Thoughts in General, Rumors, etc 3.0

[chrbal]

Chuck's weekly petty buyout reminder. Lakers played a clinching game 6 with AD unable to really go and Drummond was a DNP-CD. Still waiting for some of you to acknowledge any of this.....

Though on the flip side Austin Rivers has been huge---and not one of the bUyOuTz R rUiNiNg tHe LeAgUe guys even mentioned him.

Buyouts don't favor the elite teams nor do they decide series or champions basically ever. Let's please not do this again next year.

Blake Griffin? Definitely been better than what the Nets should have been able to get given their situation. Always an advantage to have another team pay for your bench, even if it's not gonna swing a series/championship. Inches matter.

Just because it rarely has an affect doesn't mean it's not an advantage. Having a lottery ticket is still better than not having one.

Oh I have always conceded that useful players get bought out. Bucks got some play from Wes Matthews and Marvin Williams in recent years for instance.

But I was told by many many people that the NBA was ruined because Drummond went to the Lakers and of course that didn't happen because buyout players are never the missing piece. They never decide teh champion and never decide a series.

It's much ado about nothing that got blown up because big names went to LA and Brooklyn and because a couple people were mad that their team had to buyout guys who clearly had negative value but they simply could not come to terms with it.

The people who felt the NBA was getting ruined by these types of moves obviously over reacted to the moves. It’s still annoying that Drummond got time off to stay healthy and then pick a team. Or that Griffin took it easy until Detroit gave in.

It’s also more the idea that this could make it more acceptable for players in their prime, not stars or superstars obviously, to see the last months of their contract and just demand out.

[shrink]

Chuck's weekly petty buyout reminder. Lakers played a clinching game 6 with AD unable to really go and Drummond was a DNP-CD. Still waiting for some of you to acknowledge any of this.....

Though on the flip side Austin Rivers has been huge---and not one of the bUyOuTz R rUiNiNg tHe LeAgUe guys even mentioned him.

Buyouts don't favor the elite teams nor do they decide series or champions basically ever. Let's please not do this again next year.

Blake Griffin? Definitely been better than what the Nets should have been able to get given their situation. Always an advantage to have another team pay for your bench, even if it's not gonna swing a series/championship. Inches matter.

Just because it rarely has an affect doesn't mean it's not an advantage. Having a lottery ticket is still better than not having one.

Oh I have always conceded that useful players get bought out. Bucks got some play from Wes Matthews and Marvin Williams in recent years for instance.

But I was told by many many people that the NBA was ruined because Drummond went to the Lakers and of course that didn't happen because buyout players are never the missing piece. They never decide teh champion and never decide a series.

It's much ado about nothing that got blown up because big names went to LA and Brooklyn and because a couple people were mad that their team had to buyout guys who clearly had negative value but they simply could not come to terms with it.

I don’t think a series has been decided — yet — because of the buy out rule. But I maintain that it needs to be altered before that happens.

If you concede useful players can get bought out, you should be wary that the current buyout process has the opportunity to affect championships. Let me give an example. Maybe a team adds a useful guy through the buy out process that adds, let’s say, 8% of their production ..around a #7 guy. Now, this guy is never going to have wins attributed to him, when their #1 guy goes off for 36 in the victory. But it’s possible a useful player changes his team’s total points from 102-to-108. If the other team scored 105, the fact that his team was an attractive buy out destination allowed this rule to alter the series results.

So far, we have seen the buy out rule generally affect guys that are often much worse than even #7, that are usually more name than game. Viewers can honestly believe that the buy out rules have, or haven’t, had an effect. It’s easy to point to 29 teams that got a buy out player and didn’t win a championship and say, “See?” But my big worry is, say, a #3 guy has his agent tell 29 teams (including his own) that he is likely to be unmotivated if he’s not on the team he wants to kill his trade value, then he picks his destination through buyout, and his impact on winning is more obvious? We haven’t seen it yet, but in this era of player empowerment, in summer free agency and in demanding specific teams in trades, the rule still allows this. In fact, I would say this rule has the potential to become an even better mechanism for a star player to be kingmaker on the next champion, because they may take the financial hit of playing for the min for a much shorter pro-rated part of the season. Worse, it happens just before the playoffs start, so fans of non-destination teams will take it worse when a buyout to a rival reduces the playoff dreams they’ve had for months.

