Random Rumor and General Offseason Discussion Thread

[loserX]

Read on Twitter

Anybody know something about him? Have you guys watched him play?

I found his DX profile from 2011 Probably not very helpful at all, although they had nice things to say at the time:
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/William-Howard-6127/

[Karmaloop]

Probably because Rozier will average 18/8/5 if he has his worst season and is also a plus defender. I think you all are underestimating the green light Rozier is about to have

Do you really want Rozier with a green light? He's a career 38% shooter from the field in his first four seasons. That's the same career percentage as Lonzo Ball.

[BadWolf]

No word on cp3 last couple days.

[jbk1234]

No word on cp3 last couple days.

If he won't waive his 2021 P.O., I don't there will be a market for him until next summer.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

[Balkman32]

No word on cp3 last couple days.

The trade is still not official.

[Balkman32]

No word on cp3 last couple days.

If he won't waive his 2021 P.O., I don't there will be a market for him until next summer.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

As the players union president I don't think its a good look to give back $44 million on a deal when you are going to be 36 years old.

But, stranger things have happened. I wouldn't hold my breath on him terminating his player option.

[LofJ]

No word on cp3 last couple days.

If he won't waive his 2021 P.O., I don't there will be a market for him until next summer.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

As the players union president I don't think its a good look to give back $44 million on a deal when you are going to be 36 years old.

But, stranger things have happened. I wouldn't hold my breath on him terminating his player option.

That $44 million won't disappear, most of it will be spent on different players. Most union members that aren't max contract players will be in favor of him doing that.

[jbk1234]

If he won't waive his 2021 P.O., I don't there will be a market for him until next summer.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

As the players union president I don't think its a good look to give back $44 million on a deal when you are going to be 36 years old.

But, stranger things have happened. I wouldn't hold my breath on him terminating his player option.

That $44 million won't disappear, most of it will be spent on different players. Most union members that aren't max contract players will be in favor of him doing that.

Yeah, NBCsports has an article up about how the majority of players are none to happy about the max and supermax deals eating up all the cap space.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

[Balkman32]

If he won't waive his 2021 P.O., I don't there will be a market for him until next summer.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

As the players union president I don't think its a good look to give back $44 million on a deal when you are going to be 36 years old.

But, stranger things have happened. I wouldn't hold my breath on him terminating his player option.

That $44 million won't disappear, most of it will be spent on different players. Most union members that aren't max contract players will be in favor of him doing that.

That is correct for the most part, because if he gave that money up and lets say the team he was on was over the cap already that team wouldn't be able to spend more money. I don't think his agent would be cool with him giving back $44 million.

[loserX]

Just a few waiver updates: JR Smith officially waived (and stretched) by CLE, Christian Wood waived by NOP (Hartford will be so excited!!)

[SO_MONEY]

If he won't waive his 2021 P.O., I don't there will be a market for him until next summer.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

As the players union president I don't think its a good look to give back $44 million on a deal when you are going to be 36 years old.

But, stranger things have happened. I wouldn't hold my breath on him terminating his player option.

That $44 million won't disappear, most of it will be spent on different players. Most union members that aren't max contract players will be in favor of him doing that.

Sadly, if you have ever held a union job, you would come to understand they are there to protect the weaker workers who have seniority, so protecting an aging player who makes a ton of money falls right in line with its agenda. The Union's agenda is not to help out the young or stronger worker, they have to put their time in for them to be valued in the same way.

While on a fundamental level I agree with you, that more deserving players would get the money, no union ever has been in favor of strictly merit pay. It runs counter to why they see themselves to exist regardless of how non-senior members feel or how it might benefit them.

[Scoot McGroot]

As the players union president I don't think its a good look to give back $44 million on a deal when you are going to be 36 years old.

But, stranger things have happened. I wouldn't hold my breath on him terminating his player option.

That $44 million won't disappear, most of it will be spent on different players. Most union members that aren't max contract players will be in favor of him doing that.

Sadly, if you have ever held a union job, you would come to understand they are there to protect the weaker workers who have seniority, so protecting an aging player who makes a ton of money falls right in line with its agenda. The Union's agenda is not to help out the young or stronger worker, they have to put their time in for them to be valued in the same way.

While on a fundamental level I agree with you, that more deserving players would get the money, no union ever has been in favor of strictly merit pay. It runs counter to why they see themselves to exist regardless of how non-senior members feel or how it might benefit them.

Unions protect the majority. Not “the weak few”. But even the “weak few” have to be Defended/protected by the union if they’re members.

[kobe_vs_jordan]

As the players union president I don't think its a good look to give back $44 million on a deal when you are going to be 36 years old.

But, stranger things have happened. I wouldn't hold my breath on him terminating his player option.

That $44 million won't disappear, most of it will be spent on different players. Most union members that aren't max contract players will be in favor of him doing that.

Sadly, if you have ever held a union job, you would come to understand they are there to protect the weaker workers who have seniority, so protecting an aging player who makes a ton of money falls right in line with its agenda. The Union's agenda is not to help out the young or stronger worker, they have to put their time in for them to be valued in the same way.

