A bold idea to make the Bulls favorable with players: Self imposed no trade rule

[League Circles]

I've thought of this a number of times in recent years as a way to differentiate our organization with players in a unique way.

Simply put, the Bulls would announce that they don't believe engaging in trades is a positive thing for players, that it's unnecessarily controlling, and that they will be the first (and only) NBA team to have a policy to not trade or engage in trade talks with the other clubs, period. The only exceptions would be players that they have decided to otherwise release and drafted players who have not yet played.

I think this would shock the nba landscape and I think the plausible outcomes are only net positive for the Bulls. Basically the appeal to FAs and organizational culture would outweigh the inherent zero sum benefits of trading.

Might as well be the leader on this IMO. I don't think they should specifically imply that trading reminds us of slavery, as I don't think it's an appropriate analogy, but it wouldn't hurt to imply that it's not very human to trade players. Basically market it as a way to reward player commitment, maintain a family level of togetherness, etc.

This could help put downward pressure on contract value negotiations.

Thoughts?

[League Circles]

Also, Bulls media team, if you're reading this and know it's a good idea, I want my job already please. God knows it's been long enough coming lol.

[musiqsoulchild]

I agree in essence with what youre saying but it will not acheive the outcomes you are looking for.

Additionally, it would only attract a tier of player that is average, below average and maybe above average.

Moving costs, Costs of reinstating kids into schools, new homes etc....are kind of irrelavant for max players. You'd be left with a crap ton of Tier B, C and Tier D players. Which is what we have anyway.

[League Circles]

I agree in essence with what youre saying but it will not acheive the outcomes you are looking for.

Additionally, it would only attract a tier of player that is average, below average and maybe above average.

Moving costs, Costs of reinstating kids into schools, new homes etc....are kind of irrelavant for max players. You'd be left with a crap ton of Tier B, C and Tier D players. Which is what we have anyway.

Bizarre take. The downside of moving isn't about expenses. It's about lack of player freedom and living where they don't want to. This assures a player that if he signs with the Bulls, he WILL live and play in Chicago for the duration of the contract, which is an assurance he wouldn't get from the other 29 teams. It also assures guys on rookie deals who aren't mature that they don't have to worry about getting moved while they're trying to grow as players and in a role.

[League Circles]

The Bulls are relatively close to practicing this policy anyways as is. Might as well get some credit with the players about it.

[musiqsoulchild]

I agree in essence with what youre saying but it will not acheive the outcomes you are looking for.

Additionally, it would only attract a tier of player that is average, below average and maybe above average.

Moving costs, Costs of reinstating kids into schools, new homes etc....are kind of irrelavant for max players. You'd be left with a crap ton of Tier B, C and Tier D players. Which is what we have anyway.

Bizarre take. The downside of moving isn't about expenses. It's about lack of player freedom and living where they don't want to. This assures a player that if he signs with the Bulls, he WILL live and play in Chicago for the duration of the contract, which is an assurance he wouldn't get from the other 29 teams. It also assures guys on rookie deals who aren't mature that they don't have to worry about getting moved while they're trying to grow as players and in a role.

What would be the benefit of giving a no trade to players?

I dont see any other benefit.

For me the costs of moving are NOT just dollars - its the emotional, psychological costs of moving. Moving locations is a Top 5 life stressor. Hell, Niko moved back to Spain for this reason.

[League Circles]

I agree in essence with what youre saying but it will not acheive the outcomes you are looking for.

Additionally, it would only attract a tier of player that is average, below average and maybe above average.

Moving costs, Costs of reinstating kids into schools, new homes etc....are kind of irrelavant for max players. You'd be left with a crap ton of Tier B, C and Tier D players. Which is what we have anyway.

Bizarre take. The downside of moving isn't about expenses. It's about lack of player freedom and living where they don't want to. This assures a player that if he signs with the Bulls, he WILL live and play in Chicago for the duration of the contract, which is an assurance he wouldn't get from the other 29 teams. It also assures guys on rookie deals who aren't mature that they don't have to worry about getting moved while they're trying to grow as players and in a role.

What would be the benefit of giving a no trade to players?

I dont see any other benefit.

For me the costs of moving are NOT just dollars - its the emotional, psychological costs of moving. Moving locations is a Top 5 life stressor. Hell, Niko moved back to Spain for this reason.

Seems like we're having a miscommunication. I agree the costs of moving are largely beyond finances, which is why the Bulls announcing a no trade policy should appeal to all players, not just lesser earners as you had suggested.

