Why did the BYC rule need to be established?

[Alonzo_Morning]

Once triggered, BYC temporarily lowered the player's outgoing salary for salary-matching purposes (only), and therefore reduced or eliminated teams' ability to target salaries for trade purposes.

Why is this such a terrible thing? If both teams are willing to participate in the trade, is it hurting the integrity of the league in any way?

Darius Miller was signed to a 2 year 14 mil contract which was specifically designed to be trade filler. This is the same, just circumventing the explicit rules.

I fail to see what it achieves other than be restrictive to players and clubs

[DBoys]

The NBA wants to try to have the salary match use fairly realistic player salaries that are being matched, rather than making fake deals for numbers that's not in line with a player's salary history in order to somewhat reflect actual ability. Presumably if a player ended last season on an NBA roster at a certain salary, that salary is somewhat reflective of his ability.

As far as Miller goes, he already had that contract, as I understand it, which he signed in 2019. It wasn't a new one. It only has the final year still remaining.

The players want limits like this one too. The players all share in a limited pool of money, splitting it up. There need to be mechanisms in place to try to keep money that should be there for the better players (who are bringing fans to the games) to be paid, rather than being drained off to players who don't deserve it. This puts a specified limit on a situation where there can be such drainage.

[Alonzo_Morning]

The NBA wants to try to have the salary match use fairly realistic player salaries that are being matched, rather than making fake deals for numbers that's not in line with a player's salary history in order to somewhat reflect actual ability. Presumably if a player ended last season on an NBA roster at a certain salary, that salary is somewhat reflective of his ability.

As far as Miller goes, he already had that contract, as I understand it, which he signed in 2019. It wasn't a new one. It only has the final year still remaining.

The players want limits like this one too. The players all share in a limited pool of money, splitting it up. There need to be mechanisms in place to try to keep money that should be there for the better players (who are bringing fans to the games) to be paid, rather than being drained off to players who don't deserve it. This puts a specified limit on a situation where there can be such drainage.

Yeah Miller was signed in 2019, but at a salary far greater than he had ever received before and far outweighing his ability/production. By your reasoning, this should be something the league is trying to avoid. As I said, it was specifically designed to be trade filler at that value (2y/14mil). Did the league investigate that signing? No.

They love to have it both ways, don't they.

[DBoys]

Sorry but your conspiracy theory idea on Miller just doesn't hold up.

Of course the league wants the money to go to the players that most deserve it, but they leave that evaluation to the various teams. Sometimes they err and overpay, and sometimes they get great bargains. That's life. Move on.

Miller was signed by NO - who is certainly not throwing money wildly - to a 2 year deal where they kept him. They paid him for a whole season already, at that rate. Obviously when they signed him, they thought it was the right amount.

If you think he was intended to be used in a trade at some later date, maybe so (or maybe not), but that would be no motivation for them to intentionally make him way overpaid as you claim. The best trade value is the bargain-priced player - so if they thought he was worth less, no doubt they would have paid him less.

And your theory ignores that at the time, he was a 6-6 wing, probably seen as a 3 & D guy who just came off a breakout year where he played almost 2000 minutes and shot over 41% on 3s. That's not just a worthless spare - those wings who can shoot are a valued NBA commodity, and some get paid way more than that.

Anyhow if they wanted a $7M player as a future trade chip, they would have found someone else who was better and more worth $7M or more (if they thought there was one) for that money. They could have signed any number of players to a deal of this size, no matter whether they felt like they might trade them some day later, so they must have felt they would be getting more for their money from him than with someone else.

[Alonzo_Morning]

Sorry but your conspiracy theory idea on Miller just doesn't hold up.

Of course the league wants the money to go to the players that most deserve it, but they leave that evaluation to the various teams. Sometimes they err and overpay, and sometimes they get great bargains. That's life. Move on.

Miller was signed by NO - who is certainly not throwing money wildly - to a 2 year deal where they kept him. They paid him for a whole season already, at that rate. Obviously when they signed him, they thought it was the right amount.

If you think he was intended to be used in a trade at some later date, maybe so (or maybe not), but that would be no motivation for them to intentionally make him way overpaid as you claim. The best trade value is the bargain-priced player - so if they thought he was worth less, no doubt they would have paid him less.

And your theory ignores that at the time, he was a 6-6 wing, probably seen as a 3 & D guy who just came off a breakout year where he played almost 2000 minutes and shot over 41% on 3s. That's not just a worthless spare - those wings who can shoot are a valued NBA commodity, and some get paid way more than that.

Anyhow if they wanted a $7M player as a future trade chip, they would have found someone else who was better and more worth $7M or more (if they thought there was one) for that money. They could have signed any number of players to a deal of this size, no matter whether they felt like they might trade them some day later, so they must have felt they would be getting more for their money from him than with someone else.

I can't agree at all with your assertion that they didn't overpay him for trade purposes

The fact that Miller's second year was unguaranteed is a dead giveaway for what the real plans were.

Miller is a complete negative on defense and all he does is shoot threes, albeit at a good clip. If he didn't get 7 mil a year Pelicans would have had to give up other assets in the Adams trade that they didn't want to.

As on over the cap team, you can't just find another similar 7 million dollar player. Bird Rights enabled us to overpay him