I'm getting sick of every year title contending teams getting the opportunity to pick up key players in late February for absolutely nothing.
If you're a good team, like Phoenix, San Antonio, etc. why even bother with offseason free agency?
You can just pick up good players bought out and waived by bad teams, who all of a sudden have obtained the right to be paid to go play elsewhere for a ring when their current team sucks.
Furthermore, you get to pay a prorated amount of a minimum contract, you're getting good players at bargain bin prices, this isn't Big Lots.
These guys don't get any respect from me because now at the end of their careers, they want to ride the coattails of others for rings.
I'm sorry, but I don't remember GP for the ring he won as a scrub for the Heat. I remember him for losing to Jordan and the Bulls, and for begging Danny Ainge this year for a job to come "play" for the Celtics.
You never saw guys asking to be let out of their contracts so they can go play with Jordan, Magic, Bird, etc. at the tail-end of a season.
The buyouts really need to stop because these impure transactions are taking away from the natural purity of the game.
People were interested in these podcasts
The Buyout Era Is Tainting The Game
The Buyout Era Is Tainting The Game
-
arenas809
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 752
- And1: 75
- Joined: Jun 22, 2003
- Location: Upper East Side
-
arenas809
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 752
- And1: 75
- Joined: Jun 22, 2003
- Location: Upper East Side
Modern_epic wrote:The players play in front of 20 000 people largely there for business reasons, for millions of dollars. I think natural purity left a long time ago.
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?
-
Phobo_Phile
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,746
- And1: 398
- Joined: Jun 12, 2007
- Location: Grand Rapids
-
I agree with you in part but have this to add.
1.When a team cuts a player it is usually a situation where the team is bad (Clippers) and the player is playing below (Cassell) what would be considered his personal normal talent for playing. In the relationship they have nothing to gain from each other.
2.The player is usually aging. You don't see guys like Channing Frye being cut because they don't fit their team. It's almost always the aging veteran. The does (insert name here) have any game left question often comes up. Hardly ever are these acquisitions earth shattering.
3.It does benefit the team. Like I mentioned above when it gets to the buyout as an option point, really the team and player no longer benefit each other. The player is probably an expiring contract or has no trade value. That player gets cut so it can go to a potential contender. If you are in the mid-30s you don't want to waste your time in team that is in a rebuild. And a team doesn't to waste it's time on you. The player gets to be a free agent again...but the team opens up a lot more time to bring along the kids AND it saves the owner a lot of money. The cap hit remains the same but like I said it's usually an expiring anyway.
Again, using the Cassell situation, that's why also you didn't see him traded. What would have been the point? Nothing in the world would have saved that team this year. Why not cut costs? Unless at the very most you are getting draft picks out of it.
1.When a team cuts a player it is usually a situation where the team is bad (Clippers) and the player is playing below (Cassell) what would be considered his personal normal talent for playing. In the relationship they have nothing to gain from each other.
2.The player is usually aging. You don't see guys like Channing Frye being cut because they don't fit their team. It's almost always the aging veteran. The does (insert name here) have any game left question often comes up. Hardly ever are these acquisitions earth shattering.
3.It does benefit the team. Like I mentioned above when it gets to the buyout as an option point, really the team and player no longer benefit each other. The player is probably an expiring contract or has no trade value. That player gets cut so it can go to a potential contender. If you are in the mid-30s you don't want to waste your time in team that is in a rebuild. And a team doesn't to waste it's time on you. The player gets to be a free agent again...but the team opens up a lot more time to bring along the kids AND it saves the owner a lot of money. The cap hit remains the same but like I said it's usually an expiring anyway.
Again, using the Cassell situation, that's why also you didn't see him traded. What would have been the point? Nothing in the world would have saved that team this year. Why not cut costs? Unless at the very most you are getting draft picks out of it.
-
Dunkenstein
- Starter
- Posts: 2,454
- And1: 13
- Joined: Jun 17, 2002
- Location: Santa Monica, CA
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.
Guys like Brent Barry get bought out because under the rules of the CBA he had to be included in the deal that sent him to Seattle so that the main deal for other players that each of the teams wanted to acquire or get rid of could be completed. Seattle never wanted Barry, so they waived him. That was the "cost of doing business". Now he has the rare luxury of choosing where he is going to play.
While you are correct that the NBA isn't the WWE, the point of the game has unfortunately moved past just scoring baskets and winning games. The point of the game is now (just like the WWE) about making money, both for the players, the teams and the league. Billionaire Michael Heisley didn't trade Pau Gasol because he thought the Grizzlies would win more games as a result. He traded him away so that he could cut the losses he was sustaining owning the team.
On the other hand, you have another billionaire owner like Marc Cuban who will spend as much of his disposable income as he has to in an effort to put together the best possible team. Two different business models, but both valid.