I tend to agree with you that the buy out players haven’t made the impact that some fans fret about. However, I would like to see some protections put on this process, before a championship is blatantly affected by it.

[MoneyTalks41890]

Spoiler:

Blake Griffin? Definitely been better than what the Nets should have been able to get given their situation. Always an advantage to have another team pay for your bench, even if it's not gonna swing a series/championship. Inches matter.

Just because it rarely has an affect doesn't mean it's not an advantage. Having a lottery ticket is still better than not having one.

Oh I have always conceded that useful players get bought out. Bucks got some play from Wes Matthews and Marvin Williams in recent years for instance.

But I was told by many many people that the NBA was ruined because Drummond went to the Lakers and of course that didn't happen because buyout players are never the missing piece. They never decide teh champion and never decide a series.

It's much ado about nothing that got blown up because big names went to LA and Brooklyn and because a couple people were mad that their team had to buyout guys who clearly had negative value but they simply could not come to terms with it.

I don’t think a series has been decided — yet — because of the buy out rule. But I maintain that it needs to be altered before that happens.

If you concede useful players can get bought out, you should be wary that the current buyout process has the opportunity to affect championships. Let me give an example. Maybe a team adds a useful guy through the buy out process that adds, let’s say, 8% of their production ..around a #7 guy. Now, this guy is never going to have wins attributed to him, when their #1 guy goes off for 36 in the victory. But it’s possible a useful player changes his team’s total points from 102-to-108. If the other team scored 105, the fact that his team was an attractive buy out destination allowed this rule to alter the series results.

So far, we have seen the buy out rule generally affect guys that are often much worse than even #7, that are usually more name than game. Viewers can honestly believe that the buy out rules have, or haven’t, had an effect. It’s easy to point to 29 teams that got a buy out player and didn’t win a championship and say, “See?” But my big worry is, say, a #3 guy has his agent tell 29 teams (including his own) that he is likely to be unmotivated if he’s not on the team he wants to kill his trade value, then he picks his destination through buyout, and his impact on winning is more obvious? We haven’t seen it yet, but in this era of player empowerment, in summer free agency and in demanding specific teams in trades, the rule still allows this. In fact, I would say this rule has the potential to become an even better mechanism for a star player to be kingmaker on the next champion, because they may take the financial hit of playing for the min for a much shorter pro-rated part of the season. Worse, it happens just before the playoffs start, so fans of non-destination teams will take it worse when a buyout to a rival reduces the playoff dreams they’ve had for months.

I tend to agree with you that the buy out players haven’t made the impact that some fans fret about. However, I would like to see some protections put on this process, before a championship is blatantly affected by it.

So this is imo a very good/interesting point. Did Drummond turn out to be total trash? Yeah. But is every player that gets bought out always going to be trash? No. Could some even be highly impactful? Possible.

[MoneyTalks41890]

Spoiler:

Blake Griffin? Definitely been better than what the Nets should have been able to get given their situation. Always an advantage to have another team pay for your bench, even if it's not gonna swing a series/championship. Inches matter.

Just because it rarely has an affect doesn't mean it's not an advantage. Having a lottery ticket is still better than not having one.

Oh I have always conceded that useful players get bought out. Bucks got some play from Wes Matthews and Marvin Williams in recent years for instance.

But I was told by many many people that the NBA was ruined because Drummond went to the Lakers and of course that didn't happen because buyout players are never the missing piece. They never decide teh champion and never decide a series.

It's much ado about nothing that got blown up because big names went to LA and Brooklyn and because a couple people were mad that their team had to buyout guys who clearly had negative value but they simply could not come to terms with it.

I don’t think a series has been decided — yet — because of the buy out rule. But I maintain that it needs to be altered before that happens.

If you concede useful players can get bought out, you should be wary that the current buyout process has the opportunity to affect championships. Let me give an example. Maybe a team adds a useful guy through the buy out process that adds, let’s say, 8% of their production ..around a #7 guy. Now, this guy is never going to have wins attributed to him, when their #1 guy goes off for 36 in the victory. But it’s possible a useful player changes his team’s total points from 102-to-108. If the other team scored 105, the fact that his team was an attractive buy out destination allowed this rule to alter the series results.

