he was waived with a minimal to no buyout.

I can't remember if either resulted in the Jazz or Mavericks carrying money after he was released.

[DBoys]

While it's harder to define, the NBA contract actually gives teams far more leeway in this area of "not able or willing to perform" than most realize. The standard is that if the player is without "proper and reasonable cause" for not showing up and playing hard, then the team pretty much has wide latitude under the "failure to render services required" concept.

Of course, that's counterbalanced with the employee relations aspect of life, where a team wants to encourage rather than discourage not only this player, but also in attracting others later, so this isn't likely to ever come into play until things would be incredibly bad. IIRC, didn't the Knicks and Curry get to this point or at least come close?

[DBoys]

Yes it's happened. Derek Fisher twice (in UT, and in DAL). Probably more, but those are off the top of my head. And it was that very scenario - simply didn't want to play anymore - that MIL was reportedly dealing with. Reportedly.

But both of those ended in buyouts not voided contracts, if I remember correctly. I think the Dallas situation was a fully non-guaranteed deal that he was released from. I remember both situations were him asking for his release. I don't think in either case the contract was actually voided. I think he was waived with a minimal to no buyout.

I can't remember if either resulted in the Jazz or Mavericks carrying money after he was released.

IMO this has now veered into a semantics game where the technicalities of waiver vs buyout vs voiding are pushing aside the point, and I don't want to go into a discussion of the differences, distinctions, and meanings of the various terms that tend to be used for similar stuff.

My point about Fisher is that, he was one who refused to play. And when he stopped playing, he didn't get paid anymore. Period. His teams did NOT end up on the hook financially. I believe that was the gist of the OP's query - if Sanders doesn't play, will MIL be on the hook to pay anyhow. The answer is no - - whether MIL would then simply end the contract (void) or would work a buyout with him (mutual agreement), they would have the ability to stop paying in that event.

[Smitty731]

Yes it's happened. Derek Fisher twice (in UT, and in DAL). Probably more, but those are off the top of my head. And it was that very scenario - simply didn't want to play anymore - that MIL was reportedly dealing with. Reportedly.

But both of those ended in buyouts not voided contracts, if I remember correctly. I think the Dallas situation was a fully non-guaranteed deal that he was released from. I remember both situations were him asking for his release. I don't think in either case the contract was actually voided. I think he was waived with a minimal to no buyout.

I can't remember if either resulted in the Jazz or Mavericks carrying money after he was released.

IMO this has now veered into a semantics game where the technicalities of waiver vs buyout vs voiding are pushing aside the point, and I don't want to go into a discussion of the differences, distinctions, and meanings of the various terms that tend to be used for similar stuff.

My point about Fisher is that, he was one who refused to play. And when he stopped playing, he didn't get paid anymore. Period. His teams did NOT end up on the hook financially. I believe that was the gist of the OP's query - if Sanders doesn't play, will MIL be on the hook to pay anyhow. The answer is no - - whether MIL would then simply end the contract (void) or would work a buyout with him (mutual agreement), they would have the ability to stop paying in that event.

Fair enough. I think your other point on Eddy Curry was pretty valid too. I don't remember exactly how that one ended (I think the Knicks paid him to simply go away), but that is a pretty similar situation. My point remains that I think Sanders and the Bucks will still work it out. Either he'll be there or he'll be traded. Something seems weird that he would just walk away from 44 million dollars.

[Dunkenstein]

I think that the Fisher and Sanders situations are very different. Fisher, who has a history of being manipulative, decided he didn't want to play for Dallas any more so the two sides agreed he'd be waived and not get paid anymore. He said he "wanted to be closer to his family". Then he ended up playing for the Thunder at the end of the season and in the playoffs.

In Sanders case there seems to be a psychological component behind his not playing. Several reports of "personal issues". Then today the newly hired president of the Bucks was quoted as saying the franchise's new owners want to "surround players with the best medical, psychological, emotional and physical support we can possibly have." Sounds to me like some form of depression. Depression is a disease. It's not just a player refusing to play. It sounds like the team is being supportive of him as a person and not getting into any financial ramifications at this point.