And from a player's point of view, are you denying a player a chance to grab the rare opportunity to play for a championship contender, a chance that comes rarely in a player's career, because it offends your notion of the "purity of the game"?
For the most part, player movement in sports can be compared to a system of slavery. A player is drafted in a slave market. He's forced to play for the team the drafted him for four or five years. And then his slave owner has the right to trade him to another slave owner without any say in the matter by the player. Now you want to deny him one of the only opportunities he may get to play for a championship contender because it offends your idea of the "purity of the game."
How would you like it if after graduating from school, you were "drafted" by some Corporation or Wall Street firm and told that you couldn't leave unless they decided to sell you to another company?
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.
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.
Guys like Brent Barry get bought out because under the rules of the CBA he had to be included in the deal that sent him to Seattle so that the main deal for other players that each of the teams wanted to acquire or get rid of could be completed. Seattle never wanted Barry, so they waived him. That was the "cost of doing business". Now he has the rare luxury of choosing where he is going to play.
While you are correct that the NBA isn't the WWE, the point of the game has unfortunately moved past just scoring baskets and winning games. The point of the game is now (just like the WWE) about making money, both for the players, the teams and the league. Billionaire Michael Heisley didn't trade Pau Gasol because he thought the Grizzlies would win more games as a result. He traded him away so that he could cut the losses he was sustaining owning the team.
On the other hand, you have another billionaire owner like Marc Cuban who will spend as much of his disposable income as he has to in an effort to put together the best possible team. Two different business models, but both valid.
And from a player's point of view, are you denying a player a chance to grab the rare opportunity to play for a championship contender, a chance that comes rarely in a player's career, because it offends your notion of the "purity of the game"?
For the most part, player movement in sports can be compared to a system of slavery. A player is drafted in a slave market. He's forced to play for the team the drafted him for four or five years. And then his slave owner has the right to trade him to another slave owner without any say in the matter by the player. Now you want to deny him one of the only opportunities he may get to play for a championship contender because it offends your idea of the "purity of the game."
How would you like it if after graduating from school, you were "drafted" by some Corporation or Wall Street firm and told that you couldn't leave unless they decided to sell you to another company?
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
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 752
- And1: 75
- Joined: Jun 22, 2003
- Location: Upper East Side
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.
I didn't mention Brent Barry in the same regard as Sam Cassell, as they were in completely different situations.
Barry being waived after being a part of a trade between Seattle and San Antonio and now moving on is different than Cassell deciding to sign a two year contract with the Clips (he almost bolted to Atlanta), who were not and are not a title contending team and one Daniel Ewing substitution, wasn't going to change that.
It was his decision to sign a two year deal, no he could not foresee the injuries that ultimately took place to the team, but if he was concerned with his age and title shots, he should have taken it into consideration when signing a contract.
Spare me that slave market bull.
A lot of these players make millions to suck ass "playing" this game.
Keith Van Horn was just given a gift $4 million, after he's spent his career making at least $100 million, to do nothing more than be a part of a trade.
I'm not going to apologize for believing these buyouts are nonsense.
If you acquire Sam via a trade, so be it, that is within the spirit of the game and business, and always has been.
As far as I'm concerned, in terms of the competition, the Celtics, along with most other teams, used all the player and financial exception assets they had to mold their team into what it is today.
That should be their team going forward.
To get the gift of getting some productive player who just received a contract buyout for most of their money for nothing is an issue the league needs to take a look at.
We're not talking about Antonio Davis on his last legs.
Guys like Tim Thomas, Chris Webber, productive vet players, are getting buyouts and heading straight for the title contention teams at the tail-end of every damn season.
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.
I didn't mention Brent Barry in the same regard as Sam Cassell, as they were in completely different situations.
Barry being waived after being a part of a trade between Seattle and San Antonio and now moving on is different than Cassell deciding to sign a two year contract with the Clips (he almost bolted to Atlanta), who were not and are not a title contending team and one Daniel Ewing substitution, wasn't going to change that.
It was his decision to sign a two year deal, no he could not foresee the injuries that ultimately took place to the team, but if he was concerned with his age and title shots, he should have taken it into consideration when signing a contract.
Spare me that slave market bull.
A lot of these players make millions to suck ass "playing" this game.
Keith Van Horn was just given a gift $4 million, after he's spent his career making at least $100 million, to do nothing more than be a part of a trade.
I'm not going to apologize for believing these buyouts are nonsense.
If you acquire Sam via a trade, so be it, that is within the spirit of the game and business, and always has been.
As far as I'm concerned, in terms of the competition, the Celtics, along with most other teams, used all the player and financial exception assets they had to mold their team into what it is today.
That should be their team going forward.
To get the gift of getting some productive player who just received a contract buyout for most of their money for nothing is an issue the league needs to take a look at.
We're not talking about Antonio Davis on his last legs.