So far, we have seen the buy out rule generally affect guys that are often much worse than even #7, that are usually more name than game. Viewers can honestly believe that the buy out rules have, or haven’t, had an effect. It’s easy to point to 29 teams that got a buy out player and didn’t win a championship and say, “See?” But my big worry is, say, a #3 guy has his agent tell 29 teams (including his own) that he is likely to be unmotivated if he’s not on the team he wants to kill his trade value, then he picks his destination through buyout, and his impact on winning is more obvious? We haven’t seen it yet, but in this era of player empowerment, in summer free agency and in demanding specific teams in trades, the rule still allows this. In fact, I would say this rule has the potential to become an even better mechanism for a star player to be kingmaker on the next champion, because they may take the financial hit of playing for the min for a much shorter pro-rated part of the season. Worse, it happens just before the playoffs start, so fans of non-destination teams will take it worse when a buyout to a rival reduces the playoff dreams they’ve had for months.

I tend to agree with you that the buy out players haven’t made the impact that some fans fret about. However, I would like to see some protections put on this process, before a championship is blatantly affected by it.

So this is imo a very good/interesting point. Did Drummond turn out to be total trash? Yeah. But is every player that gets bought out always going to be trash? No. Could some even be highly impactful? Possible.

Let’s say for example OKC buys out Horford next year, let’s assume he joins as is, he’s enough to swing a chip imo

[Texas Chuck]

But #7 guys aren't swinging games by 7 pts regularly. The best players in the world barely do that. Just because Blake goes for 18/14 tonight doesn't change the calculus of this.

And yes when an all-star gets bought out and goes to LA for the minimum we can all lose our minds. Until then, we do a ton of hand-wringing over a whole lot of nothing.

And its not this case of extremes. They don't have to be series swingers or trash. Solid players get bought out too. But they still aren't changing outcomes. If they weren't in the game another replacement level type player would be.

I don't understand this catastrophizing prematurely.

[shrink]

But #7 guys aren't swinging games by 7 pts regularly. The best players in the world barely do that. Just because Blake goes for 18/14 tonight doesn't change the calculus of this.

And yes when an all-star gets bought out and goes to LA for the minimum we can all lose our minds. Until then, we do a ton of hand-wringing over a whole lot of nothing.

And its not this case of extremes. They don't have to be series swingers or trash. Solid players get bought out too. But they still aren't changing outcomes. If they weren't in the game another replacement level type player would be.

I don't understand this catastrophizing prematurely.

Maybe the difference here is that I don’t think it will take a big name player doing well regularly to have this big outcry. One big, Bryn-Forbes-level performance that swings a key game is going to have many fans apoplectic about this. Heck, right now, if I’m a Bucks fan, I’m not pleased that BRK got last night’s performance from a vet MIn player, but fortunately it’s just Game 1. Imagine if Blake Griffin has tonight’s performance three weeks from now, in Game 7 of the Finals against a non-free agent destination like Utah, don’t you think many fans will say the system is rigged?

While we know the competition between NBA cities can never be a truly level playing field, the CBA strives to narrow the gap. The primary mechanism to promote parity are the rules that are linked to player salaries. Unfortunately, it is based on the false assumption that a player will go to whatever team which will pay him the most for his production. I am opposed to leaving extra loopholes in the CBA that allow teams to gain additional advantages by acquiring players for less than their market value. I think we need to make changes in the buy out rules before a series is blatantly affected, not wait until it happens.

[MasterIchiro]

Aldridge was a perfect fit and linker for the Nets before he retired. He was a huge difference maker when the Nets crushed the Hornets on national TV. He's such an underrated passer for a big man. Most likely buyout guys don't influence a series but the trend results in superteams netting a difference maker for free eventually. It's a small advantage but nevertheless an advantage that clearly benefits the privileged. I can see how it bothers people. I suspect Drummond would have helped prevent the Hornets from collapsing at the end. But there's a lottery pick as a consolation prize. Hornets reportedly made a spirited effort to sign Drummond. He lost money so F him.

[loserX]

Kidd no longer in consideration in Portland. Just as well.

[Scoot McGroot]

From the IndyStar’s Pacers Beat writer in the Bjorkgren post-mortem

Minnesota and Charlotte are in hot pursuit of [Myles} Turner, and there are others such as the Knicks and L.A. Lakers who have made their interest in the 6-11 shot-blocker known for more than a year.