[Scoot McGroot]

Yes it's happened. Derek Fisher twice (in UT, and in DAL). Probably more, but those are off the top of my head. And it was that very scenario - simply didn't want to play anymore - that MIL was reportedly dealing with. Reportedly.

But both of those ended in buyouts not voided contracts, if I remember correctly. I think the Dallas situation was a fully non-guaranteed deal that he was released from. I remember both situations were him asking for his release. I don't think in either case the contract was actually voided. I think he was waived with a minimal to no buyout.

I can't remember if either resulted in the Jazz or Mavericks carrying money after he was released.

IMO this has now veered into a semantics game where the technicalities of waiver vs buyout vs voiding are pushing aside the point, and I don't want to go into a discussion of the differences, distinctions, and meanings of the various terms that tend to be used for similar stuff.

My point about Fisher is that, he was one who refused to play. And when he stopped playing, he didn't get paid anymore. Period. His teams did NOT end up on the hook financially. I believe that was the gist of the OP's query - if Sanders doesn't play, will MIL be on the hook to pay anyhow. The answer is no - - whether MIL would then simply end the contract (void) or would work a buyout with him (mutual agreement), they would have the ability to stop paying in that event.

Fisher accepted a buyout of essentially 0 when he was dealt to Utah and wanted to return to LA due to his daughters medical treatment at the time.

[DBoys]

Fisher accepted a buyout of essentially 0 when he was dealt to Utah and wanted to return to LA due to his daughters medical treatment at the time.

Yes, he could no longer play basketball and travel because of concern for his daughter - or so he said. Same type of veracity he used in Dallas - he had decided he just couldn't be away from his family - or so he said.

[Smitty731]

Fisher accepted a buyout of essentially 0 when he was dealt to Utah and wanted to return to LA due to his daughters medical treatment at the time.

Yes, he could no longer play basketball and travel because of concern for his daughter - or so he said. Same type of veracity he used in Dallas - he had decided he just couldn't be away from his family - or so he said.

I've never been a big Fisher fan after that. An NBA player who makes millions of dollars could have found a way to make it work in either situation. My take is, and always will be, he wanted to get to a better situation basketball-wise and none of it was related to what he said. That is why in our house he is Derek Fisher - Scumbag. Generally followed by "Because they must not have hospitals in Utah."

[Scoot McGroot]

Fisher accepted a buyout of essentially 0 when he was dealt to Utah and wanted to return to LA due to his daughters medical treatment at the time.

Yes, he could no longer play basketball and travel because of concern for his daughter - or so he said. Same type of veracity he used in Dallas - he had decided he just couldn't be away from his family - or so he said.

I've never been a big Fisher fan after that. An NBA player who makes millions of dollars could have found a way to make it work in either situation. My take is, and always will be, he wanted to get to a better situation basketball-wise and none of it was related to what he said. That is why in our house he is Derek Fisher - Scumbag. Generally followed by "Because they must not have hospitals in Utah."

I don't really like Fisher, but as the husband of a neonatologist, you want the best medical care for your children, especially the super young ones. He signed in Utah, and when it hit the fan, he took a buyout of essentially $0 to accommodate that need. He didn't screw over the Jazz in that regards.

And the whole Dallas thing was a different trade. That was after he was bought out by Houston, who had acquired him solely as a salary dump. They chose the buyout then, there was really only one team that had interest.

[DBoys]

I don't really like Fisher, but as the husband of a neonatologist, you want the best medical care for your children, especially the super young ones. He signed in Utah, and when it hit the fan, he took a buyout of essentially $0 to accommodate that need. He didn't screw over the Jazz in that regards.

And the whole Dallas thing was a different trade. That was after he was bought out by Houston, who had acquired him solely as a salary dump. They chose the buyout then, there was really only one team that had interest.

