Update: Motiejunas now a UFA as Rockets have released his rights

Post #141 » by **Slava** » Tue Dec 6, 2016 6:58 pm

Well, this is turning into quite a lovely affair. Motiejunas needs to fire that clown of an agent.

Post #142 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Tue Dec 6, 2016 6:59 pm

RightToCensor wrote:
yosemiteben wrote:What exactly is DMo's plan here? Presumably he got the highest offer the market would bear. Does he think HOU will not match a lower offer?

I wouldn't classify anything going on as D-Mo's plan, it's more of his agent B.J. Armstrong.

This isn't the sole reason, but is just an update I wanted to post.

Read on Twitter

That ... doesn't make sense. You don't have incentives 'if doctor likes your Xray'.

Now, he could be worried that they will not pick up the next year option after the medical, or fail the deal altogether. But it shouldn't at all effect his salary this year like that implies/says.

Post #143 » by **BullyKing** » Tue Dec 6, 2016 7:00 pm

Smitty731 wrote:
BullyKing wrote:
Smitty731 wrote:It is all well and good for Motiejunas and Armstrong to want to fight this, but the CBA is clear. If they wanted something different, they should have waited until the next CBA and seen if RFA rules changed. Or both should have lobbied harder to get it changed.

Armstrong can say his client has rights, but the rules are the rules and they are the same for all. No one says Motiejunas has to play in the NBA. There are other leagues he can go to if he doesn't like the way it works. His challenge now is that FIBA will almost assuredly not allow him to sign elsewhere because he now has a binding NBA deal.

No matter what happens this is a mess. The guy I feel for is Bobby Brown. He got waived and caught up in the mess when he didn't do anything. Tough break for him.

Yeah, I'm really struggling to understand D-Mo's position here. Seems like he is just getting horrible advice from BJ Armstrong. Wonder what other players think and if it will impact BJ going forward.

I assume the Rockets will just resign Brown so it shouldn't much of a harm.

Read on Twitter

Jared Dudley in response to me, has some pretty strong feelings. And Dudley is a respected guy around the league.

Didn't hear too much push from the players during the CBA negotiations to do away with it. I also think he is missing the point slightly. It's not a question of whether they want to keep you long term but rather maximizing their ability to do just that. For the record, I don't have a strong feeling about it either way but his reasoning doesn't add up.

Post #144 » by **yosemiteben** » Tue Dec 6, 2016 7:01 pm

Yeah, I don't buy the explanation that he's upset about incentives tied to health. DMo did a physical in BRK no problem and HOU just matched the BRK offer.

I still don't understand what the actual issue is. What is DMo's agent upset about?

Post #145 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Tue Dec 6, 2016 7:01 pm

Hot take:
Clearly Morey needs to hire back Hinkie to help him get along with agents. Shame Hinkie is on a noncompete until next summer.

Hotter Hot Take:
Could BJ Armstrong challenge the non compete, arguing that Houston is trying to win games and thus is not competing with Philly?

Post #146 » by **yosemiteben** » Tue Dec 6, 2016 7:02 pm

HartfordWhalers wrote:Hotter Hot Take:
Could BJ Armstrong challenge the non compete, arguing that Houston is trying to win games and thus is not competing with Philly?

No. Non-compete means can't provide similar services to a competitor.

Post #147 » by **BullyKing** » Tue Dec 6, 2016 7:04 pm

HartfordWhalers wrote:Hot take:
Clearly Morey needs to hire back Hinkie to help him get along with agents. Shame Hinkie is on a noncompete until next summer.

Hotter Hot Take:
Could BJ Armstrong challenge the non compete, arguing that Houston is trying to win games and thus is not competing with Philly?

Hottest Hot Take:

D-Mo is also subject to a non-compete with the Sixers (unreported part of voided trade last year).

Post #148 » by **jbk1234** » Tue Dec 6, 2016 7:04 pm

DusterBuster wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
K_chile22 wrote:Well they also can't trade him for a calendar year without his permission, could get in the way of a big free agent, should they decide to come to Houston. I think they should match as well, just presenting the other side

Assuming they didn't offer this much already, there's also the issue of whether there's some ill will between the parties.

This never ends up being much of a deterrent for a team to match. Even in nasty negotiations, if a team brings the player back, he has to play for whoever's paying whether he's happy or not.

Bump.

Post #149 » by **BullyKing** » Tue Dec 6, 2016 7:04 pm

yosemiteben wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:Hotter Hot Take:
Could BJ Armstrong challenge the non compete, arguing that Houston is trying to win games and thus is not competing with Philly?

No. Non-compete means can't provide similar services to a competitor.

Dude... green font shouldn't always be necessary.

