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

[Fl_Flash]

No. Just no.
Isn't the idea of not trading a player who wants out but is under contract for a few more years pretty much akin to "slavery" (of course, you could lock me in a dimly lit room for three years and pay me 5 -10 mil per year and I won't complain *much*)?

Player: "I want out. This situation is no good for me"
Team: "no. We own your ass for another three years."

I just don't see that ending well. You're just as likely to end up with a roster full of Jabari Parker's and Eddie Robinson's as anything else.

Besides that - abstaining from the trade market basically kills your ability to obtain value from your players. If the other 29 teams know that it's pointless to enter into trade talks with you (for player trades) and they simply wait for said player to hit free agency - you've just lost an asset for no return. Also I'm pretty sure the players union isn't going to go for a team that won't allow a player to be traded - even as simply a "policy". You have a good\star or even superstar player who wants out and you won't trade them or at least even entertain their demands - you're killing their value around the league. You are, in essence, harming their ability to earn in the future. There's no way in hell the players association wound stand for it.

This is a bad idea.

No. Just no.

[HomoSapien]

I think this is just a terrible idea. We're the Chicago Bulls not the Rio Rancho Rattlesnakes. If we have to limit the way in which we can improve our team in order to attract free-agents, then there's an even bigger issue at stake.

Also, am I missing something? Has there been some accusation/complaint that trading a player is somehow similar to slavery?

it's actually an offensive comparison. particularly given that trades have been happening in team sports long before blacks were even permitted to play in some cases

i'm not aware that actual slaves being swapped for each other was ever a big thing either

Who said anything about race? I don't think any human wants to be traded (like a commodity or slave).

You're not aware that the only uses of the term trade regarding human beings in the english language are slaves and professional athletes?

You did, over and over again:

Lol to people acting like this is way out there merely weeks after the NBA abolished the term owner because it hints at our memories of slavery. This is along the same lines but it would be the Chicago Bulls organization taking the lead instead of being forced to by Adam Silver.

[League Circles]

it's actually an offensive comparison. particularly given that trades have been happening in team sports long before blacks were even permitted to play in some cases

i'm not aware that actual slaves being swapped for each other was ever a big thing either

Who said anything about race? I don't think any human wants to be traded (like a commodity or slave).

You're not aware that the only uses of the term trade regarding human beings in the english language are slaves and professional athletes?

You did, over and over again:

Lol to people acting like this is way out there merely weeks after the NBA abolished the term owner because it hints at our memories of slavery. This is along the same lines but it would be the Chicago Bulls organization taking the lead instead of being forced to by Adam Silver.

I did what? I never mentioned race.

Are we suggesting that the notion of trading players is any less reminiscent of slavery than the term "owner" which the NBA very publicly has just formally done away with?

As I thought I made clear in the OP, I don't think that's an appropriate analogy, but it's appeal is sort of an enticement to maybe the same mentality that exists among however many players weren't OK with the term owner enough to get it changed.

The bottom line is that this would be a benefit to players. That's how it would be announced/marketed. A benefit bestowed on the players for ostensible moral reasons. Why ship out the most important employees?

[HoopsterJones]

Personally I think this a bad idea. Bulls would be stuck with players because they are trying to honor a verbal agreement to never trade a player. What if a superstar player is available and you have to trade players to match salaries?

This handcuffs the FO and limits their flexibility to make all the moves all other teams can make.

[HomoSapien]

Who said anything about race? I don't think any human wants to be traded (like a commodity or slave).

You're not aware that the only uses of the term trade regarding human beings in the english language are slaves and professional athletes?

You did, over and over again:

Lol to people acting like this is way out there merely weeks after the NBA abolished the term owner because it hints at our memories of slavery. This is along the same lines but it would be the Chicago Bulls organization taking the lead instead of being forced to by Adam Silver.

I did what? I never mentioned race.

Are we suggesting that the notion of trading players is any less reminiscent of slavery than the term "owner" which the NBA very publicly has just formally done away with?