[musiqsoulchild]

Bizarre take. The downside of moving isn't about expenses. It's about lack of player freedom and living where they don't want to. This assures a player that if he signs with the Bulls, he WILL live and play in Chicago for the duration of the contract, which is an assurance he wouldn't get from the other 29 teams. It also assures guys on rookie deals who aren't mature that they don't have to worry about getting moved while they're trying to grow as players and in a role.

What would be the benefit of giving a no trade to players?

I dont see any other benefit.

For me the costs of moving are NOT just dollars - its the emotional, psychological costs of moving. Moving locations is a Top 5 life stressor. Hell, Niko moved back to Spain for this reason.

Seems like we're having a miscommunication. I agree the costs of moving are largely beyond finances, which is why the Bulls announcing a no trade policy should appeal to all players, not just lesser earners as you had suggested.

For the top tier player though - they care about other things first:

1) Legacy
2) Marketing potential
3) Freedom to be THE MAN

Your suggested method does not help with that. These guys are willing to move their family at a drop of a hot if it means they can further their personal goals.

[RedBulls23]

The only players this could be appealing to are players we aren't really having trouble attracting in free agency. Those are the Carlos Boozers of the nba.

The real superstars just force their way to what ever team they want to go to, and unless that superstar is forcing their way to another place/team, no franchise is considering trading them to begin with.

So in conclusion, I don't see this making the team appealing in a real substantial way. The players also seem to care less and less about loyalty as well. They want to win, they care about their legacy when they are done playing, and they will place winning and playing on teams that are good as a premium over a "no trade clause" because of that.

[League Circles]

What would be the benefit of giving a no trade to players?

I dont see any other benefit.

For me the costs of moving are NOT just dollars - its the emotional, psychological costs of moving. Moving locations is a Top 5 life stressor. Hell, Niko moved back to Spain for this reason.

Seems like we're having a miscommunication. I agree the costs of moving are largely beyond finances, which is why the Bulls announcing a no trade policy should appeal to all players, not just lesser earners as you had suggested.

For the top tier player though - they care about other things first:

1) Legacy
2) Marketing potential
3) Freedom to be THE MAN

Your suggested method does not help with that. These guys are willing to move their family at a drop of a hot if it means they can further their personal goals.

I'm not suggesting it's nearly the #1 factor for really anyone. But it's a positive factor for all players to know they won't be traded against their will. Is it enough to tip the scales for anyone? Idk. It's all psychological. Lots of even max players are getting moved now days. I'm sure they'd find SOME benefit in knowing that wouldn't happen. Whatever benefit they find in it gets factored into their decision with all the other factors.

[sco]

I get the logic of the OP, but the concept lasts as long as the team is good. When they turn bad and their star is older, they'll fire Pax and the new guy will change policy.

If they want to get FA's they can just offer long-term max deals with annual player options.

[Kurt Heimlich]

I get the logic of the OP, but the concept lasts as long as the team is good. When they turn bad and their star is older, they'll fire Pax and the new guy will change policy.

If they want to get FA's they can just offer long-term max deals with annual player options.

Are long term deals with annual player options legal under the CBA? I can't imagine they are, otherwise LBJ/KD/Kawhi and the like would have been utilizing them for max security and flexibility.

As for the OP, it's a gimmick that isn't sustainable and the upside value IMO is minimal at best. Offering players a chance to maximize their earning potential as well as win (often correlated) will trump any false promises of loyalty.

[League Circles]

I get the logic of the OP, but the concept lasts as long as the team is good. When they turn bad and their star is older, they'll fire Pax and the new guy will change policy.

If they want to get FA's they can just offer long-term max deals with annual player options.

This would be an owner announced policy.

Annual player options are not allowed under the cba.

[League Circles]

I get the logic of the OP, but the concept lasts as long as the team is good. When they turn bad and their star is older, they'll fire Pax and the new guy will change policy.

If they want to get FA's they can just offer long-term max deals with annual player options.

Are long term deals with annual player options legal under the CBA? I can't imagine they are, otherwise LBJ/KD/Kawhi and the like would have been utilizing them for max security and flexibility.

As for the OP, it's a gimmick that isn't sustainable and the upside value IMO is minimal at best. Offering players a chance to maximize their earning potential as well as win (often correlated) will trump any false promises of loyalty.

Why isn't it sustainable and why is it a false sense of loyalty rather than a true one?

[cjbulls]

I don't get the benefit? Unless you're already winning, most players assume/want trades (granted, of the other players) in order to improve the roster.

I have never heard players listing trades as a reason they don't want to sign somewhere.

The exception for a player they plan to cut sounds like a pretty big loophole as well.

[Proven_Winner]

I don't get the benefit? Unless you're already winning, most players assume/want trades (granted, of the other players) in order to improve the roster.

