Moderators: Mamba4Goat, pacers33granger, MoneyTalks41890, HartfordWhalers, Texas Chuck, BullyKing, Andre Roberstan, loserX, Trader_Joe
cl2117 wrote: You act as if players should always have the right to go anywhere they want whenever they want, .
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
Scoot McGroot wrote:nykballa2k4 wrote:Texas Chuck wrote:
If the Thunder and Kemba agree a buyout is in their best interest and Kemba and the Lakers then decide him signing there is in their best interest I remain 100% fine with it. I believe strongly in player agency. I'm not looking to hinder Kemba because other people hate LA and can't handle the optics.
I don't think that is one bit fair. If Kemba was not on OKC payroll, then I would be fine with it, but the notion of being paid by a tank team so you can play for a contending team is a double-dip and a problem. Lowry is a bit better (some would probably argue much better) at this point and a team is going to have to use considerable cap to sign him. Kemba will waltz in for free if $ isn't an issue.
If you want freedom of movement in off season as well as on the court, just make the NBA a giant socialism game. All $ is paid for production and being on the roster on a per-day basis. No more contracts. If you are on a roster you get paid, the better you perform the better you are paid.
In this hypothetical, the Lakers would only be able to sign Kemba with the MLE, maybe even just the taxpayer MLE. Lowry also has the right to sign the MLE anywhere he wants, if he so chooses. But Kemba, if the team decides they’d rather pay him to go away than rehab his value, can’t play wherever he wants, for his market salary?
jredsaz wrote:Isn't this kind of more of the same? I mean damn, screwed Kemba out of $3.2 million on top of trading him to one of the worst teams in the NBA. I get Kemba was ready to move on but he had been getting shopped baisically since he joined the team. Just dont think this reflects well on the Celts like some of their other transactions, fair or not.Scoot McGroot wrote:Godaddycurse wrote:
He can waive his trade kicker amount in exchange for buyout?
Because the deal happens now, the trade kicker is void, as he’s already at his maximum salary.
?s=21
Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app
Texas Chuck wrote:cl2117 wrote: You act as if players should always have the right to go anywhere they want whenever they want, .
No. I act like free agents should be able to select their team if that team has mutual interest. I do not think players under contract should be able to just go wherever they want and have never remotely suggested any such thing.
Push back on my actual position but do not misrepresent it this badly.
UHar_Vinnie wrote:If you don't lean forward while hugging a dude, you are gonna have a wiener touching incident. You know this.
nykballa2k4 wrote:Scoot McGroot wrote:nykballa2k4 wrote:I don't think that is one bit fair. If Kemba was not on OKC payroll, then I would be fine with it, but the notion of being paid by a tank team so you can play for a contending team is a double-dip and a problem. Lowry is a bit better (some would probably argue much better) at this point and a team is going to have to use considerable cap to sign him. Kemba will waltz in for free if $ isn't an issue.
If you want freedom of movement in off season as well as on the court, just make the NBA a giant socialism game. All $ is paid for production and being on the roster on a per-day basis. No more contracts. If you are on a roster you get paid, the better you perform the better you are paid.
In this hypothetical, the Lakers would only be able to sign Kemba with the MLE, maybe even just the taxpayer MLE. Lowry also has the right to sign the MLE anywhere he wants, if he so chooses. But Kemba, if the team decides they’d rather pay him to go away than rehab his value, can’t play wherever he wants, for his market salary?
Yeah 100%
Imagine if Antonio Brown, who got paid a giant signing bonus by Oakland, had his breakdown as a stunt so that he could get paid, get cut, and sign for peanuts on a superbowl team. That would be almost criminal.
There is some social contract between fans and teams and players. The expectation is that the team is trying to put out a winner. Fans come to see players and via being the "product" that advertisers are paying for or being the customers, are both directly and indirectly paying the team. OKC has a responsibility to not create a competitive disadvantage for the league as a whole. Paying a former all-star, starting-level player to start for a contending team is bad for overall competition in the league.
Taking this 100 steps further... and I think this debate was had years ago...
