The Predicament Of Buyouts In An Era Where They've Become Expected

User avatar
RealGM Articles
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,855
And1: 36
Joined: Mar 20, 2013

The Predicament Of Buyouts In An Era Where They've Become Expected 

Post#1 » by RealGM Articles » Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:20 pm

Post-trade deadline buyouts have exponentially increased in recent seasons with Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Marvin Williams, Reggie Jackson and DeMarre Carroll four of the more prominent players to negotiate their freedom this season. This season we also even saw John Beilein give back more than $12 million in guaranteed money in order to walk away from the Cleveland Cavaliers as head coach.


Freedom isn’t free and the cost of freedom ranges wildly in NBA buyouts. As does its long-term consequences. 


With the NBA moving up the trade deadline for the 17-18 season from the immediate Thursday following the All-Star Game to 10 days before the All-Star Game, they significantly extended the duration of buyout season. Those discussions and negotiations have more space and time to materialize and the buyout market has become its own secondary trade deadline.


The exchange of money has largely moved to one for one over time for most players, but Bird Rights are relinquished, and the lives of players are disrupted for what will likely be a short-term situation. The modifications to sign-and-trade rules that have made the receiving team hard capped in those scenarios have deflated the market for that transaction type, but the imperative remains whether players are depressing their future value and earnings by becoming minimum contract rentals.  


For every Boris Diaw (bought out by Charlotte in 2012 and revived his career with the Spurs during that reappraisal), there’s a Mike Bibby (gave up the entirety of his $6.2 million salary for 11-12 to compete for a title with the Heat).  


What’s one last shot at a ring worth to a player who made more than $100 million and nearly won one with Sacramento earlier in his career? It apparently was worth about $5 million to Bibby as he signed the following year with the Knicks for the minimum at $1.35 million. David Falk’s comments immediately following the buyout seemed to emphasize that the decision was one Bibby was determined to make on his own and that it belied common financial sense. 


Stephon Marbury similarly gave $4.5 million of the $6.4 million left on his $20.8 million back to the Knicks in 2009 to play sparingly for the Celtics, and then never played in the NBA again as he established himself with a long career in China.  


For every Joe Johnson (gave back $3 million to the Nets in 2016, had a resurgence with the Heat and then signed a two-year, $22 million deal with the Jazz), there’s a Nick Van Exel who had a situation that can’t be succinctly summarized. Van Exel allowed his $12.8 million guaranteed contract for the 05-06 season become a team option to facilitate a trade to the Mavericks in 2002. Van Exel was later traded to the Warriors and then to the Blazers. Portland unsurprisingly did not exercise the option on his final season and Van Exel signed with the Spurs for the minimum of $1.1 million and was out of the league that next season. Van Exel retired with just over $74 million in career earnings, meaning he gave back approximately 15 percent of his potential career salary to buy his freedom from the Nuggets for what essentially amounted to two playoff runs with the Mavericks.


Ty Lawson similarly acquiesced on making his $13.2 million salary for the 16-17 season non-guaranteed to facilitate a trade from the Nuggets to the Rockets during the 2015 offseason. Lawson didn’t revive his career with the Rockets and he was bought out by the team during that first and only season after he had already calamitously yielded that guaranteed season.


Ersan Ilyasova and Marco Belinelli each joined the 76ers in 2018 following buyouts with the Hawks, played exceptionally well and signed deals in the offseason that suggest their value increased in a meaningful way since Atlanta was unable to trade them at the deadline. Ilaysova signed a three-year, $21 million deal with the Bucks, while Belinelli signed a two-year, $12 million deal with the Spurs.


When Robin Lopez remained with the Bulls through the 2019 trade deadline, there were multiple reports indicating he would eventually end up with the title-contending Warriors if bought out. Neither Lopez nor the Bulls pressed too hard for a buyout and he signed a two-year, $9.7 million deal with the Bucks this past offseason without that playoff experience with the Warriors on his resume or on his body. We have no way of knowing if Lopez signed for more money or less money by not taking a buyout, but it was substantially more than the minimum he would have played for with the Warriors in the months of March through June. 


Tristan Thompson is at a similar stage of his career as Lopez with a similar career profile and will put himself in a similar situation this coming offseason as an unrestricted free agent who did not agree to a buyout.  