I have never heard players listing trades as a reason they don't want to sign somewhere.

The exception for a player they plan to cut sounds like a pretty big loophole as well.

Yea it just seems kind of dumb. Why would you kill your likability amongst GMs just to cater to the small minority of players who even care about something like this. The NBA is a business and everyone knows that. Players and owners can get done in by the opposite party. So there’s literally no reason to kill stock with GMs to HOPE that a player cares about your weird motto to not do trades?

I think players wouldn’t even want to come at that point. How would the team get better? Some superstars want you to trade for certain guys so do you just say screw them? I get the trying to be nice and different but this would get any and every team laughed at unless they actually have a championship caliber team already.

Instead of finding new ways to appease to players how about our GM just actually gets more involved than others the guys and not just micro manage. That’s a good start.

[Onibuh]

I don't see the benefit. Other teams will have an advantage with being able to trade. What about making room? What about trading away a mistake just to give that player a fresh start?

Players aren't loyal, teams aren't loyal. This is a money driven league and it's what counts most to all those players.

[Kurt Heimlich]

I get the logic of the OP, but the concept lasts as long as the team is good. When they turn bad and their star is older, they'll fire Pax and the new guy will change policy.

If they want to get FA's they can just offer long-term max deals with annual player options.

Are long term deals with annual player options legal under the CBA? I can't imagine they are, otherwise LBJ/KD/Kawhi and the like would have been utilizing them for max security and flexibility.

As for the OP, it's a gimmick that isn't sustainable and the upside value IMO is minimal at best. Offering players a chance to maximize their earning potential as well as win (often correlated) will trump any false promises of loyalty.

Why isn't it sustainable and why is it a false sense of loyalty rather than a true one?

Like sco mentioned, this idea may be fine when a team is good and producing. What happens when the inevitable fall out happens?

And do you propose the Bulls start their no-trade pact now coming off a 20-62 season? What happens if nobody wants to sign with the Bulls even after they make their no trade clause pact public? Do they tuck their tail between their legs and eventually start trading people again? Especially in an environment where this team could potentially trade for a star themselves.

Ultimately you can build a foundation of trust without having to make set in stone rules about not trading ever. Frankly an easier path to that trust could be just bringing in new, more likeable/trustworthy FO exec's.

[League Circles]

Are long term deals with annual player options legal under the CBA? I can't imagine they are, otherwise LBJ/KD/Kawhi and the like would have been utilizing them for max security and flexibility.

As for the OP, it's a gimmick that isn't sustainable and the upside value IMO is minimal at best. Offering players a chance to maximize their earning potential as well as win (often correlated) will trump any false promises of loyalty.

Why isn't it sustainable and why is it a false sense of loyalty rather than a true one?

Like sco mentioned, this idea may be fine when a team is good and producing. What happens when the inevitable fall out happens?

And do you propose the Bulls start their no-trade pact now coming off a 20-62 season? What happens if nobody wants to sign with the Bulls even after they make their no trade clause pact public? Do they tuck their tail between their legs and eventually start trading people again? Especially in an environment where this team could potentially trade for a star themselves.

Ultimately you can build a foundation of trust without having to make set in stone rules about not trading ever. Frankly an easier path to that trust could be just bringing in new, more likeable/trustworthy FO exec's.

I don't understand what's confusing or open ended.

The team would announce it's not trading anymore, and then they wouldn't trade anymore. Forever and ever. Yes, starting now, and yes, continue through thick and thin.

What do you mean what if nobody would want to sign with them? We already have players wanting to sign with us every time we have cap space, often for less than offered elsewhere. This would just us more desireable.

[Kurt Heimlich]

Why isn't it sustainable and why is it a false sense of loyalty rather than a true one?

Like sco mentioned, this idea may be fine when a team is good and producing. What happens when the inevitable fall out happens?

And do you propose the Bulls start their no-trade pact now coming off a 20-62 season? What happens if nobody wants to sign with the Bulls even after they make their no trade clause pact public? Do they tuck their tail between their legs and eventually start trading people again? Especially in an environment where this team could potentially trade for a star themselves.

Ultimately you can build a foundation of trust without having to make set in stone rules about not trading ever. Frankly an easier path to that trust could be just bringing in new, more likeable/trustworthy FO exec's.

I don't understand what's confusing or open ended.

The team would announce it's not trading anymore, and then they wouldn't trade anymore. Forever and ever. Yes, starting now, and yes, continue through thick and thin.

What do you mean what if nobody would want to sign with them? We already have players wanting to sign with us every time we have cap space, often for less than offered elsewhere. This would just us more desireable.

It's not confusing or open ended. It's just handcuffing the teams optionality for little to no real benefit.