Toine: "wasted year"

[Worm Guts]

-= original quote snipped =-


I have that perception because it's reality. It doesn't mean as much as you make it seem to say that we've never been under the salary cap. Though I think the past is part of the reason why he wouldn't do it. At times he has spent money, and it turned out horribly.

I don't see how it's reality. The only time I can remember Taylor being cheap is with the Sprewell contract, and trading it would have committed the Wolves to three or four years over the luxury tax.
Taylor is personally responsible for the contracts of Garnett, Sczerbiak, and Hudson. It was Taylor's idea to pay Joe Smith under the table. Really everytime he gets involved in negotiations somebody gets overpaid. Taylor has been the opposite of cheap.

[Worm Guts]

-= original quote snipped =-
You keep looking at it from the players perspective. Look at it from the team's perspective. Why would you not buy out a player in that situation? If he isn't helping your team now and isn't going to help the team in the future, why not save a couple million and buy him out?

.

Because you lose flexibility to make moves. It doesn't give you cap space and you've lost the ability to trade an expiring contract. Even if the Wolves expect to let the contract expire it's nice to keep it just in case.

[MN Die Hard]

Casey your comments are realistic and reflective of what actually happens in terms of buyouts. My argument is more philosophical about how business gets done in sports. My opinion is that players shouldnt expect to get nearly a full buy out simply because they want to go play somewhere else. In reality, that's what happens, but I just dont think its right. Especially when they complain about a low-ball offer. THEY ARE GETTING PAID TO GO AWAY AND DO NOTHING! How could you complain about ANY amount being too low, when in the real world, if someone quits a job and goes somewhere else, they get paid nothing?

You also raise the point about how an unhappy player might become a cancer to the rest of the team, so a buyout is in everyone's best interest. Again, this is what most often happens, but I have a hard time swallowing this logic. Again I'll make the analogy of a parent giving in to a young child throwing a temper tantrum, giving them what they want just because its the easy way out. Same thing here - I dont believe the right thing is to pay a player to go away (give in to them) just so they wont become a locker room cancer. But in reality, that's what happens because the team wants them out and the owner wants to save a million. I'd prefer to see an owner take a stand and say "fu** you if you're going to be a cancer. Dont come around the team anymore. You'll collect your paycheck, but we're not releasing you". When Philly did that with Terrell Owens a few years back I thought it was great, but dont see it nearly enough.

[casey]

I don't see how it's reality. The only time I can remember Taylor being cheap is with the Sprewell contract, and trading it would have committed the Wolves to three or four years over the luxury tax.

He's traded away every big contract he could in the past year. He just let a huge expiring contract expire, and nobody even considered what we could've got for that.

Taylor is personally responsible for the contracts of Garnett, Sczerbiak, and Hudson. It was Taylor's idea to pay Joe Smith under the table. Really everytime he gets involved in negotiations somebody gets overpaid. Taylor has been the opposite of cheap.

All of that is part of the reason why he's cheap. You don't think he's looked at the money he's spent and at the record of his teams? Why would he spend money when it's always failed in the past.

Because you lose flexibility to make moves. It doesn't give you cap space and you've lost the ability to trade an expiring contract. Even if the Wolves expect to let the contract expire it's nice to keep it just in case.

I wasn't talking about Walker. I'm talking about buying out a player in general. Why would you not buy him out if you're not going to (or can't) trade him and he's doing nothing for your team.

Casey your comments are realistic and reflective of what actually happens in terms of buyouts. My argument is more philosophical about how business gets done in sports. My opinion is that players shouldnt expect to get nearly a full buy out simply because they want to go play somewhere else. In reality, that's what happens, but I just dont think its right. Especially when they complain about a low-ball offer. THEY ARE GETTING PAID TO GO AWAY AND DO NOTHING! How could you complain about ANY amount being too low, when in the real world, if someone quits a job and goes somewhere else, they get paid nothing?

I understand what you're saying. I think you need to put more blame on the team though. They put themselves in that situation. If you sign a guy to a guaranteed contract you better know what you're getting into, and if you don't then you deserve to have to pay a guy millions to do nothing.

[shrink]

I think Glen Taylor is far from cheap.