[HornetJail]

From the IndyStar’s Pacers Beat writer in the Bjorkgren post-mortem

Minnesota and Charlotte are in hot pursuit of [Myles} Turner, and there are others such as the Knicks and L.A. Lakers who have made their interest in the 6-11 shot-blocker known for more than a year.

we've been in pursuit of Turner for so long, I'm starting to think we should've just drafted him instead of Frank Kaminsky

[Prospect Dong]

Chuck's weekly petty buyout reminder. Lakers played a clinching game 6 with AD unable to really go and Drummond was a DNP-CD. Still waiting for some of you to acknowledge any of this.....

Though on the flip side Austin Rivers has been huge---and not one of the bUyOuTz R rUiNiNg tHe LeAgUe guys even mentioned him.

Buyouts don't favor the elite teams nor do they decide series or champions basically ever. Let's please not do this again next year.

Blake Griffin? Definitely been better than what the Nets should have been able to get given their situation. Always an advantage to have another team pay for your bench, even if it's not gonna swing a series/championship. Inches matter.

Just because it rarely has an affect doesn't mean it's not an advantage. Having a lottery ticket is still better than not having one.

Oh I have always conceded that useful players get bought out. Bucks got some play from Wes Matthews and Marvin Williams in recent years for instance.

But I was told by many many people that the NBA was ruined because Drummond went to the Lakers and of course that didn't happen because buyout players are never the missing piece. They never decide teh champion and never decide a series.

It's much ado about nothing that got blown up because big names went to LA and Brooklyn and because a couple people were mad that their team had to buyout guys who clearly had negative value but they simply could not come to terms with it.

When was the last time an MLE player truly swung the championship? A second rounder? Or any guy on their rookie deal? But we still keep mechanisms to allocate those types of players, not because they "decide the championship" but because they're valuable assets in building a contending team, and if we just let them go whereever they wanted it would hurt competitive balance a lot.

Sometimes, you draft a guy and it doesn't work out and they don't play in pivotal games. Sometimes you sign a guy to the MLE, and it doesn't work out and they don't end up as part of your playoff rotation. But neither of those things is a reason to just distribute below average players, or rookies, at random. If you do, it won't necessarily be the guy the lakers pick blowing up every year, but it won't be a randomly-selected team either.

All of this applies to buyout guys, and "did it swing the championship" is just not a defensible standard to apply to whether the CBA ought to regulate something. You're watching a buyout guy, for the second year in a row, provide valuable 7th man minutes deep in the playoffs for a team that traded all its depth to acquire its superstars and you think you're being proven right?

[jbk1234]

Blake Griffin? Definitely been better than what the Nets should have been able to get given their situation. Always an advantage to have another team pay for your bench, even if it's not gonna swing a series/championship. Inches matter.

Just because it rarely has an affect doesn't mean it's not an advantage. Having a lottery ticket is still better than not having one.

Oh I have always conceded that useful players get bought out. Bucks got some play from Wes Matthews and Marvin Williams in recent years for instance.

But I was told by many many people that the NBA was ruined because Drummond went to the Lakers and of course that didn't happen because buyout players are never the missing piece. They never decide teh champion and never decide a series.

It's much ado about nothing that got blown up because big names went to LA and Brooklyn and because a couple people were mad that their team had to buyout guys who clearly had negative value but they simply could not come to terms with it.

When was the last time an MLE player truly swung the championship? A second rounder? Or any guy on their rookie deal? But we still keep mechanisms to allocate those types of players, not because they "decide the championship" but because they're valuable assets in building a contending team, and if we just let them go whereever they wanted it would hurt competitive balance a lot.

Sometimes, you draft a guy and it doesn't work out and they don't play in pivotal games. Sometimes you sign a guy to the MLE, and it doesn't work out and they don't end up as part of your playoff rotation. But neither of those things is a reason to just distribute below average players, or rookies, at random. If you do, it won't necessarily be the guy the lakers pick blowing up every year, but it won't be a randomly-selected team either.

All of this applies to buyout guys, and "did it swing the championship" is just not a defensible standard to apply to whether the CBA ought to regulate something. You're watching a buyout guy, for the second year in a row, provide valuable 7th man minutes deep in the playoffs for a team that traded all its depth to acquire its superstars and you think you're being proven right?