RightToCensor · Post #150 » by **RightToCensor** » Tue Dec 6, 2016 7:11 pm

Read on Twitter

Post #151 » by **Andre Roberstan** » Tue Dec 6, 2016 7:13 pm

BullyKing wrote:
Smitty731 wrote:
BullyKing wrote:
Yeah, I'm really struggling to understand D-Mo's position here. Seems like he is just getting horrible advice from BJ Armstrong. Wonder what other players think and if it will impact BJ going forward.

I assume the Rockets will just resign Brown so it shouldn't much of a harm.

Read on Twitter

Jared Dudley in response to me, has some pretty strong feelings. And Dudley is a respected guy around the league.

Didn't hear too much push from the players during the CBA negotiations to do away with it. I also think he is missing the point slightly. It's not a question of whether they want to keep you long term but rather maximizing their ability to do just that. For the record, I don't have a strong feeling about it either way but his reasoning doesn't add up.

FWIW here's his response to me:

Read on Twitter

K_chile22 · Post #152 » by **K_chile22** » Tue Dec 6, 2016 7:15 pm

Apprently this is because BJ got another deal lined up that's bigger than what he got from the Nets and ALREADY Signed. That's not how it works you freaking idiot.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using RealGM mobile app

Post #153 » by **jbk1234** » Tue Dec 6, 2016 7:16 pm

Smitty731 wrote:As far as Armstrong and Motiejunas challenging the RFA system, I'm all for it. But this isn't the way to do it. They needed to do it through the CBA negotiations.

In a lot of respects, it is ridiculous that if you draft a player, you can essentially control that player for 8-9 years of his career. For most guys that is more than half of professional lives. Sure, a player can sign the QO and play it out that way, but that isn't necessarily realistic for most guys. It is a system that needs tweaking. This just isn't the way to fight it.

I don't see playing on the QO as an unnecessary hardship. Now you can argue that the QO should be higher, but if you're willing to take the risk, you can get out early. Monroe did it and got paid. In the one-and-done era, teams are usually developing their players for a couple of years of their rookie contracts.

RightToCensor · Post #154 » by **RightToCensor** » Tue Dec 6, 2016 7:16 pm

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php?threads/sources-utah-offering-more-money-to-dmo.279013/

What is going on?!!?

tmorgan · Post #155 » by **tmorgan** » Tue Dec 6, 2016 7:27 pm

You know, I always assumed ex-players that become agents were typically mediocre or worse ballers that used their experience, along with intelligence, to be better agents than they ever were on the floor (thinking Rob Pelinka here, but there are numerous examples).

BJ Armstrong is apparently the opposite.

K_chile22 · Post #156 » by **K_chile22** » Tue Dec 6, 2016 7:31 pm

tmorgan wrote:You know, I always assumed ex-players that become agents were typically mediocre or worse ballers that used their experience, along with intelligence, to be better agents than they ever were on the floor (thinking Rob Pelinka here, but there are numerous examples).

BJ Armstrong is apparently the opposite.

Based on things I've heard about BJ and how he was painted in alot of stories about those Bulls teams I was floored he was an agent

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using RealGM mobile app

Post #157 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Tue Dec 6, 2016 7:31 pm

I'm not confident Utah is offering him a deal. I have my doubts. But if you are trying to get Houston to waive a physical, maybe its a gambit you try?

If it turns out that BJ Armstrong has been playing Weekend at Bernie's with Motie this whole time will anyone be shocked at this point?

Post #158 » by **Andre Roberstan** » Tue Dec 6, 2016 7:35 pm

RightToCensor wrote:http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php?threads/sources-utah-offering-more-money-to-dmo.279013/

What is going on?!!?

I don't trust this report as far as I can throw it, but if there's any truth to it based on what I've seen of Utah's finances for the next 2 years, Favors is likely gone. That is, if they can pull off the DMo deal.

K_chile22 · Post #159 » by **K_chile22** » Tue Dec 6, 2016 7:38 pm

HartfordWhalers wrote:I'm not confident Utah is offering him a deal. I have my doubts. But if you are trying to get Houston to waive a physical, maybe its a gambit you try?

If it turns out that BJ Armstrong has been playing Weekend at Bernie's with Motie this whole time will anyone be shocked at this point?

BJ has apparently told Calvin Watkins a deal is out there but I am also not convinced it's Utah. They don't seem dumb and it's clearly tampering right? Offering someone a deal after they signed one sounds like tampering

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using RealGM mobile app

DusterBuster · Post #160 » by **DusterBuster** » Tue Dec 6, 2016 7:38 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
DusterBuster wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
Assuming they didn't offer this much already, there's also the issue of whether there's some ill will between the parties.

This never ends up being much of a deterrent for a team to match. Even in nasty negotiations, if a team brings the player back, he has to play for whoever's paying whether he's happy or not.

Bump.

Fair enough, but when has this situation ever happened before? Far as I can remember, this is a first.