While many NBA owners will never go over the lux, Taylor has been willing to do so when he thought the team had a chance. He could have let Terrell Brandon's big deal expire, but he traded it to bring in Cassell and Sprewell. He could have let Olowokandi's deal expire as well, but he gambled (and lost) on Davis and Blount.

He has said in the past he'd go over the lux for a contender, but I don't blame him for going back under the lux when the team isn't a contender. With so many young players on rookie contracts on this rebuilding team, it doesn't make sense to me why anyone would call him cheap for getting under the lux, like the vast majority 24-of-30 other owners.

[MN Die Hard]

I understand what you're saying. I think you need to put more blame on the team though. They put themselves in that situation. If you sign a guy to a guaranteed contract you better know what you're getting into, and if you don't then you deserve to have to pay a guy millions to do nothing.

Flip side: players signs guaranteed contracts too, and they better know what they're getting into. Especially a long term deal - it could mean your team gets bad eventually, it could mean your playing time decreases, it could mean you get traded, it could mean you get traded to a bad team and lose minutes to young guys. You're right, its a guaranteed contract for the team, but its also a guaranteed contract for player. Those big guaranteed numbers are nice when they first sign, but they better be ready to honor the entire contract, whether it be five, six, or seven years. If they want to go against the contract then they should give something back too.

Also, I dont think Taylor is cheap either. He's demonstrated he'll go over the lux if we're competing, but why bother trading Theo this year? For example, you think Indy wouldnt have jumped at the chance to dump JON and Tinsley for a package like Theo, Buckner, Walker, and maybe a young'in? What would that get us? Maybe 30 wins, more bad contracts, and a huge lux bill? I wouldnt be surprised to see more aggressive signings/trades in the coming years, but not this early in a rebuilding process.

[dunkonu21]

Mn Die Hard. I totally agree with what you are saying about having to give into little b*tchy players. The ony thing that you are forgetting is that we're talking about MILLIONS of dollars. Bug Selig made 13 million off MLB last year, lets use that as a bench mark. Saving 2 million dollars that you had already spent is almost like getting a paycheck for 2 million. Percentage wise the players are making out and getting great deals, but when we're talking about large sums of money like this, I think it's a bit different. I know Glen has millions upon millions, but it's still a lot of money.

[Worm Guts]

-= original quote snipped =-
He's traded away every big contract he could in the past year. He just let a huge expiring contract expire, and nobody even considered what we could've got for that

I always considered that part of the rebuilding plan, to open up cap space. And there's a difference between being cheap and not being willing to pay luxury tax money for a team that won't make the playoffs.

[MN Die Hard]

Mn Die Hard. I totally agree with what you are saying about having to give into little b*tchy players. The ony thing that you are forgetting is that we're talking about MILLIONS of dollars. Bug Selig made 13 million off MLB last year, lets use that as a bench mark. Saving 2 million dollars that you had already spent is almost like getting a paycheck for 2 million. Percentage wise the players are making out and getting great deals, but when we're talking about large sums of money like this, I think it's a bit different. I know Glen has millions upon millions, but it's still a lot of money.

True.

[casey]

Flip side: players signs guaranteed contracts too, and they better know what they're getting into. Especially a long term deal - it could mean your team gets bad eventually, it could mean your playing time decreases, it could mean you get traded, it could mean you get traded to a bad team and lose minutes to young guys. You're right, its a guaranteed contract for the team, but its also a guaranteed contract for player. Those big guaranteed numbers are nice when they first sign, but they better be ready to honor the entire contract, whether it be five, six, or seven years. If they want to go against the contract then they should give something back too.

It's not like a player has a choice on whether to have a guaranteed contract. Take Walker's contract for example. The last two seasons (after next year) are unguaranteed. So we can cut him and don't have to pay him. But it's not possible to have that same thing for the player, where he can just quit whenever he wants to.

I don't think it's fair to say that an all-star player has to expect to get traded to one of the worst teams in the league and never get to play. You can choose where to sign, you can't choose whether you'll be traded. Walker didn't put himself in this situation. The Wolves did put themselves in this situation. And I'd say the majority of the time it's the team that wants out more so than the player. Most of the guys that get bought out aren't even playing, so their team obviously doesn't want them.