While on a fundamental level I agree with you, that more deserving players would get the money, no union ever has been in favor of strictly merit pay. It runs counter to why they see themselves to exist regardless of how non-senior members feel or how it might benefit them.

Think basketball Union is slightly different. Their focus has been getting the middle class paid at least for the last two decades. I could see Paul giving up money as filling both the seniority and middle class agenda.

[HartfordWhalers]

That $44 million won't disappear, most of it will be spent on different players. Most union members that aren't max contract players will be in favor of him doing that.

Sadly, if you have ever held a union job, you would come to understand they are there to protect the weaker workers who have seniority, so protecting an aging player who makes a ton of money falls right in line with its agenda. The Union's agenda is not to help out the young or stronger worker, they have to put their time in for them to be valued in the same way.

While on a fundamental level I agree with you, that more deserving players would get the money, no union ever has been in favor of strictly merit pay. It runs counter to why they see themselves to exist regardless of how non-senior members feel or how it might benefit them.

Think basketball Union is slightly different. Their focus has been getting the middle class paid at least for the last two decades. I could see Paul giving up money as filling both the seniority and middle class agenda.

I don't agree with that at all.

[kobe_vs_jordan]

Sadly, if you have ever held a union job, you would come to understand they are there to protect the weaker workers who have seniority, so protecting an aging player who makes a ton of money falls right in line with its agenda. The Union's agenda is not to help out the young or stronger worker, they have to put their time in for them to be valued in the same way.

While on a fundamental level I agree with you, that more deserving players would get the money, no union ever has been in favor of strictly merit pay. It runs counter to why they see themselves to exist regardless of how non-senior members feel or how it might benefit them.

Think basketball Union is slightly different. Their focus has been getting the middle class paid at least for the last two decades. I could see Paul giving up money as filling both the seniority and middle class agenda.

I don't agree with that at all.

That why they have max contracts.

[HartfordWhalers]

Think basketball Union is slightly different. Their focus has been getting the middle class paid at least for the last two decades. I could see Paul giving up money as filling both the seniority and middle class agenda.

I don't agree with that at all.

That why they have max contracts.

Is it? I actually have a lot to say on that, but accepting the premise for now...

Max contracts have been increasing (supermax, designated max, moving to a full 25/30/35% versus the complicated percentage that was different than that, which was a 9 percent increase across the board if I recall.
MLE has been decreasing.

I would argue that the union has most looked after the star players, and be able to cite the contract stats above as evidence even if the personalities weren't clearly having a star bias, which they have had.

[Colbinii]

Think basketball Union is slightly different. Their focus has been getting the middle class paid at least for the last two decades. I could see Paul giving up money as filling both the seniority and middle class agenda.

I don't agree with that at all.

That why they have max contracts.

The NBAPA could go much further than they have in helping getting middle class paid in the NBA.

The fact that there are max contracts doesn't actually support the notion that the Players Union is helping the middle class.

A real life analogy would he something along the lines of lowering the premiums of health insurance by 10% when the other option is Universal Health Care. Lowering premiums by 10% appears to be a sacrifice of Health Insurance Companies when the reality is it's the least they could do to still keep everyone around.

(I'm not saying this as an actual example or that universal healthcare is the answer, but I think the example holds weight).

Do you really think the new 10 year Max is there to help the middle class of the NBA?

Remember, the middle class of the NBA is player 100-300, so your 4th/5th starters through your 8/9 bench player.

[BullyKing]

I don't agree with that at all.

That why they have max contracts.

Is it? I actually have a lot to say on that, but accepting the premise for now...

Max contracts have been increasing (supermax, designated max, moving to a full 25/30/35% versus the complicated percentage that was different than that, which was a 9 percent increase across the board if I recall.
MLE has been decreasing.

I would argue that the union has most looked after the star players, and be able to cite the contract stats above as evidence even if the personalities weren't clearly having a star bias, which they have had.

They also used negotiating capital to get the rules about contracts for older players changed in their favor. The complaints that the stars are looking out for themselves have been around a while.

[HartfordWhalers]

Oh, **** it.
Max contracts are around because owners demanded them. Particularly small market owners. Too often they were concerned they would be paying the Big Dog's of the league franchise crippling money, and they wanted a hard stop on that upper limit. Which makes sense as a risk reward scenario, you had franchises worth 300 million paying 180 million to a guy who could start doing drugs, thinking he was an actor, or just more mundanely break a leg.

The effect has been conversely to cripple the same small markets ability to retain stars, as why not go be a big shot in LAL versus {fill in small city here} when the max is the max. Not universally. But enough across the board that the owners doubled down with the new supermax to help those teams keep their player. The dynamics of which has so far led to trades of almost half the eligible players, and bad contracts of almost all of the other half.

I expect it to get revisited. But let me be clear, in no way were max contracts a player wealth distribution tool. They were fought bitterly by the union, led then, as now, by stars (predominantly); and were a player concession to owners with all the financial leverage.

[BullyKing]

It's amazing to me that the majority of players continue to vote for the stars to lead the players association. Vote for a guy like Vince Carter who's been around forever and knows what its like at both the top and bottom of the food chain.