The Utah thing, he didn't do what he said. It was all a big lie. The daughter was an excuse.

The Dallas thing, it didn't happen at all like you outline. He chose Dallas, signed with Dallas, then pretended to not want to play in the NBA anymore. Then signed elsewhere.

He's a fraud, plain and simple, and I have no respect.

[Scoot McGroot]

I don't really like Fisher, but as the husband of a neonatologist, you want the best medical care for your children, especially the super young ones. He signed in Utah, and when it hit the fan, he took a buyout of essentially $0 to accommodate that need. He didn't screw over the Jazz in that regards.

And the whole Dallas thing was a different trade. That was after he was bought out by Houston, who had acquired him solely as a salary dump. They chose the buyout then, there was really only one team that had interest.

The Utah thing, he didn't do what he said. It was all a big lie. The daughter was an excuse.

You saying his daughter didn't have retinoblastoma and that he faked that? Didn't he play a full 82 game season in Utah and even race back for a playoff game? NY and LA have a huge combo of doctors that can treat that long term, as you either have to remove the eye of a young child and have chemo, or you can do all kinds of things, chemo, and monitor on a weekly basis for years and maybe the child can keep the eye. Utah, while I'm sure a wonderful place, doesn't have the doctors to treat that.

The Dallas thing, it didn't happen at all like you outline. He chose Dallas, signed with Dallas, then pretended to not want to play in the NBA anymore. Then signed elsewhere.

He's a fraud, plain and simple, and I have no respect.

The Dallas thing I confused. Sure. However, he was injured early and asked to be released from his contract to be with his family on December 20th. Sure, OKC isn't any nearer to his family (he's lived in LA and NYC at different times, so I'm not sure which was home at the time). However, he didn't sogn with OKC until Feb 25th. That is a full 2 months at home, especially over the holidays, to spend with family.

I hate the guy, but certainly respect a guy who wants his daughter to possibly have full vision and is willing to sacrifice money to do so. Dallas fans could have some issue, but he did spend 2 months with his family, as he said he wanted to do.

[DBoys]

I don't really like Fisher, but as the husband of a neonatologist, you want the best medical care for your children, especially the super young ones. He signed in Utah, and when it hit the fan, he took a buyout of essentially $0 to accommodate that need. He didn't screw over the Jazz in that regards.

And the whole Dallas thing was a different trade. That was after he was bought out by Houston, who had acquired him solely as a salary dump. They chose the buyout then, there was really only one team that had interest.

The Utah thing, he didn't do what he said. It was all a big lie. The daughter was an excuse.

You saying his daughter didn't have retinoblastoma and that he faked that? Didn't he play a full 82 game season in Utah and even race back for a playoff game? NY and LA have a huge combo of doctors that can treat that long term, as you either have to remove the eye of a young child and have chemo, or you can do all kinds of things, chemo, and monitor on a weekly basis for years and maybe the child can keep the eye. Utah, while I'm sure a wonderful place, doesn't have the doctors to treat that.

The Dallas thing, it didn't happen at all like you outline. He chose Dallas, signed with Dallas, then pretended to not want to play in the NBA anymore. Then signed elsewhere.

He's a fraud, plain and simple, and I have no respect.

The Dallas thing I confused. Sure. However, he was injured early and asked to be released from his contract to be with his family on December 20th. Sure, OKC isn't any nearer to his family (he's lived in LA and NYC at different times, so I'm not sure which was home at the time). However, he didn't sogn with OKC until Feb 25th. That is a full 2 months at home, especially over the holidays, to spend with family.

I hate the guy, but certainly respect a guy who wants his daughter to possibly have full vision and is willing to sacrifice money to do so. Dallas fans could have some issue, but he did spend 2 months with his family, as he said he wanted to do.