Guys like Tim Thomas, Chris Webber, productive vet players, are getting buyouts and heading straight for the title contention teams at the tail-end of every damn season.
-
HammJ
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 391
- And1: 0
- Joined: Mar 09, 2001
Arenas809,
I can't understand why you are so bent out of shape. Step back and look at these moves from the team's perspective. A random example is Chris Webber. He wanted out of Philly as bad as the Sixers wanted him out. The Sixers made a deal to bring him in and later found he didn't fit into their long term plans. Philly also wanted to get under the Luxury Tax limit, and were able to negotiate a reduced buyout with Webber. Best for both parties to cut the contract.
The Bulls willingly acquired Tim Thomas, played him in 4 games and then sent him home. They later waived him and then he signed with the Suns. The Bulls could have traded Thomas if they wished, or just left him at home and refused to waive him. Another case where he didn't fit into their plans, so why keep him? "Purity of the Game" is hardly an applicable reason.
If a Gary Payton or Mitch Richmond wants to latch onto a contender at the end of their careers for the chance at a ring, more power to them. I'm pretty certain that GP isn't relaxing at home fretting about how people perceive his career.
I can't understand why you are so bent out of shape. Step back and look at these moves from the team's perspective. A random example is Chris Webber. He wanted out of Philly as bad as the Sixers wanted him out. The Sixers made a deal to bring him in and later found he didn't fit into their long term plans. Philly also wanted to get under the Luxury Tax limit, and were able to negotiate a reduced buyout with Webber. Best for both parties to cut the contract.
The Bulls willingly acquired Tim Thomas, played him in 4 games and then sent him home. They later waived him and then he signed with the Suns. The Bulls could have traded Thomas if they wished, or just left him at home and refused to waive him. Another case where he didn't fit into their plans, so why keep him? "Purity of the Game" is hardly an applicable reason.
If a Gary Payton or Mitch Richmond wants to latch onto a contender at the end of their careers for the chance at a ring, more power to them. I'm pretty certain that GP isn't relaxing at home fretting about how people perceive his career.
-
Dunkenstein
- Starter
- Posts: 2,454
- And1: 13
- Joined: Jun 17, 2002
- Location: Santa Monica, CA
Thank you for calling me intelligent. But you're right. I do tend to get condescending when I encounter another condescending prig such as yourself. Maybe its our Upper East Side upbringing.
"Impure transactions are taking away from the natural purity of the game." I can't tell whether you're emulating an evangelical preacher or a Calvinist minister.
At least in my condescension, I try to avoid calling other posters "dumbasses" or "idiots", as I've seen you do in this thread and on the Knicks board. Hopefully, you'll return to the Knicks board where maybe they find your arrogance endearing.
"Impure transactions are taking away from the natural purity of the game." I can't tell whether you're emulating an evangelical preacher or a Calvinist minister.
At least in my condescension, I try to avoid calling other posters "dumbasses" or "idiots", as I've seen you do in this thread and on the Knicks board. Hopefully, you'll return to the Knicks board where maybe they find your arrogance endearing.
-
arenas809
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 752
- And1: 75
- Joined: Jun 22, 2003
- Location: Upper East Side
This is a good board, and I respect the knowledgeable people that post here.
This thread was not meant to bait anyone into a war of words.
My original position hasn't and won't change, but there have been some good points made here that fortunately had nothing to do with the location of the country the poster was in while making them.
Lastly, Dunk, spades are spades.
Keep up the good work.
This thread was not meant to bait anyone into a war of words.
My original position hasn't and won't change, but there have been some good points made here that fortunately had nothing to do with the location of the country the poster was in while making them.
Lastly, Dunk, spades are spades.
Keep up the good work.
-
Dunkenstein
- Starter
- Posts: 2,454
- And1: 13
- Joined: Jun 17, 2002
- Location: Santa Monica, CA
-
arenas809
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 752
- And1: 75
- Joined: Jun 22, 2003
- Location: Upper East Side
Now Antoine Walker is asking for a buyout.
W.O.W.
"We're trying to figure out a number that's fair for both sides," Walker said Tuesday before Minnesota's game against the Utah Jazz.
Walker, who is making $8.5 million this season and is scheduled to draw $9.3 million next season, does not want to give up much of his guaranteed money.
W.O.W.
-
HammJ
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 391
- And1: 0
- Joined: Mar 09, 2001
mrhonline wrote: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.
But this sort of thing is cyclical. This time last year, who was scrambling to finish a contract buyout and get on the next flight to Boston? How quickly did Miami fall from a veteran FA's preferred destination to what it is today?
-
arenas809
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 752
- And1: 75
- Joined: Jun 22, 2003
- Location: Upper East Side
Dunkenstein wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Sorry, I don't recognize the quote. Who said it? George W. Bush, when asked about how history will treat him?
