What Boston is doing should be considered cheating

dpaulh · Post #1 » by **dpaulh** » Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:28 pm

Does anyone else have a problem with the NBA allowing this to happen every year? Signing quality players to minimum contracts just for the playoff run. Last year Cassell and Brown put them over the top and this year it will be Moore and Marbury... This is ridiculous and I think the NBA should look into this and adjust some of their rules.

Maybe they should make whichever team signs these players pay the remaining amount of their contracts, didn't marbury make 21 mil and Moore make 5 or 6 this year? And now Boston will sign them for under a mil each for the rest of the season...

evildallas · Post #2 » by **evildallas** » Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:08 pm

I don't like it, but it's legal and the way the system is currently constructed. I started a thread on this when the trading deadline passed expecting this to happen. The only people who seem upset are the fans of lesser playoff teams (like the Hawks) as the media loves the speculation of who will go where. Fans of other top teams probably don't sweat it because they expect their club to do the same. If March 1st comes and they haven't made a similar move they might gripe. My hope is that Marbury can't be go through the playoffs without being himself, hurts team chemistry, and the whole thing backfires on the Celtics.

conleyorbust · Post #3 » by **conleyorbust** » Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:13 pm

On the other hand, it would kind of suck for the players to be cut and then told that they couldn't play again that season, even if they took the min. Not that I'd feel bad for them, but I understand the logic there.

mainevent3405 · Post #4 » by **mainevent3405** » Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:13 pm

ROFLOL!!!!!! :lol:

If the Hawks did it would it be cheating then? Wow! Teams try to get better every year AFTER the trade deadline! Why should Boston be any different??

JoshB914 · Post #5 » by **JoshB914** » Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:32 pm

How is this cheating? Boston earned the reputation of being a championship team last season and now they can reap the rewards of doing so. End of story.

dpaulh · Post #6 » by **dpaulh** » Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:03 pm

Lol, I suppose I am biased, but if it is any consolation I hate the Yankees too. Boston the past couple of years is like the salary capped NBA version of the Yankees. If I were a fan of either of these teams, I would feel differently. I guess I am just a bitter fan of a lesser city that these players don't want to play in.

JoshB914 · Post #7 » by **JoshB914** » Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:38 pm

I don't think you can compare anyone in the NBA to the Yankees simply because their is a salary cap. One of the things I love about the league is you have to spend your money very wisely.

dpaulh · Post #8 » by **dpaulh** » Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:58 pm

I don't think it takes a lot of wisdom to sign these two for the minimum... And that's the point I was trying to make

Yes, I understand that I would feel differently if we were able to get quality players at the minimum for the playoff... I understand I am being a homer so you can skip that rebuttal

D21 · Post #9 » by **D21** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:36 pm

It's not only a homer problem. And not a BOS problem. It's only that it decrease the intensity of the playoffs while it could increase it if these players were ideally signed by lower team (not only ATL).

There should be a scale with the last team able to offer the Minimum, and the price should increase by 0.1M for each higher team, going from 1M to 2.5M, because it's not fair that the leading teams (being BOS or any other team) can add player with value way higher than the Minimum for this amount.
Each year, it helps the best teams to be better, and in a so much easy way.

Now, we can also say that every team has a chance to be the leader of his conference at this moment of the schedule, and so be attractive for these players.

raleigh · Post #10 » by **raleigh** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:42 pm

I've always thought it should be a "waiver wire" type situation where all teams, starting with the worst team, should have the option to claim the player's entire salary.

In Marbury's case, no one would claim him, and then all teams should be free to sign him as a FA. In Mikki Moore's case, someone *might* have claimed him.

Post #11 » by **Boss_** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:39 am

Vets always wanna go to the team that previously won a ring. Just like Karl Malone and Gary Payton went to the lakers for the minimum.

raleigh · Post #12 » by **raleigh** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:23 am

The Boss of Bosses wrote:Vets always wanna go to the team that previously won a ring. Just like Karl Malone and Gary Payton went to the lakers for the minimum.

And they should have every right to do so, as unrestricted FA's in the offseason. To pretend that it's an equitable landscape in mid-February seems to violate the spirit of the CBA. I agree that it's a loophole that should be closed.

Gant · Post #13 » by **Gant** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 6:52 pm

evildallas · Post #14 » by **evildallas** » Sun Mar 1, 2009 12:33 am

Huh? ^

Thought on revamping the system:

I'm pretty sure that Marbury had to clear waivers, which was a formality because no one could afford to take on his contract and have his salary on their books. If 1/3 of the season is left then Marbury's remaining salary would have been $7M. That really limits the number of teams that could make claim. Maybe Memphis, but I'm not sure they had room.