If 3 teams, say Bulls, Pacers, Pistons all got together and said "we are small markets, we don't want to be generally high over the tax, we all want to make a profit, and we want to win championships" they could, the three of them, make trades every year just in the triangle where they load one roster, and have two farm teams, then rinse-repeat. Two chances at a lotto player every year, then stack what would become a revolving grown up AAU-All-Stars.
That is full blown collusion, but the small ground-level is buying out a player so that they can play for what feels like the same price any team despite cap situation, is in some way collusion. If Kemba didn't KNOW a contender would pick him up, he would never ask out. He knows they will, back channels, agents, etc. That's why it is criminal.
IDK what everyone's employment situation is, but it would be comparable to getting laid off of a job, getting a nice severance package, and working a new job off the books while on severance and unemployment to get the max benefit.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
The rub is that, as a practical matter, these guys are signing for as much money as they can get, or even opting in, and then assuming a F.A. posture before they finish playing out their contracts.Texas Chuck wrote:You guys are framing this incorrectly and then getting mad about it. If OKC buys him out then he is a free agent. He is in no way obligated to sign with the Lakers for less than his market value. He could easily go take $20M to play for the Knicks, right? But if David West wants to opt out of an 8 figure contract with the Pacers to sign for the min with the Spurs that was his choice. And while it sucks for the Pacers nothing should have prevented him from that choice.
And how much money he is making from outside revenue(the Thunder in this case) is irrelevant. Sure guys who have made a ton of money already are more likely to go play for winners for cheap, but again that should be their choice.
If OKC does not want to pay him all that money to not play for them but to play for someone else they simply won't buy him out. They will only buy him out if they think it is in the best interest of the OKC Thunder.
I continue to just be gobsmacked about the amount of angst free agents choosing their team causes you guys. Especially in situations that aren't happening. We somehow turning freaking suck-ass Andre Drummond signing with the Lakers into an avalanche of every star player forcing buyouts to sign there too. This is not a real thing that we need to worry about.
cl2117 wrote:Texas Chuck wrote:cl2117 wrote: You act as if players should always have the right to go anywhere they want whenever they want, .
No. I act like free agents should be able to select their team if that team has mutual interest. I do not think players under contract should be able to just go wherever they want and have never remotely suggested any such thing.
Push back on my actual position but do not misrepresent it this badly.
I'm not trying to misrepresent it purposefully.
.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
Texas Chuck wrote:nykballa2k4 wrote:Scoot McGroot wrote:
In this hypothetical, the Lakers would only be able to sign Kemba with the MLE, maybe even just the taxpayer MLE. Lowry also has the right to sign the MLE anywhere he wants, if he so chooses. But Kemba, if the team decides they’d rather pay him to go away than rehab his value, can’t play wherever he wants, for his market salary?
Yeah 100%
Imagine if Antonio Brown, who got paid a giant signing bonus by Oakland, had his breakdown as a stunt so that he could get paid, get cut, and sign for peanuts on a superbowl team. That would be almost criminal.
There is some social contract between fans and teams and players. The expectation is that the team is trying to put out a winner. Fans come to see players and via being the "product" that advertisers are paying for or being the customers, are both directly and indirectly paying the team. OKC has a responsibility to not create a competitive disadvantage for the league as a whole. Paying a former all-star, starting-level player to start for a contending team is bad for overall competition in the league.
Taking this 100 steps further... and I think this debate was had years ago...
If 3 teams, say Bulls, Pacers, Pistons all got together and said "we are small markets, we don't want to be generally high over the tax, we all want to make a profit, and we want to win championships" they could, the three of them, make trades every year just in the triangle where they load one roster, and have two farm teams, then rinse-repeat. Two chances at a lotto player every year, then stack what would become a revolving grown up AAU-All-Stars.
That is full blown collusion, but the small ground-level is buying out a player so that they can play for what feels like the same price any team despite cap situation, is in some way collusion. If Kemba didn't KNOW a contender would pick him up, he would never ask out. He knows they will, back channels, agents, etc. That's why it is criminal.
IDK what everyone's employment situation is, but it would be comparable to getting laid off of a job, getting a nice severance package, and working a new job off the books while on severance and unemployment to get the max benefit.
You are catastrophizing now. We've gone from a mutual agreed to buyout to multiple teams blatantly colluding?
What are we doing here?