Mark Termini, the attorney/agent currently working as contract negotiator for the Klutch Sports Group, is perhaps the staunchest opponent of the buyout maneuver often pursued by NBA teams and players. Termini has not negotiated a buyout of an NBA contract during the course of his 30-plus years in the industry. It has been clear that Thompson wouldn’t be his first.


“Buyouts are usually misunderstood by the player, and many times by the agent as well,” Termini told RealGM. “I’m open-minded, but I have not yet been presented with a situation where the benefits of the buyout outweigh the current and potential negatives to the player. Maybe I will see something in the future that makes sense.


“If a team wants to move on from a player, they always have the right to waive that player.”


This obviously happens with regularity league-wide and even to Klutch clients as the Grizzlies initially pursued a buyout of Dion Waiters following their trade with the Heat, according to reporting from Chris Haynes. There were no discussions held by Klutch, and Waiters was waived by the Grizzlies with his $12.65 million for 20-21 to be paid in full. 


---


Do players who sign for the minimum in the short-term following a buyout become primed to be a minimum player in the long-term? 


"That's always a concern,” another agent who asked to remain anonymous told RealGM. “But I think for some players, that's where they are at in their career. For other guys, they don't want a buyout because they don't want to give up Bird Rights. Even if you are leaving in the summer, Bird Rights are good to have just in case."


“If he plays well, his stock can rise again,” said a Western Conference executive. “But we will use that in negotiations, especially if the player is older."


"Depends on the player,” replied an Eastern Conference executive. “A lot of the buyout players are at the end of their career, so they are minimum players. But if a player has good years left, he's not stuck as a minimum player.


Perhaps the waive-and-sign situation has never happened as advantageously as it did to Matt Barnes in 2017 when the Kings waived him a few months after signing him to a two-year, $12 million deal. Barnes subsequently won a ring with the Warriors and retired from the NBA. 


Every player is on their own unique trajectory, but it behooves them to not completely abandon the financial objectives they adhere to in July just because it is February. After all, Peja Stojakovic is the only buyout player to appear in at least 100 playoff minutes for a title team over the past decade. 


Circling back to Joe Johnson, he benefited from a buyout in 2016 with the Heat, but he was out of the league following a short stint with the Rockets in 2018 after he was bought out by the Kings upon his trade there from the Jazz. Johnson very nearly took the unprecedented path back to the NBA via the BIG3, earning a camp invite from the Pistons in 2019 before he was eventually waived.  


The issue ultimately comes down to the advice of an agent and what the player values most. The benefit to the team negotiating a buyout is always clear while the new team gets a contributing player at a deeply discounted rate.


"(Expletive) yeah! I'm better than that, but I know how teams think,” a veteran player told RealGM when asked if he was concerned agreeing to a buyout would turn him into a minimum contract player for the rest of his career. “That's why I'm not giving back any money yet. I might not make that money back. It's a big worry." 


It will always be a subjective exercise to determine whether players damage their future value by negotiating buyouts as every case is different. Michael Kidd-Gilchrist and Reggie Jackson should remain NBA players for many more seasons and are at an entirely different point in their careers than Marvin Williams and DeMarre Carroll. We do at least know that giving back a meaningful amount of guaranteed money for the potential of future greater earnings is a gamble where the house can’t be beat. 

User avatar
Furinkazan
Head Coach
Posts: 7,174
And1: 3,124
Joined: May 11, 2005
       

Re: The Predicament Of Buyouts In An Era Where They've Become Expected 

Post#2 » by Furinkazan » Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:01 am

this buyout bussiness should stop or deadline date for buyout should be like 2 months before trade deadline or something.
Weak teams get nothing for players cause strong teams just wait for these players to become free after a buyout.This is affecting the market and affecting weak teams possiblities to rebuild.
arasu
Pro Prospect
Posts: 899
And1: 108
Joined: Dec 08, 2012

Re: The Predicament Of Buyouts In An Era Where They've Become Expected 

Post#3 » by arasu » Mon Feb 24, 2020 1:35 pm

Furinkazan wrote:this buyout bussiness should stop or deadline date for buyout should be like 2 months before trade deadline or something.
Weak teams get nothing for players cause strong teams just wait for these players to become free after a buyout.This is affecting the market and affecting weak teams possiblities to rebuild.

