Scoot McGroot wrote:This isn’t true, at all. If you abide by the terms of the contract, it’s all fine. If the team tells you that you are welcome to stay home, it’s still abiding by the terms of the contract, as you’ve altered that agreement. What you are hoping for is that a player be contractually obligated to always being happy, no matter what. That a player cannot ever wish to be elsewhere or doing something else. How many times at your job do you, or other people, say “Man, this job sucks”. Is that, in and of itself, fireable (lets ignore right to work states, at will employment, etc, for this exercise). Is saying “I dont like my wife” contractual grounds for divorce? No.sonictecture wrote:Scoot McGroot wrote:
Both sides honored the contract and decided a buyout was mutually beneficial. It’s a 2 way street. Cleveland was under no obligation to buy him out but chose too. Contract fully honored both ways.
Otherwise, this is always how free agency operates. If there was no cap, restrictions, etc, I have no doubt that 15 top notch players would sign with the Lakers. Otherwise, players agree to deals for different reasons. Close to home, more money, more playing time, best long term fits, etc. That’s what happens in buyout season. Even Indy got a guy that was heavily wanted, once. Offer something The player wants and you have a chance of signing them. Here, Drummond is taking a probable starting spot to audition himself, on a team that will be on to one of the most times around the league. I absolutely can’t fault him for that.
The buyout was the end result but how players and agents often get to that point is to say they want out. Once you say you want out you are no longer abiding by the original contract.Once again, I don’t have an issue with this and don’t want to punish players, but the signing teams should have to pay a price.
They do. They pay their salary. But once we punish employees for hiring legally unemployed employees, we’re entering dangerous ground, and clearly infringing on the rights of the workers. If a team is willing to fire you, and set you free, you’re not free to find gainful employment elsewhere?The Lakers used a revenue advantage for decades, but smaller market teams eventually got revenue sharing. The precedent for evening out the field of competition is there.
The Lakers still have a revenue advantage (local broadcasting deal). The Warriors have a revenue advantage with their new arena. The game is inherently fair and square down to every inch. If it was, the league would pay all taxes on contracts to equalize playing in Florida, Texas, Tennessee, etc as to playing in Toronto, Minnesota, Indiana, New York, and elsewhere. Revenue sharing closes the gap a bit, but it doesn’t make things inherently and equally fair, and that was an agreement solely between the owners, big and small. The players inherently neither gained nor lost anything in that agreement.
Again, what we’re asking is for the players to give up their rights in free agency in order to give greater team control over their employment and right to seek employment. I find it hard to do this in any meaningful way without basically saying that “The governors have all the rights, and the players have none.”
It’s naive to believe that every buyout is by the will of the team as well as the player. Whether a player is waived or bought out, the player gets paid. The team takes the loss and another team gets a gain.
I’m not suggesting infringing on player rights, but the imbalance in competition should be addressed.
The meaningful way is not to punish players, but make signing teams pay.