Do the Clippers get by the Mavs without Batum? I think win you a championship might be overshooting the mark. If MLE signings could win you a championship, max players wouldn't get paid max money.

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

[Texas Chuck]

When was the last time an MLE player truly swung the championship? A second rounder? Or any guy on their rookie deal? But we still keep mechanisms to allocate those types of players, not because they "decide the championship" but because they're valuable assets in building a contending team, and if we just let them go whereever they wanted it would hurt competitive balance a lot.

Sometimes, you draft a guy and it doesn't work out and they don't play in pivotal games. Sometimes you sign a guy to the MLE, and it doesn't work out and they don't end up as part of your playoff rotation. But neither of those things is a reason to just distribute below average players, or rookies, at random. If you do, it won't necessarily be the guy the lakers pick blowing up every year, but it won't be a randomly-selected team either.

All of this applies to buyout guys, and "did it swing the championship" is just not a defensible standard to apply to whether the CBA ought to regulate something. You're watching a buyout guy, for the second year in a row, provide valuable 7th man minutes deep in the playoffs for a team that traded all its depth to acquire its superstars and you think you're being proven right?

I don't really understand this rebuttal. These players are made free agents and sign wherever they want. Nobody is breaking any rules or sacred principles and the NBA world is not ending. Yet we certainly had a bunch of posters act like it was.

Great the Nets found a rotation player in street free agency late in the year. Happens every year. The reactions were way over the top, were specifically because it was the Nets and the Lakers(and for one poster at least about Drummond not returning value we all knew he didn't have.)

So yes I think I'm right. It was much ado about very very little. I never made swing the championship the standard either lol. I only mention it because those posters were all insisting it did. That's their standard. Not mine.

[Prospect Dong]

When was the last time an MLE player truly swung the championship? A second rounder? Or any guy on their rookie deal? But we still keep mechanisms to allocate those types of players, not because they "decide the championship" but because they're valuable assets in building a contending team, and if we just let them go whereever they wanted it would hurt competitive balance a lot.

Sometimes, you draft a guy and it doesn't work out and they don't play in pivotal games. Sometimes you sign a guy to the MLE, and it doesn't work out and they don't end up as part of your playoff rotation. But neither of those things is a reason to just distribute below average players, or rookies, at random. If you do, it won't necessarily be the guy the lakers pick blowing up every year, but it won't be a randomly-selected team either.

All of this applies to buyout guys, and "did it swing the championship" is just not a defensible standard to apply to whether the CBA ought to regulate something. You're watching a buyout guy, for the second year in a row, provide valuable 7th man minutes deep in the playoffs for a team that traded all its depth to acquire its superstars and you think you're being proven right?

I don't really understand this rebuttal. These players are made free agents and sign wherever they want. Nobody is breaking any rules or sacred principles and the NBA world is not ending. Yet we certainly had a bunch of posters act like it was.

Great the Nets found a rotation player in street free agency late in the year. Happens every year. The reactions were way over the top, were specifically because it was the Nets and the Lakers(and for one poster at least about Drummond not returning value we all knew he didn't have.)

So yes I think I'm right. It was much ado about very very little. I never made swing the championship the standard either lol. I only mention it because those posters were all insisting it did. That's their standard. Not mine.

I wrote a lengthy response to your (pretty fair, but IMO wrong) arguments about this last time we discussed this Chuck, and then I deleted it prior to posting like an idiot, and didn't have the energy to write them out again. Since I still don't, I'll try to keep this fairly brief, but I did want to acknowledge that I read and thought about the long form of your view.

These guys are "street free agents" because the CBA makes them street free agents once particular conditions have been met. It could change those conditions, and I think it should. Alternatively, it could expand the class of street free agents by saying that ever player not selected in the first round becomes one. Or that any player not offered a max salary becomes one. Or that any player can unilaterally declare themselves one at the end of a season. I don't think they should make any of those changes, because, while increasing player freedom, they would upset competitive balance by too much to make up for it. What do you think about those proposed changes? Because I think you're getting a bit caught up in sins omission vs sins of commission, rather than asking what an ideal CBA would look like.