As I thought I made clear in the OP, I don't think that's an appropriate analogy, but it's appeal is sort of an enticement to maybe the same mentality that exists among however many players weren't OK with the term owner enough to get it changed.

The bottom line is that this would be a benefit to players. That's how it would be announced/marketed. A benefit bestowed on the players for ostensible moral reasons. Why ship out the most important employees?

I'm not sure how you separate the notion of race from slavery, especially when you're the one who keeps bringing it up even though you also keep saying it's not a good analogy.

To the crux of your point, if we have to resort to not trading players just to get them, then we've got bigger organizational issues that need to be solved first.

[dice]

I think this is just a terrible idea. We're the Chicago Bulls not the Rio Rancho Rattlesnakes. If we have to limit the way in which we can improve our team in order to attract free-agents, then there's an even bigger issue at stake.

Also, am I missing something? Has there been some accusation/complaint that trading a player is somehow similar to slavery?

it's actually an offensive comparison. particularly given that trades have been happening in team sports long before blacks were even permitted to play in some cases

i'm not aware that actual slaves being swapped for each other was ever a big thing either

Who said anything about race?

I did. and it's an obvious factor in the discussion. because NOBODY would be making this analogy if the nba wasn't a black-dominated league. and I think you know that. you'll notice that nobody ever compares major league baseball players to slaves

I don't think any human wants to be traded (like a commodity or slave).

and yet it is the lifelong dream of the typical nba player to be part of an organization where there is a LIKELIHOOD that they will be traded. slaves were not paid and certainly didn't sign a contract for the privilege of the experience

You're not aware that the only uses of the term trade regarding human beings in the english language are slaves and professional athletes?

did I say that? doesn't make them remotely comparable, does it now? voluntary slavery is not a thing

[Am2626]

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?

What about someone that asks to be traded? Are they stuck with the team? The ability to trade is an important way for teams to regain a competitive advantage. If they are stuck with their players no matter what it could have a negative effect on their success. However in GarPax’s case it may not matter that much because historically they have not used trades to get stars.

[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?

What about someone that asks to be traded? Are they stuck with the team? The ability to trade is an important way for teams to regain a competitive advantage. If they are stuck with their players no matter what it could have a negative effect on their success. However in GarPax’s case it may not matter that much because historically they have not used trades to get stars.

In general, with or without this rule, I'd never feel remotely pressured to trade a player just cause they want out. Fortunately, historically that has never been an issue for the Bulls other than maybe Elton Brand.

But perhaps I'd trade a player who wants out only if a draft pick only package came back. I wouldn't accept current players under contract with other teams in trade as it contradicts the whole idea.

In general I'd be declining lots of rookie scale options and thus would mostly build my team through free agency. It seems frankly that the Clippers, Lakers and Houston are already thinking towards this.

[Am2626]

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?

What about someone that asks to be traded? Are they stuck with the team? The ability to trade is an important way for teams to regain a competitive advantage. If they are stuck with their players no matter what it could have a negative effect on their success. However in GarPax’s case it may not matter that much because historically they have not used trades to get stars.

In general, with or without this rule, I'd never feel remotely pressured to trade a player just cause they want out. Fortunately, historically that has never been an issue for the Bulls other than maybe Elton Brand.

But perhaps I'd trade a player who wants out only if a draft pick only package came back. I wouldn't accept current players under contract with other teams in trade as it contradicts the whole idea.

In general I'd be declining lots of rookie scale options and thus would mostly build my team through free agency. It seems frankly that the Clippers, Lakers and Houston are already thinking towards this.

So if you were the GM of the Pelicans you would hold onto Anthony Davis this year and let him walk the next year and get nothing back for him?

[League Circles]

What about someone that asks to be traded? Are they stuck with the team? The ability to trade is an important way for teams to regain a competitive advantage. If they are stuck with their players no matter what it could have a negative effect on their success. However in GarPax’s case it may not matter that much because historically they have not used trades to get stars.

In general, with or without this rule, I'd never feel remotely pressured to trade a player just cause they want out. Fortunately, historically that has never been an issue for the Bulls other than maybe Elton Brand.