Wrong. Without the buyout option, potential buyout players are just stuck, with no trade in sight. No one wants those players at full price. None of the teams waiting for buyout players have the means to trade for expensive players. Those players will often only hinder the weaker teams' future prospects, by either taking away development minutes from young guys, or by disrupting chemistry by sulking on the bench, or by occupying cap space. If those guys want out, it's their best bet that a better team will be willing to take them at a more affordable price, which is usually the only real incentive for the player to accept less money. It can be a win-win-win ideally. Often it's not a win for the player, as the article discussed. Almost always it's a win for the team getting money back for the player, AKA the "weak" teams you are referring to.
User avatar
Furinkazan
Head Coach
Posts: 7,174
And1: 3,124
Joined: May 11, 2005
       

Re: The Predicament Of Buyouts In An Era Where They've Become Expected 

Post#4 » by Furinkazan » Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:24 pm

arasu wrote:
Furinkazan wrote:this buyout bussiness should stop or deadline date for buyout should be like 2 months before trade deadline or something.
Weak teams get nothing for players cause strong teams just wait for these players to become free after a buyout.This is affecting the market and affecting weak teams possiblities to rebuild.

Wrong. Without the buyout option, potential buyout players are just stuck, with no trade in sight. No one wants those players at full price. None of the teams waiting for buyout players have the means to trade for expensive players. Those players will often only hinder the weaker teams' future prospects, by either taking away development minutes from young guys, or by disrupting chemistry by sulking on the bench, or by occupying cap space. If those guys want out, it's their best bet that a better team will be willing to take them at a more affordable price, which is usually the only real incentive for the player to accept less money. It can be a win-win-win ideally. Often it's not a win for the player, as the article discussed. Almost always it's a win for the team getting money back for the player, AKA the "weak" teams you are referring to.



I simply and kindly disagree.You cant trade a player nowadays because all contenders circle like sharks waiting for a buyout.
Nobody is hindering progress of young players.You can play those old unneeded vets less.
Lets say Lakers would have to spend assets to get Morris
or Clippers would have to spend asset to get Jackson.Ofc it wouldnt be any great assets but likely a 2nd rounder and expiring filler...or tpe or something like that.Now a contender dont have spend these draft picks therefore he keeps assets and still gets good vet.
Then in the summer that contender still has his assets and will use that assets like picks he didnt have to give up at the deadline.
..in other words rich get richer...
I see it this way you can see it your way no worries. Not like any of us have any say in this.
arasu
Pro Prospect
Posts: 899
And1: 108
Joined: Dec 08, 2012

Re: The Predicament Of Buyouts In An Era Where They've Become Expected 

Post#5 » by arasu » Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:05 pm

Furinkazan wrote:
arasu wrote:
Furinkazan wrote:this buyout bussiness should stop or deadline date for buyout should be like 2 months before trade deadline or something.
Weak teams get nothing for players cause strong teams just wait for these players to become free after a buyout.This is affecting the market and affecting weak teams possiblities to rebuild.

Wrong. Without the buyout option, potential buyout players are just stuck, with no trade in sight. No one wants those players at full price. None of the teams waiting for buyout players have the means to trade for expensive players. Those players will often only hinder the weaker teams' future prospects, by either taking away development minutes from young guys, or by disrupting chemistry by sulking on the bench, or by occupying cap space. If those guys want out, it's their best bet that a better team will be willing to take them at a more affordable price, which is usually the only real incentive for the player to accept less money. It can be a win-win-win ideally. Often it's not a win for the player, as the article discussed. Almost always it's a win for the team getting money back for the player, AKA the "weak" teams you are referring to.



I simply and kindly disagree.You cant trade a player nowadays because all contenders circle like sharks waiting for a buyout.
Nobody is hindering progress of young players.You can play those old unneeded vets less.
Lets say Lakers would have to spend assets to get Morris
or Clippers would have to spend asset to get Jackson.Ofc it wouldnt be any great assets but likely a 2nd rounder and expiring filler...or tpe or something like that.Now a contender dont have spend these draft picks therefore he keeps assets and still gets good vet.
Then in the summer that contender still has his assets and will use that assets like picks he didnt have to give up at the deadline.
..in other words rich get richer...
I see it this way you can see it your way no worries. Not like any of us have any say in this.

