Thoughts in General, Rumors, etc 4.0

[HartfordWhalers]

If Ben actually shows up and dogs it, it will likely lose him money in the long run. Sure he doesn't get fined likely. But any future offers the guy gets (for anything, endorsements included) will take into account that not only did he not work at his craft, he actively sabotaged his own team.

He's better off not showing up if he wants to take the not try route.

Sent from my SM-A716U using RealGM Forums mobile app

I'm doubting this. I'm sorry but we are all too shallow distracted shortsighted and frankly idiotic to do this. Otherwise Harden wouldn't have gone to strip clubs instead of caring when with Houston. (

Spoiler:

Even more so than usual, okay Lou Williams fans?

[K_chile22]

If Ben actually shows up and dogs it, it will likely lose him money in the long run. Sure he doesn't get fined likely. But any future offers the guy gets (for anything, endorsements included) will take into account that not only did he not work at his craft, he actively sabotaged his own team.

He's better off not showing up if he wants to take the not try route.

Sent from my SM-A716U using RealGM Forums mobile app

I'm doubting this. I'm sorry but we are all too shallow distracted shortsighted and frankly idiotic to do this. Otherwise Harden wouldn't have gone to strip clubs instead of caring when with Houston. (

Spoiler:

Even more so than usual, okay Lou Williams fans?

Yeah, I mean, if he plays well enough everyone would probably look back at this as him being right and the sixers being the bad guys. Context gets lost very quickly

[jbk1234]

If Ben actually shows up and dogs it, it will likely lose him money in the long run. Sure he doesn't get fined likely. But any future offers the guy gets (for anything, endorsements included) will take into account that not only did he not work at his craft, he actively sabotaged his own team.

He's better off not showing up if he wants to take the not try route.

Sent from my SM-A716U using RealGM Forums mobile app

I'm doubting this. I'm sorry but we are all too shallow distracted shortsighted and frankly idiotic to do this. Otherwise Harden wouldn't have gone to strip clubs instead of caring when with Houston. (

Spoiler:

Even more so than usual, okay Lou Williams fans?

Yeah, I mean, if he plays well enough everyone would probably look back at this as him being right and the sixers being the bad guys. Context gets lost very quickly

Tbc, I won't think the Sixers are the bad guys if they fine, or even withhold pay, from Simmons. He's got that coming. The question is whether it's smart to do so if doing so will result in him reporting solely for the money.

I think it's probably better if the next CBA takes the discretion away from the team in circumstances where a player is refusing to report or play. Just have the league do it and make it automatic. Do away with the leverage agents might be tempted to exploit in these scenarios and remove the incentive to hold out. Would that matter in Ben's case? I don't know. But it would at least stop some of the flexing.

[HartfordWhalers]

But it would at least stop some of the flexing.

I don't think so. Same as when the league made it so GM's couldn't publicly say we will match any offer {so don't offer on our RFA's). Instead of Altman the GM saying it, Chris Fedor the local mouthpiece says it based off 'league sources'. We have banned a battlefield, but the fundamental opposing sides still exist and will leak out to where they can.

{Also I think there is merit in the Horford OKC paid to go away. He was fine playing but they wanted to tank, so it was a win for both. Maybe not a win for genuinely bad teams... But that digresses my digression. I think teams want that flexibility.}

[jbk1234]

But it would at least stop some of the flexing.

I don't think so. Same as when the league made it so GM's couldn't publicly say we will match any offer {so don't offer on our RFA's). Instead of Altman the GM saying it, Chris Fedor the local mouthpiece says it based off 'league sources'. We have banned a battlefield, but the fundamental opposing sides still exist and will leak out to where they can.

{Also I think there is merit in the Horford OKC paid to go away. He was fine playing but they wanted to tank, so it was a win for both. Maybe not a win for genuinely bad teams... But that digresses my digression. I think teams want that flexibility.}

There are certain situations where I think teams want the flexibility. The Cavs were definitely done with JR that last year, but I think the availability of the flexibility leads to more harm than good in terms of player/agent incentive in the aggregate. Look, you don't play, you're not getting paid. It's not up to the team. You engage in conduct detrimental, and I mean more than uninspired effort, and you're not getting paid. It's not up to the team.

It's gets trickier when a team would prefer to have a player away from the locker room for reasons that fall short of conduct detrimental. But maybe put it on the team file for an exception so that the default position is no pay and the team has to want to do it.

[Texas Chuck]

This idea that teams would never try and abuse that but only those pesky players doesn't really add up.