To be clear, I don't think this is "ruining the league" or whatever (we had a big back and forth over whether Morris+Dwight were properly seen as buyout guys and whether the lakers win without them, but don't want to re-litigate that - so I should concede your point for arguments' sake). But I think some teams getting their 5th-8th man for free is an obvious loophole in a CBA that generally tries to close obvious loopholes, and that a CBA that did something to fix it (we've floated a bunch of alternatives, but let's not do that again here) is a better CBA than one that doesn't, and that, if you can make the CBA better, you should.

That's all I'm saying, so it's a bit crazy-making when the response is "he's just a solid 7th man!". That also my point!

[zimpy27]

From the IndyStar’s Pacers Beat writer in the Bjorkgren post-mortem

Minnesota and Charlotte are in hot pursuit of [Myles} Turner, and there are others such as the Knicks and L.A. Lakers who have made their interest in the 6-11 shot-blocker known for more than a year.

Charlotte probably have the best offer I'm thinking.
Lakers have nothing.
Knicks could make a decent offer for a rebuild unless they give Randle for Turner.
Minnesota doesn't really have anything win now either they'd want to part with.

[zimpy27]

The more I think about it the more I think Dallas need to pursue Richaun Holmes in FA. If they can land him then they should let THJ walk..

Brunson, Doncic, DFS, KP, Holmes -- Burke, J-Rich, Green, Kleber, Powell, WCS

Then they can consider trading some pieces like Powell, J-Rich, Green, Terry, Burke, Brunson.
Only trade KP if they get good value, using him as a C this year hurt his value IMO.

[Texas Chuck]

These guys are "street free agents" because the CBA makes them street free agents once particular conditions have been met. It could change those conditions, and I think it should. Alternatively, it could expand the class of street free agents by saying that ever player not selected in the first round becomes one. Or that any player not offered a max salary becomes one. Or that any player can unilaterally declare themselves one at the end of a season. I don't think they should make any of those changes, because, while increasing player freedom, they would upset competitive balance by too much to make up for it. What do you think about those proposed changes? Because I think you're getting a bit caught up in sins omission vs sins of commission, rather than asking what an ideal CBA would look like.

This is a great post. And I really appreciate you being the one to elevate the level of the discussion. So I want to credit you for that first.

I am open to improving the CBA. Let me start there. But I'm not in favor of changing this rule. I think if teams and players come to an agreement that neither side wants the partnership to continue that they should be able to end it if they can come to agreeable terms. Teams save a little money. Players get freedom. It feels win/win. And then once they clear waivers and become FA, I hate any rules dictating they can't sign until next year or bad teams get 1st crack or whatever because then its not actual free agency. I just don't see anything that needs fixing here. The truth is the Lakers always have a bit of an advantage. Good teams usually do a bit better on MLE/min guys looking to win a ring. This year the guys had bigger names, but LMA sadly gave the Nets almost nothing and I think we could argue promising Drummond a starting spot actually hurt the Lakers. Griffin helped. Rivers is helping a desperate Nuggets team with minutes but not great play really. And this is pretty typical.

As to your changes, I like limiting the draft to one round. It would make some trades a bit harder as you don't have that currency to juice them but for those fringe NBA guys, I like them getting to choose their own team to go try out for and it encourages more players to stay in school/Europe/G-League an extra year or two which leads to better prospects in the draft.

Unclear on the max one, but I'm thinking you are talking about rookie guys becoming UFA's? Not a fan as that just leads to more bad maxes as teams are already really bad about being afraid of "losing a guy for nothing" when that is clearly the smarter decision.

And hate the idea of creating a bunch more UFAs and having too much player movement by making everyone free every year. I'm all for player empowerment but they should be able to choose between freedom and security and too much player movement while fun for team-building nerds like me would be bad for casual fans who want to root for their guys and not have 12 new players every year.


And look if the buyout freak out guys can make some sound arguments why its a problem, but I haven't heard them yet. Most of it was of the sour grapes variety.

[jbk1234]

These guys are "street free agents" because the CBA makes them street free agents once particular conditions have been met. It could change those conditions, and I think it should. Alternatively, it could expand the class of street free agents by saying that ever player not selected in the first round becomes one. Or that any player not offered a max salary becomes one. Or that any player can unilaterally declare themselves one at the end of a season. I don't think they should make any of those changes, because, while increasing player freedom, they would upset competitive balance by too much to make up for it. What do you think about those proposed changes? Because I think you're getting a bit caught up in sins omission vs sins of commission, rather than asking what an ideal CBA would look like.