Iggy is a good example of sharks circling for the buyout, but he got traded instead. If the buyout prospect player has decent trade value, he gets traded. It's about evidence here, which is the best reason for why we have a conversation. I'll give you that trade value may sometimes be slightly diminished by the prospects of a buyout, but the evidence suggests that you are exaggerating massively.
arasu
Pro Prospect
Posts: 899
And1: 108
Joined: Dec 08, 2012

Re: The Predicament Of Buyouts In An Era Where They've Become Expected 

Post#6 » by arasu » Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:12 pm

Furinkazan wrote:... Not like any of us have any say in this.

One opinion doesn't make much of a difference, but the weight of the opinions of fans in general has a huge effect on the decision-making of execs, and every discussion can sway opinions in general in a new direction. Our discussion here is nearly meaningless compared to a discussion on ESPN or a big Twitter handle, but it's part of the big picture.
User avatar
Furinkazan
Head Coach
Posts: 7,174
And1: 3,124
Joined: May 11, 2005
       

Re: The Predicament Of Buyouts In An Era Where They've Become Expected 

Post#7 » by Furinkazan » Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:06 pm

arasu wrote:
Furinkazan wrote:
arasu wrote:Wrong. Without the buyout option, potential buyout players are just stuck, with no trade in sight. No one wants those players at full price. None of the teams waiting for buyout players have the means to trade for expensive players. Those players will often only hinder the weaker teams' future prospects, by either taking away development minutes from young guys, or by disrupting chemistry by sulking on the bench, or by occupying cap space. If those guys want out, it's their best bet that a better team will be willing to take them at a more affordable price, which is usually the only real incentive for the player to accept less money. It can be a win-win-win ideally. Often it's not a win for the player, as the article discussed. Almost always it's a win for the team getting money back for the player, AKA the "weak" teams you are referring to.



I simply and kindly disagree.You cant trade a player nowadays because all contenders circle like sharks waiting for a buyout.
Nobody is hindering progress of young players.You can play those old unneeded vets less.
Lets say Lakers would have to spend assets to get Morris
or Clippers would have to spend asset to get Jackson.Ofc it wouldnt be any great assets but likely a 2nd rounder and expiring filler...or tpe or something like that.Now a contender dont have spend these draft picks therefore he keeps assets and still gets good vet.
Then in the summer that contender still has his assets and will use that assets like picks he didnt have to give up at the deadline.
..in other words rich get richer...
I see it this way you can see it your way no worries. Not like any of us have any say in this.

Iggy is a good example of sharks circling for the buyout, but he got traded instead. If the buyout prospect player has decent trade value, he gets traded. It's about evidence here, which is the best reason for why we have a conversation. I'll give you that trade value may sometimes be slightly diminished by the prospects of a buyout, but the evidence suggests that you are exaggerating massively.


find me more players
Iggy is basicly an exception proving the rule
for one Iggy there are 10 of Markieffs like situations
arasu
Pro Prospect
Posts: 899
And1: 108
Joined: Dec 08, 2012

Re: The Predicament Of Buyouts In An Era Where They've Become Expected 

Post#8 » by arasu » Wed Feb 26, 2020 5:49 pm

Furinkazan wrote:
arasu wrote:
Furinkazan wrote:

I simply and kindly disagree.You cant trade a player nowadays because all contenders circle like sharks waiting for a buyout.
Nobody is hindering progress of young players.You can play those old unneeded vets less.
Lets say Lakers would have to spend assets to get Morris
or Clippers would have to spend asset to get Jackson.Ofc it wouldnt be any great assets but likely a 2nd rounder and expiring filler...or tpe or something like that.Now a contender dont have spend these draft picks therefore he keeps assets and still gets good vet.
Then in the summer that contender still has his assets and will use that assets like picks he didnt have to give up at the deadline.
..in other words rich get richer...
I see it this way you can see it your way no worries. Not like any of us have any say in this.

Iggy is a good example of sharks circling for the buyout, but he got traded instead. If the buyout prospect player has decent trade value, he gets traded. It's about evidence here, which is the best reason for why we have a conversation. I'll give you that trade value may sometimes be slightly diminished by the prospects of a buyout, but the evidence suggests that you are exaggerating massively.


find me more players
Iggy is basicly an exception proving the rule
for one Iggy there are 10 of Markieffs like situations

Since there is no proof of any teams willing to trade for any/most of those buyout players, in the absence of a buyout, no "rule" has been established in the first place. Since actual trades are usually the only proof of a player being tradable, and those are too few, we have reached an impasse and a paucity of proof either way. And 10 Markieff like situations? That is certainly more exaggeration on your part.

Return to Articles Discussion