[jbk1234]

This idea that teams would never try and abuse that but only those pesky players doesn't really add up.

It wouldn't be difficult to draft a rule that accounts for that. The league would have to investigate the conduct detrimental charge or a circumstance where a player was sent away. The union could have a right to appeal the league's decision. But if a player just doesn't report, or says I'm not coming off the bench, that's pretty clear cut.

I mean the team would have to report the incidents to the league and there would still be incentives not to unnecessarily alienate players and agents.

[Texas Chuck]

If the player doesn't report the team already doesn't have to pay them. This is the point I've been driving home awhile now....
If the player refuses to come off the bench, ie withhold his services, the same existing principle applies.

I don't see how we need a new policy. Unless you think a team should get to just unilaterally decide we don't think you are playing hard enough so we get to send you home and withhold pay, something that would be rife for potential abuse.

We have a very unprecedented situation here. We don't need to overreact to it and change a bunch of policies as a result especially not ones like that.

[HartfordWhalers]

Odds MPJ is a bad contract over the course of his new deal?

If I said 80% how pessimistic am I?

[HornetJail]

Odds MPJ is a bad contract over the course of his new deal?

If I said 80% how pessimistic am I?

i was gonna go 70% lol

[HartfordWhalers]

Odds MPJ is a bad contract over the course of his new deal?

If I said 80% how pessimistic am I?

i was gonna go 70% lol

That frees me up to go to 90% then?

[jbk1234]

If the player doesn't report the team already doesn't have to pay them. This is the point I've been driving home awhile now....
If the player refuses to come off the bench, ie withhold his services, the same existing principle applies.

I don't see how we need a new policy. Unless you think a team should get to just unilaterally decide we don't think you are playing hard enough so we get to send you home and withhold pay, something that would be rife for potential abuse.

We have a very unprecedented situation here. We don't need to overreact to it and change a bunch of policies as a result especially not ones like that.

I suggested you remove it from the team's discretion so that it just becomes a matter for the league office. How you got from that to your response, I don't know. There are good reasons to remove the pressure that agents can apply to teams under these circumstances.

Kyrie asked out with two years left on his deal, and then it was AD, then it was PG with three years left, and now its Simmons with four. Batum dogs it for two years in Charlotte, opts in, and then refuses to give any money back. Drummond won't play if he can't start and demands to be bought out at 99 cents on the dollar (after opting in). Now Wall wants $50M not to play at all.

You don't get over a half a dozen *one offs.* That's a trend.

[pacers33granger]

Odds MPJ is a bad contract over the course of his new deal?

If I said 80% how pessimistic am I?

The odds are high simply because of the injury risk and a small body of work. He has the talent to make it a good deal for Denver though. I would say 80% is pessimistic in the sense that there's a solid percentage that it's a neutral contract (as in someone would take it on for free based on potential).

I don't like it overall for Denver where they're taking the majority of the risk no matter where the percentage is.

Sent from my SM-A716U using RealGM Forums mobile app

[pacers33granger]

If Ben actually shows up and dogs it, it will likely lose him money in the long run. Sure he doesn't get fined likely. But any future offers the guy gets (for anything, endorsements included) will take into account that not only did he not work at his craft, he actively sabotaged his own team.

He's better off not showing up if he wants to take the not try route.

Sent from my SM-A716U using RealGM Forums mobile app

I'm doubting this. I'm sorry but we are all too shallow distracted shortsighted and frankly idiotic to do this. Otherwise Harden wouldn't have gone to strip clubs instead of caring when with Houston. (

Spoiler:

Even more so than usual, okay Lou Williams fans?

Harden has a track record of being an MVP and adding a significant amount of wins alone. Ben has a track record as a good player and all star, but also as an odd fit for any roster, as unwilling to alter his approach, and as a young socialite. I don't equate the two situations much.

Said another way, I don't think Ben is guaranteed a max offer next time he's eligible. Antics count for players who aren't auto maxes. It can end up being a small amount or it can end up being a huge year or two he doesn't get on the end of his next deal.

Sent from my SM-A716U using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Karmaloop]

Odds MPJ is a bad contract over the course of his new deal?

If I said 80% how pessimistic am I?

Bad? No. Overpaid? Absolutely.

[zimpy27]

If the player doesn't report the team already doesn't have to pay them. This is the point I've been driving home awhile now....
If the player refuses to come off the bench, ie withhold his services, the same existing principle applies.

I don't see how we need a new policy. Unless you think a team should get to just unilaterally decide we don't think you are playing hard enough so we get to send you home and withhold pay, something that would be rife for potential abuse.