I'm not saying his daughter didn't have an issue, or that it wasn't worth prioritizing. But imo he used his daughter as an ploy to get from Utah to LA. His daughter's surgery was in NY, and reports say the follow-ups have continued to be in NY all along. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baske ... -1.1824865 His reason for asking to be released from his contract was a need to be in NY because of his daughter. He couldn't possibly play basketball, he told the Jazz, and was given his release - and less than 3 weeks later, he signed a new contract with LA (which is not NY). I would have had no problem if he quit entirely or signed in NY, but clearly it was a ploy to get to a better team, not a closer-to-daughter's-treatment thing.

In Dallas, he wasn't injured. He had been playing, and then out of the blue he quit and went home because he supposedly couldn't be away from his family. Two months later, he signed with OKC.

With tongue firmly planted in cheek, Cuban claimed to "completely understand" Fisher's decision to [sign with] Oklahoma City. "His kids are older," Cuban said last week. "It's easier to fly in and out of Oklahoma City than Dallas. I understand that. It's a decision a parent has to make. Every parent has difficult decisions to make." Moments later, Cuban added: "A lot can happen in 65 days."

The guy is a fraud.

[Dunkenstein]

It should be noted that Salt Lake City has a Childrens Hospital with one of the best cancer programs in the country. That's a reason I've always felt that Fisher's claim that he needed to move his family to Los Angeles so that he could get her the best care was totally bogus. I echo DBoys belief that Fisher's a fraud.

[SlideRuleJockey]

I would think that this very situation with Sanders is going to lead to a major confrontation between the NBA and the Players' Union when the next CBA is negotiated. Call it the Sanders provision. The NBA has shown that it can bring the union to it's knees during the last CBA Negotiations, and this almost unprecedented situation needs to have an air tight resolution that teams can fall back on if need be. Unless the NBA goes to wall to fully NG all contracts, much like the NFL, I think there is a need to find a middle ground. I would do something like this:

Make every new contract (existing contracts to be honored) a team option every July 1. If the team wanted to terminate the contract of a player for any reason what so ever, the value of the buy out, depending on the remaining years, would be something like:

4 years remaining: 80% Year 1, 60% Year 2, 40% Year 3 and 20% Year 4.
3 years remaining: 75% Year 1, 50% Year 2 and 25% Year 3.
2 years remaining: 67% Year 1 and 33% Year 2.
1 year remaining: 50% Year 1

This means that a team can buy out a player for half of the remaining contract value each and every July 1. A player is free to sign with another team but could not be paid more than the value of the original contract for the duration of the original contract. The new team would might also face some kind of (minor) salary cap or draft penalty (Cash, Pick swap option or 2'nd rounder to former team) to sign such a player. If the player is signed by another team, any value of the new contract up to and including the yearly values listed above would be first paid directly to the original team, and those values would be deducted from the original team's cap number.

As an example, a player with two years remaining at $6 Million per year could be terminated by Team A on July 1. The player would still be paid $4 Million for the first season and $2 Million the second. Team B signs the player for two years (new contract can not exceed length of old contract) for $3 Million Per year. Team A is assessed 1 Million against the cap and Team B is assessed $3 Million in year one. Player is paid $4 Million for the first year, $1 Million from Team A and $3 Million from Team B. The second year, Team A has no cap hit and pays nothing the player. Team B pays the entire $3 Million and has a cap hit of $3 Million. An arbitrator decides if Team A is owed any compensation by Team B.

This is just a first swipe at it, but maybe idea outlined above could be used as a basis. Play with the percentages all you like, but the rough idea might work.

One thing for sure IMHO, the Sanders situation needs to be resolved in the next CBA, and it could get ugly.

[ranger001]

I would think that this very situation with Sanders is going to lead to a major confrontation between the NBA and the Players' Union when the next CBA is negotiated. Call it the Sanders provision...

I doubt the union will give up anything in the next CBA, they will be going for bigger percentages due to the new TV deal and the owners will not want to take on this particular fight.