This is a great post. And I really appreciate you being the one to elevate the level of the discussion. So I want to credit you for that first.

I am open to improving the CBA. Let me start there. But I'm not in favor of changing this rule. I think if teams and players come to an agreement that neither side wants the partnership to continue that they should be able to end it if they can come to agreeable terms. Teams save a little money. Players get freedom. It feels win/win. And then once they clear waivers and become FA, I hate any rules dictating they can't sign until next year or bad teams get 1st crack or whatever because then its not actual free agency. I just don't see anything that needs fixing here. The truth is the Lakers always have a bit of an advantage. Good teams usually do a bit better on MLE/min guys looking to win a ring. This year the guys had bigger names, but LMA sadly gave the Nets almost nothing and I think we could argue promising Drummond a starting spot actually hurt the Lakers. Griffin helped. Rivers is helping a desperate Nuggets team with minutes but not great play really. And this is pretty typical.

As to your changes, I like limiting the draft to one round. It would make some trades a bit harder as you don't have that currency to juice them but for those fringe NBA guys, I like them getting to choose their own team to go try out for and it encourages more players to stay in school/Europe/G-League an extra year or two which leads to better prospects in the draft.

Unclear on the max one, but I'm thinking you are talking about rookie guys becoming UFA's? Not a fan as that just leads to more bad maxes as teams are already really bad about being afraid of "losing a guy for nothing" when that is clearly the smarter decision.

And hate the idea of creating a bunch more UFAs and having too much player movement by making everyone free every year. I'm all for player empowerment but they should be able to choose between freedom and security and too much player movement while fun for team-building nerds like me would be bad for casual fans who want to root for their guys and not have 12 new players every year.


And look if the buyout freak out guys can make some sound arguments why its a problem, but I haven't heard them yet. Most of it was of the sour grapes variety.

You've heard them and dismissed them. Woj wrote an entire article about how powerful agents actually threaten teams interested in trading for buyout candidates. He's the agents mouthpiece and he wrote it anyway. Things aren't just fine.

How consensual is a buyout agreement if the agent is threatening both the team he's negotiating with, and potential trade partners? It's all well and good to talk about player empowerment, but keep in mind that when the Cavs *buyout* Drummond for 99% of his contract, those dollars can't be spent twice. So to the extent they would've given a disappointing prospect a second look in the last third of a wasted season, that opportunity didn't exist for that player.

Also your TD dance about Drummond is completely misplaced. The test can't be whether Drummond helped the Lakers win a championship when their two best players were hobbled or even unavailable with injury. The Lakers had no real answer for Ayton with or without Drummond on the court. The test is whether Drummond could've added value to any playoff team, whether that team had a shot at signing him, and/or whether a team might have traded for him.

As to your argument that post buyout restrictions aren't real free agency, my response is that having another team pay any portion of your salary isn't real free agency either. You want real free agency? Make the remainder of the contract voidable by mutual agreement. Finish the contract, or not. Then sign with whoever you want for however much you can get. But the CBA prevents that and there isn't a good explanation offered as to why a player shouldn't be able to do that. Seems every bit as win/win as the alternative.

Finally, your argument against one year deals isn't so much based on what's equitable, but based on what casual fans want. Do you really think that casual fans don't resent the idea of their teams paying millions of dollars to a player to go play for another team? Every fan hates that.

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

[Scoot McGroot]

These guys are "street free agents" because the CBA makes them street free agents once particular conditions have been met. It could change those conditions, and I think it should. Alternatively, it could expand the class of street free agents by saying that ever player not selected in the first round becomes one. Or that any player not offered a max salary becomes one. Or that any player can unilaterally declare themselves one at the end of a season. I don't think they should make any of those changes, because, while increasing player freedom, they would upset competitive balance by too much to make up for it. What do you think about those proposed changes? Because I think you're getting a bit caught up in sins omission vs sins of commission, rather than asking what an ideal CBA would look like.

This is a great post. And I really appreciate you being the one to elevate the level of the discussion. So I want to credit you for that first.