He could have let Olowokandi's deal expire as well, but he gambled (and lost) on Davis and Blount.

He gave up Wally's huge contract in that deal too.

I always considered that part of the rebuilding plan, to open up cap space. And there's a difference between being cheap and not being willing to pay luxury tax money for a team that won't make the playoffs.

I don't understand why Theo isn't thought of as valuable when Walker is. We could've had any of the big time players traded during this season. We could've dealt him for a player with another year on his contract, to give a huge amount of flexibility (~$20Mil in expirings) next year.

[horaceworthy]

Theo was valuable, but trading him for a contract that would have expired next year would have effectively been waving good bye to Gomes, Smith, Telfair and now Snyder in the off-season (which may not necessarily be a bad thing) without going over the luxury tax. Trading Walker/Buckner's contract(s) is a more reasonable expectation, since it won't be piling on as much salary, and hopefully the team will be closer to knowing what it will need in order to be competitive.

I still get irked that they let Sprewell expire when we were in such a desperate, win-now mode with limited assets, because we wasted our greatest asset outside of KG when there were options available. However, I can understand Taylor not wanting to pay the luxury tax for a team that may win 25 games, so I'm willing to give him a pass on not wanting to deal Theo. Next year's expirings I'll be less willing to give him a pass on, unless they really make a splash in free agency in the summer.

[Worm Guts]

-= original quote snipped =-


I don't understand why Theo isn't thought of as valuable when Walker is. We could've had any of the big time players traded during this season. We could've dealt him for a player with another year on his contract, to give a huge amount of flexibility (~$20Mil in expirings) next year.

Who knows if something like that was available. At least they kept Ratliff through the trade deadline. And like horace said, it's hard to blame Taylor for not wanting to pay the luxury tax next year for a team that might only win 20 games.

[MN Die Hard]

It's not like a player has a choice on whether to have a guaranteed contract. Take Walker's contract for example. The last two seasons (after next year) are unguaranteed. So we can cut him and don't have to pay him. But it's not possible to have that same thing for the player, where he can just quit whenever he wants to.

Players quit on their teams all the time...and they still get paid. Why? Cause the contracts are guaranteed. Are we really shedding tears for the players?

I don't think it's fair to say that an all-star player has to expect to get traded to one of the worst teams in the league and never get to play. You can choose where to sign, you can't choose whether you'll be traded. Walker didn't put himself in this situation. The Wolves did put themselves in this situation.

Well to my knowledge the only no-trade clause in the NBA belongs to Kobe Bryant. Anyone else knows and expects that trades are part of the business. Players are not naive. Anyone who thinks a player can sign a six or seven year contract and not ever be in danger of being traded IS naive.

And I'd say the majority of the time it's the team that wants out more so than the player. Most of the guys that get bought out aren't even playing, so their team obviously doesn't want them.

Disagree 100% here....I think its primarily the players that want out. Sam Cassell? Theo? Magloire? Damon? Their teams just had to get rid of them, or where they anxious to go play on contending teams? I think the player is the one that wants out most times.

[casey]

Players quit on their teams all the time...and they still get paid. Why? Cause the contracts are guaranteed. Are we really shedding tears for the players?

No they don't. And I'm not asking you to cry.

Well to my knowledge the only no-trade clause in the NBA belongs to Kobe Bryant. Anyone else knows and expects that trades are part of the business. Players are not naive. Anyone who thinks a player can sign a six or seven year contract and not ever be in danger of being traded IS naive.

It's not just trades. It's being traded to a horrible team and never getting to play. You can't say that Walker should've expected to be in the position he is in right now.

Disagree 100% here....I think its primarily the players that want out. Sam Cassell? Theo? Magloire? Damon? Their teams just had to get rid of them, or where they anxious to go play on contending teams? I think the player is the one that wants out most times.

Cus those guys were contributing to their teams.

[MN Die Hard]

Casey I think its just a difference of opinion and neither of us will change our way of thinking. You do raise some good points. Fundamentally though, I still believe the players expect and get too much in most buy outs. And that probably wont change any time soon.

[Effigy]

Toine: Waisted talent