Respectfully, if a deal like the Pelicans idea was available for Kemba, he wouldn't be headed to OKC. Bledsoe's practically expiring and Adams second year at $17M will be much easier than Horford's second year to move.BlazersBroncos wrote:What about this follow up:
OKC TRADES - Kemba Walker, 16, 18, 2023 DEN FRP
OKC RECEIVES - Steven Adams, 10
WHY? Save $$$, move up in draft, get an old friend.
HOU TRADES - Christian Wood
HOUR RECEIVES - Eric Bledsoe, 16, 18, 2023 DEN FRP
WHY? Cash in on Wood.
NO TRADES - Eric Bledsoe, Steven Adams, 10
NO RECEIVES - Kemba Walker, Christian Wood
WHY? Get two better roster fits and a potential long term running mate in Wood for Zion.
G - Kemba Walker
G - Lonzo Ball
F - Brandon Ingram
F - Zion Williamson
C - Christian Wood
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
Dr Positivity wrote:Good deal for Boston considering Stevens played hardball and got Brown and OKC 2nd out of it. Kemba will be OKC's latest pump and dump.
cl2117 wrote:Texas Chuck wrote:You guys are framing this incorrectly and then getting mad about it. If OKC buys him out then he is a free agent. He is in no way obligated to sign with the Lakers for less than his market value. He could easily go take $20M to play for the Knicks, right? But if David West wants to opt out of an 8 figure contract with the Pacers to sign for the min with the Spurs that was his choice. And while it sucks for the Pacers nothing should have prevented him from that choice.
And how much money he is making from outside revenue(the Thunder in this case) is irrelevant. Sure guys who have made a ton of money already are more likely to go play for winners for cheap, but again that should be their choice.
If OKC does not want to pay him all that money to not play for them but to play for someone else they simply won't buy him out. They will only buy him out if they think it is in the best interest of the OKC Thunder.
I continue to just be gobsmacked about the amount of angst free agents choosing their team causes you guys. Especially in situations that aren't happening. We somehow turning freaking suck-ass Andre Drummond signing with the Lakers into an avalanche of every star player forcing buyouts to sign there too. This is not a real thing that we need to worry about.
Not to derail this thread, but I think you always frame it incorrectly as well. You act as if players should always have the right to go anywhere they want whenever they want, but already have rules in place that limit this to try to keep from teams getting unfair advantages (waivers, cutoff date for playoff rosters etc.).
Now under the current rules he absolutely should be able to go play for anyone at any price he likes because there isn't anything there stopping it currently, but it absolutely benefits a smaller group of teams unfairly. But it's not ridiculous to want to change that at the expense of the player getting the buyout. Why should the league dynamics be shifted because a player decides he wants out on his current team? Just because he's willing to give back money? Doesn't make sense to me at all. It's not like it'd be preventing guys signing mutli-year deals, it's stopping 25 regular season games of mercenary work followed by a playoff run. Don't see how stopping that is overly infringing on player's mobility.
And you bandy about Andre Drummond as if Blake Griffin isn't having a significant impact on a series about to go 7 for the team favored to win it all.
nykballa2k4 wrote:Texas Chuck wrote:nykballa2k4 wrote:Yeah 100%
Imagine if Antonio Brown, who got paid a giant signing bonus by Oakland, had his breakdown as a stunt so that he could get paid, get cut, and sign for peanuts on a superbowl team. That would be almost criminal.
There is some social contract between fans and teams and players. The expectation is that the team is trying to put out a winner. Fans come to see players and via being the "product" that advertisers are paying for or being the customers, are both directly and indirectly paying the team. OKC has a responsibility to not create a competitive disadvantage for the league as a whole. Paying a former all-star, starting-level player to start for a contending team is bad for overall competition in the league.
Taking this 100 steps further... and I think this debate was had years ago...
If 3 teams, say Bulls, Pacers, Pistons all got together and said "we are small markets, we don't want to be generally high over the tax, we all want to make a profit, and we want to win championships" they could, the three of them, make trades every year just in the triangle where they load one roster, and have two farm teams, then rinse-repeat. Two chances at a lotto player every year, then stack what would become a revolving grown up AAU-All-Stars.