I am open to improving the CBA. Let me start there. But I'm not in favor of changing this rule. I think if teams and players come to an agreement that neither side wants the partnership to continue that they should be able to end it if they can come to agreeable terms. Teams save a little money. Players get freedom. It feels win/win. And then once they clear waivers and become FA, I hate any rules dictating they can't sign until next year or bad teams get 1st crack or whatever because then its not actual free agency. I just don't see anything that needs fixing here. The truth is the Lakers always have a bit of an advantage. Good teams usually do a bit better on MLE/min guys looking to win a ring. This year the guys had bigger names, but LMA sadly gave the Nets almost nothing and I think we could argue promising Drummond a starting spot actually hurt the Lakers. Griffin helped. Rivers is helping a desperate Nuggets team with minutes but not great play really. And this is pretty typical.

As to your changes, I like limiting the draft to one round. It would make some trades a bit harder as you don't have that currency to juice them but for those fringe NBA guys, I like them getting to choose their own team to go try out for and it encourages more players to stay in school/Europe/G-League an extra year or two which leads to better prospects in the draft.

Unclear on the max one, but I'm thinking you are talking about rookie guys becoming UFA's? Not a fan as that just leads to more bad maxes as teams are already really bad about being afraid of "losing a guy for nothing" when that is clearly the smarter decision.

And hate the idea of creating a bunch more UFAs and having too much player movement by making everyone free every year. I'm all for player empowerment but they should be able to choose between freedom and security and too much player movement while fun for team-building nerds like me would be bad for casual fans who want to root for their guys and not have 12 new players every year.


And look if the buyout freak out guys can make some sound arguments why its a problem, but I haven't heard them yet. Most of it was of the sour grapes variety.

You've heard them and dismissed them. Woj wrote an entire article about how powerful agents actually threaten teams interested in trading for buyout candidates. He's the agents mouthpiece and he wrote it anyway. Things aren't just fine.

How consensual is a buyout agreement if the agent is threatening both the team he's negotiating with, and potential trade partners? It's all well and good to talk about player empowerment, but keep in mind that when the Cavs *buyout* Drummond for 99% of his contract, those dollars can't be spent twice. So to the extent they would've given a disappointing prospect a second look in the last third of a wasted season, that opportunity didn't exist for that player.

Also your TD dance about Drummond is completely misplaced. The test can't be whether Drummond helped the Lakers win a championship when their two best players were hobbled or even unavailable with injury. The Lakers had no real answer for Ayton with or without Drummond on the court. The test is whether Drummond could've added value to any playoff team, whether that team had a shot at signing him, and/or whether a team might have traded for him.

As to your argument that post buyout restrictions aren't real free agency, my response is that having another team pay any portion of your salary isn't real free agency either. You want real free agency? Make the remainder of the contract voidable by mutual agreement. Finish the contract, or not. Then sign with whoever you want for however much you can get. But the CBA prevents that and there isn't a good explanation offered as to why a player shouldn't be able to do that. Seems every bit as win/win as the alternative.

Finally, your argument against one year deals isn't so much based on what's equitable, but based on what casual fans want. Do you really think that casual fans don't resent the idea of their teams paying millions of dollars to a player to go play for another team? Every fan hates that.

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

Just to the bold one…I don’t think they care. I’m a fan, and I don’t. They don’t mind when it happens all the time in baseball as part of trades where the old team eats salary just to be able to trade the player. Or in football, where it’s happening more and more, now. But no fans cry wolf there in either of those sports.

[cl2117]

I just don't get the pushback against reworking the buyout situation. It's pretty obvious it's an unequal market (the degree of inequality and impact obviously are up for debate).

We have rules on when guys can be bought out by, when guys can be signed to be able to play in the playoffs, we have a waiver system already in place. It's not like it's already this completely free market and this is a slippery slope to be headed down. There's already plenty of rules that govern it, just not well enough to keep it a level playing field. And it's not drastically impacting player movement, we're talking about limiting 1/4 season mercenaries that generally don't stick around anyway.

AnD I HaTe WhEn ThE cOuNtEr aGuMenT dEvOlVeS iNtO tHiS

As if suggesting there is a small competitive imbalance that could potentially be improved on is some ridiculous position. I know some people take it to the extreme and say outlandish things like it ruins the league, but the vast majority of the people just acknowledge that it's a gap in the system that, in general, favors some teams over others and could be improved upon.