We have a very unprecedented situation here. We don't need to overreact to it and change a bunch of policies as a result especially not ones like that.

If a player doesn't report and the team doesn't pay them then does that null the contract?

I recall Lakers were hoping Luol Deng would not report so they could not pay him and null the contract. Or maybe I'm remembering wrong. If both sides back out then surely it just nulls it, as long as one side holds up their end then the contract is kept.

If Philly don't pay and Simmons doesn't report then would that be grounds to just rip it up?

[giberish]

If the player doesn't report the team already doesn't have to pay them. This is the point I've been driving home awhile now....
If the player refuses to come off the bench, ie withhold his services, the same existing principle applies.

I don't see how we need a new policy. Unless you think a team should get to just unilaterally decide we don't think you are playing hard enough so we get to send you home and withhold pay, something that would be rife for potential abuse.

We have a very unprecedented situation here. We don't need to overreact to it and change a bunch of policies as a result especially not ones like that.

If a player doesn't report and the team doesn't pay them then does that null the contract?

I recall Lakers were hoping Luol Deng would not report so they could not pay him and null the contract. Or maybe I'm remembering wrong. If both sides back out then surely it just nulls it, as long as one side holds up their end then the contract is kept.

If Philly don't pay and Simmons doesn't report then would that be grounds to just rip it up?

The Lakers wanted Deng to retire so his deal would be off the books (he'd still get paid but it wouldn't count against their cap/tax.

The contract says that Simmons only gets paid if he shows up. Philly not paying Simmons for not showing up is upholding the contract.

[Resistance]

If the player doesn't report the team already doesn't have to pay them. This is the point I've been driving home awhile now....
If the player refuses to come off the bench, ie withhold his services, the same existing principle applies.

I don't see how we need a new policy. Unless you think a team should get to just unilaterally decide we don't think you are playing hard enough so we get to send you home and withhold pay, something that would be rife for potential abuse.

We have a very unprecedented situation here. We don't need to overreact to it and change a bunch of policies as a result especially not ones like that.

If a player doesn't report and the team doesn't pay them then does that null the contract?

I recall Lakers were hoping Luol Deng would not report so they could not pay him and null the contract. Or maybe I'm remembering wrong. If both sides back out then surely it just nulls it, as long as one side holds up their end then the contract is kept.

If Philly don't pay and Simmons doesn't report then would that be grounds to just rip it up?

Which side failed to follow the terms of the contract first?

[zimpy27]

If the player doesn't report the team already doesn't have to pay them. This is the point I've been driving home awhile now....
If the player refuses to come off the bench, ie withhold his services, the same existing principle applies.

I don't see how we need a new policy. Unless you think a team should get to just unilaterally decide we don't think you are playing hard enough so we get to send you home and withhold pay, something that would be rife for potential abuse.

We have a very unprecedented situation here. We don't need to overreact to it and change a bunch of policies as a result especially not ones like that.

If a player doesn't report and the team doesn't pay them then does that null the contract?

I recall Lakers were hoping Luol Deng would not report so they could not pay him and null the contract. Or maybe I'm remembering wrong. If both sides back out then surely it just nulls it, as long as one side holds up their end then the contract is kept.

If Philly don't pay and Simmons doesn't report then would that be grounds to just rip it up?

The Lakers wanted Deng to retire so his deal would be off the books (he'd still get paid but it wouldn't count against their cap/tax.

The contract says that Simmons only gets paid if he shows up. Philly not paying Simmons for not showing up is upholding the contract.

Are you sure Philly can just not pay him? They could keep contract going by paying him and then fining him for some of their money back..

I mean Simmons could claim he doesn't want to play for Philly because of mental abuse of fans or anything really. It's not 100% unfounded that it could be true. So I'm keen how they handle Simmons vs how GSW handles Wiggins.

It's better all around if Philly takes the high road until mid-December or mid-Januay when newly signed guys can be traded.

[Ballerhogger]

If he doesn't buy in, he can be suspended for conduct detrimental to the team and it wouldn't shock me if Silver said that also triggered tolling of the contract.

you can't fine/suspend someone for not trying, good luck getting the NBAPA to go with that

Conduct detrimental to the team is the most vague phrase out there and literally anything can fit into it. If the guy just sits down at midcourt during live game play or refuses to run up and down the court, how is that conduct not detrimental to the team?

if hes there and practicing how can they prove hes not trying? Barry Bonds had his own lockeroom when was in SF with giants same could be done with Ben. He could be part of team but separated at the same time.