That is full blown collusion, but the small ground-level is buying out a player so that they can play for what feels like the same price any team despite cap situation, is in some way collusion. If Kemba didn't KNOW a contender would pick him up, he would never ask out. He knows they will, back channels, agents, etc. That's why it is criminal.
IDK what everyone's employment situation is, but it would be comparable to getting laid off of a job, getting a nice severance package, and working a new job off the books while on severance and unemployment to get the max benefit.
You are catastrophizing now. We've gone from a mutual agreed to buyout to multiple teams blatantly colluding?
What are we doing here?
I am comparing stealing a 20 out of someones wallet to a bank robbery, they are both stealing, but sometimes it helps to show what the path is that we are talking about.
Tanking like the Sixers did, even though fans were pretty much fine with it, was something the NBA did not like because it made one team a D-league team, a vacuum for bad contracts attached to assets, and a way for a player to do what Kemba may do ... land there, and act in mutual benefit to part ways, but give a team that SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FIELD A COMPETITIVE OFFER the ability to do so.
If this was done like waiver trades in MLB, and a team signing a guy under contract had to toss in a pick of value TBD based on play of player, then that helps balance it out.
Scoot McGroot wrote:nykballa2k4 wrote:Texas Chuck wrote:
You are catastrophizing now. We've gone from a mutual agreed to buyout to multiple teams blatantly colluding?
What are we doing here?
I am comparing stealing a 20 out of someones wallet to a bank robbery, they are both stealing, but sometimes it helps to show what the path is that we are talking about.
Tanking like the Sixers did, even though fans were pretty much fine with it, was something the NBA did not like because it made one team a D-league team, a vacuum for bad contracts attached to assets, and a way for a player to do what Kemba may do ... land there, and act in mutual benefit to part ways, but give a team that SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FIELD A COMPETITIVE OFFER the ability to do so.
If this was done like waiver trades in MLB, and a team signing a guy under contract had to toss in a pick of value TBD based on play of player, then that helps balance it out.
Imagining the slipperiest of slopes shouldn’t be something we legislate legal and collectively agreed upon standards by.
nykballa2k4 wrote:Scoot McGroot wrote:nykballa2k4 wrote:
I am comparing stealing a 20 out of someones wallet to a bank robbery, they are both stealing, but sometimes it helps to show what the path is that we are talking about.
Tanking like the Sixers did, even though fans were pretty much fine with it, was something the NBA did not like because it made one team a D-league team, a vacuum for bad contracts attached to assets, and a way for a player to do what Kemba may do ... land there, and act in mutual benefit to part ways, but give a team that SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FIELD A COMPETITIVE OFFER the ability to do so.
If this was done like waiver trades in MLB, and a team signing a guy under contract had to toss in a pick of value TBD based on play of player, then that helps balance it out.
Imagining the slipperiest of slopes shouldn’t be something we legislate legal and collectively agreed upon standards by.
That's fine. But the problem of players being paid by a tank-team and playing for a contender hurts 80% of the league in what I argue is a spirit antithetical to fair competition.
One could easily call Thunder Process 2.0 and we all know how the NBA felt about Hinkie-business.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
See, you're removing all agency from the players here and putting it on teams which is not, at all, how it works. I say trade or buyout request and that's magically transformed into *players teams no longer want.* Even if I accept the premise of *players teams no longer want,* it begs the question as to why a team no longer wants that player.Texas Chuck wrote:And as I've said all along. I'm always open to ideas that improve the league that don't punish players unfairly. And I've not heard a single argument why a player made a free agent by their team cannot sign with another team provided it falls within the CBA timelines.
And yes JBK there can be negative consequences to not buying out a player you no longer want, but don't want to pay to go away. But there should be negative consequences to having overpaid unwanted players on your roster. And you sometimes have to decide between only bad options. But that's life. And if you decide that not ticking off an agency is the worse option so you buy him out I think you lose your right to bitch that he signs elsewhere. If him playing elsewhere feels worse than ticking off an agency then you keep him.
Bad contracts are bad. Dallas faces this with KP and Dwight Powell and maybe even Josh Richardson. I don't expect rule changes to save us from ourselves. We handed out these contracts or traded for the player knowing what it was.
Return to Trades and Transactions