Sam Cassell acknowledged Monday that he is seeking a buyout of his contract with the Los Angeles Clippers, opening the possibility he could land with the Boston Celtics or another NBA team priming for a playoff run.
"They've been discussing it, so what more can I say?" Cassell said, according to the Los Angeles Times. "Both parties are getting to a number and saying, 'OK, this is what we'll do it for.' I just want to be treated fairly."
-
FGump
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,050
- And1: 0
- Joined: Aug 14, 2004
I agree with the general tenor of the opening post, in which some of the top teams are allowed to get "freebies" near the end of the season that may alter the balance of power in the playoffs, so to speak.
It would take some creative rulesmanship to make it go away without impeding on the ability of teams to buy out players at a discount, the rights of players to find a new employer, and the opportunity for GMs to find injury replacements when needed, but I bet it can be done if the league wanted to make it go away.
Rather than rail on the system, the more interesting question is: what would YOU do to solve the problem in a way that leaves everyones interests in play? It's tricky but doable, I think.
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 I bet you can find ways to level the playing field on the late season waiver deals as well.
It would take some creative rulesmanship to make it go away without impeding on the ability of teams to buy out players at a discount, the rights of players to find a new employer, and the opportunity for GMs to find injury replacements when needed, but I bet it can be done if the league wanted to make it go away.
Rather than rail on the system, the more interesting question is: what would YOU do to solve the problem in a way that leaves everyones interests in play? It's tricky but doable, I think.
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 I bet you can find ways to level the playing field on the late season waiver deals as well.
-
Dunkenstein
- Starter
- Posts: 2,454
- And1: 13
- Joined: Jun 17, 2002
- Location: Santa Monica, CA
arenas809 wrote:Sam Cassell acknowledged Monday that he is seeking a buyout of his contract with the Los Angeles Clippers, opening the possibility he could land with the Boston Celtics or another NBA team priming for a playoff run.
"They've been discussing it, so what more can I say?" Cassell said, according to the Los Angeles Times. "Both parties are getting to a number and saying, 'OK, this is what we'll do it for.' I just want to be treated fairly."
It looks like you may have gotten your panties in a bunch for nothing.
According to today's Boston Globe, "An NBA source said yesterday that Clippers owner Donald Sterling does not seem interested in buying out the final year of guard Sam Cassell's contract. Cassell's agent, David Falk, has given the Clippers a deadline of Saturday to complete the buyout so the 6-foot-3-inch, two-time NBA champion would be eligible for another team's postseason roster. Cassell is being paid $6.1 million this season, and is believed to be owed about one-third of that total."
I have a friend who has worked closely with Cassell's former agent and he tells me that Cassell is all "all about the money". In the past, as soon as he was eligible for an extension of his existing contract, he'd demand his agent get an extension. Then at the end of the extension, he'd complain that he wasn't being paid enough.
Cassell is still owed around $2M by the Clippers. He is still their starting PG. Donald Sterling would probably waive him if he agreed to forgo the rest of the money the Clippers owe him, but Sam probably wants something like 80 cents on the dollar. Sterling is the tightest owner with a buck in the league, so if I were a betting man, I'd wager Sam never gets offered a buyout that will satisfy him.
-
FGump
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,050
- And1: 0
- Joined: Aug 14, 2004
I am no particular fan of Sterling's historical tight-fistedness, but in this situation as being reported, I don't see him as being unreasonable at all.
Cassell wants to get paid by Sterling, to play somewhere else? If it was me, I'd say "Screw him" regarding Cassell. Good for Sterling.
I think we're seeing the same thing in Minnesota, where Walker is crying about how his skills are being wasted and how he wants out, but he wants Taylor to pay him too while he goes to play elsewhere. Screw him.
The one player I've seen who did it admirably was Adonal Foyle last summer, who was a team and community leader in GS but wasn't getting playing time, and took about 60c on the dollar - giving away a pile of money he knew he couldn't get back from another team - to be waived so he could find a place where he'd get minutes. The team won financially because they didnt want him and werent using him, and got out of a big part of an overpaid deal they'd made. He took a loss, but wanted to play hoops and got to do so. Classy.
Cassell wants to get paid by Sterling, to play somewhere else? If it was me, I'd say "Screw him" regarding Cassell. Good for Sterling.
I think we're seeing the same thing in Minnesota, where Walker is crying about how his skills are being wasted and how he wants out, but he wants Taylor to pay him too while he goes to play elsewhere. Screw him.
The one player I've seen who did it admirably was Adonal Foyle last summer, who was a team and community leader in GS but wasn't getting playing time, and took about 60c on the dollar - giving away a pile of money he knew he couldn't get back from another team - to be waived so he could find a place where he'd get minutes. The team won financially because they didnt want him and werent using him, and got out of a big part of an overpaid deal they'd made. He took a loss, but wanted to play hoops and got to do so. Classy.