But perhaps I'd trade a player who wants out only if a draft pick only package came back. I wouldn't accept current players under contract with other teams in trade as it contradicts the whole idea.

In general I'd be declining lots of rookie scale options and thus would mostly build my team through free agency. It seems frankly that the Clippers, Lakers and Houston are already thinking towards this.

So if you were the GM of the Pelicans you would hold onto Anthony Davis this year and let him walk the next year and get nothing back for him?

If I was GM of the Pelicans I'd do virtually opposite what I'd do as GM of the Bulls. I think my proposed strategy would be worth considering for basically both LA teams, GS, Houston, Dallas, Miami, Chicago, and both NY teams.

Although specific to Anthony Davis, I may have called his bluff and held onto him and risk losing him for nothing amd hope the money kept him in N. O.

[dougthonus]

Isn't the idea of not trading a player who wants out but is under contract for a few more years pretty much akin to "slavery" (of course, you could lock me in a dimly lit room for three years and pay me 5 -10 mil per year and I won't complain *much*)?

I hate this comparison, because it is so utterly ridiculous. At any point in time, someone under contract with an NBA team can stop playing in the NBA. They can go play for any professional basketball organization outside of the NBA. They can go perform any other career they want outside of playing basketball. Their contract is only for if they want to stay in the NBA. They also signed these contracts willingly (and typically with great excitement). Note, none of the above is even arguing the money in these contracts to say "because they're paid so much, I don't care whether it is fair".

This type of contractual obligations exists in other fields too. I work in finance, and the key developers who program quantitative algos almost always have non-competes which prevent them from working in the same industry until that expires if they are fired. The company still has to pay them over this time period though, and they can work outside the industry if they choose.

Player: "I want out. This situation is no good for me"
Team: "no. We own your ass for another three years."

I just don't see that ending well. You're just as likely to end up with a roster full of Jabari Parker's and Eddie Robinson's as anything else.

Maybe the solution is to make all deals one year deals if players and teams feel there is too much risk on both sides of things. A team is legally obligated to follow through on their commitment to a player, why do you think a player shouldn't be for the team?

Granted, I completely agree with you on your take that we shouldn't stay out of the trade market, it's not a good situation for anyone.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

Truly a terrible idea. Looks like the reasons why have been laid out already.

[The Senator]

Truly a terrible idea. Looks like the reasons why have been laid out already.

Pretty much. A terrible idea, and the underlying rationale and philosophy behind it is even worse.

[League Circles]

Yeah, I guess this idea can't compete with great specific strategies like "fire the FO" and "make JR sell the team".

This idea is risky and could backfire for sure but it's logical.

[transplant]

Ok, the op concept has to be based on the assumption that most NBA players see the possibility of being traded as a serious negative. My main problem is that I don’t buy the premise. We all know that some players demand to be traded. There are also many players who express gratitude for being traded from a non-contending team to a contending team. Then there are players who are clearly bad fits and virtually all the rest of the team want to see them traded. These are real situations.

While I appreciate the “outside-of-the-box” thinking, sometimes there’s a reason for the box.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[NZB2323]

Danny Ainge is known as a ruthless GM who would trade his own son if his son was on the team. Kemba Walker went to the Celtics.
The Clippers traded Tobius Harris mid season and then signed Kawhi Leonhard.

Players are perfectly fine signing with a team that trades players away. Players are confident and think they won't be traded. Phil Jackson gave Carmelo Anthony a no trade clause and then later regretted it.

[TheStig]

Could we instead have GarPax take an oath of silence?

[kyrv]

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?

Not a bold idea, come on man. If you took the core of this bad idea that makes no sense and has zero chance of happening and transformed it into players should be getting more no trade options and maybe newly signed players shouldn't be able to be traded for a longer period than around half a year, that is an interesting discussion imo.

Every sport has trades, and will continue to have trades. Again some leagues have more restrictions in contracts and by league rules. Baseball has or had like a 10/5 rule.

But a team handcuffing themselves just because would be very silly.