There are ways to improve the system concerning the waivers. To release the player he must clear full salary waivers meaning the team that claims him must assume his contract. I'm fine with leaving that part that way. They could add a second set of waivers for players bought out of their contract for release to resign. The condition of these waivers would be that the team making the claim would have to pay the entire difference of the contract buyout to sign the player. If a player really wants to join a championship frontrunner he would have to give enough of a discount to make other teams pause. For instance, if Marbury gave up $2M to get out of New York, a team wishing to block him from signing elsewhere would have to have room within contract rules to pay that (either cap room or any exception). If claimed Marbury gets his full salary for the season and if not he's free to sign anywhere for any amount he negotiates.

The nuances of this system are that if a player already got his full salary (or close to it) that any team could sign him. That means a player would likely give a team a better discount to work the system. If prohibited from going to his choice destination, the player would still get his entire contract. To further protect the player I think a clause requiring a claiming team to keep the player on the list game actives might be required. This would stop a blocking team from claiming Marbury and sending him away as a purely defensive measure against a proposed destination like Boston. The other interesting thing is that since the player would have to give up more, the signing team will likely have to pay more (as Boston is actually doing using part of their MLE). This helps prevent a team from loading up with multiple players. If these rules were in place I think Boston still gets Marbury, but probably doesn't get Mikki Moore for peanuts as well. Another aspect is because a claiming team is required to fulfill the contract of a claim, they are unlikely to be able to claim multiple players. Meaning that if a team snapped up Mikki Moore they probably would not be able to also claim Marbury because of the contract effect on them.

Again I make this suggestion not because I fault the Celtics. They are just using the system as its currently constructed. I just think it is possible to improve the system, so that reputation and buddy system aren't more important that cap management and strategy for preparing a team for the playoff run.

Hawkeyes · Post #15 » by **Hawkeyes** » Sun Mar 1, 2009 5:33 am

What is next? Lebron James should be banned from the NBA for being too good? Come on. Most of these players are going to want to go to Boston so they can have a chance at a ring. You'll see the FAs considered the best available all wanting to go to Boston, Cleveland, LA, and the top teams. I dislike Marbury, but he could be great off the bench for Boston if he behaves. I'd hope he would be mature enough to act right on the defending champs, but who knows with him. I was hoping we'd sign Moore to help inside, but not many players will pick us over Boston.

Horryble · Post #16 » by **Horryble** » Sun Mar 1, 2009 7:24 am

The Cavs could have courted Marbury and Moore, but they didn't. There's always going to be cut vets, players, or guys coming back. It's still a relatively free market like in the offseason. You just have to tip your hat to the Celts for being on top of things.

The Cavs have options. There's guys like Horry, Russel, Head, etc available. Moore would have been the best fit for the Cavs though IMO.

Horryble · Post #17 » by **Horryble** » Sun Mar 1, 2009 7:26 am

conleyorbust wrote:On the other hand, it would kind of suck for the players to be cut and then told that they couldn't play again that season, even if they took the min. Not that I'd feel bad for them, but I understand the logic there.

Agreed. This is a big players association issue. That trumps the competition issue for that power faction. The other side, the owners are neutral at best. So this is just how it's going to be.

Horryble · Post #18 » by **Horryble** » Sun Mar 1, 2009 7:31 am

evildallas wrote:Huh? ^

Thought on revamping the system:

I'm pretty sure that Marbury had to clear waivers, which was a formality because no one could afford to take on his contract and have his salary on their books. If 1/3 of the season is left then Marbury's remaining salary would have been $7M. That really limits the number of teams that could make claim. Maybe Memphis, but I'm not sure they had room.

Pretty sure this wasn't a waivers thing. The Knicks bought out his contract and Marbury then signed a min contract.

Truth be told, the Cavs could have offered a bigger contract. But that would have hurt in luxury taxes and he did not work chemistry wise with guard heavy scoring of Cavs already. They likely didn't want Marbury at the min. This isn't just about the Celts getting Marbury. This is sour grapes that it did not go the Cavs way.

evildallas · Post #19 » by **evildallas** » Sun Mar 1, 2009 5:32 pm

I thought you had to place a player on waivers before you could release him, but I don't know for sure it was based on an article saying he had cleared waivers and would be able to sign with Boston on Friday (which he did). No one would have claimed Marbury anyway (I know that isn't how Boston signed him), so it's really moot. Also my position isn't against Boston or for the Cavs. I don't really care for either. Boston just used the system. Cleveland could as well, and they are likely to by signing Joe Smith if he gets bought out in time.

I think the system itself is flawed because it isn't egalitarian, but there is no outcry to fix it. Any team that wants to can try to use the system. It's just the best teams that are more attractive. We negotiated with Dale Davis late last season and ultimately the GM decided not to sign because he doubted the impact he would make. If you get bought out by a cellar dwelling team, then any playoff bound team would be a step up. That is provided you want to play, if not you're happy to collect every dollar and sat at home. My suggestion of a signing waivers was just a way to make it more egalitarian.

Also, I never wanted Marbury and wouldn't have tried to outbid Boston. I would have tried to talk to Mikki Moore though because we are really thin up front. Rick Sund may have as well, but Mikki liked the situation in Boston more.