Around The NBA

[jbk1234]

I'll leave it to the lawyers, but I doubt the NBA has a leg to stand on here if as reported they are leaning on the "failure to perform" clause. The players are presumably ready to perform, but local regulations are not permitting it.

The union is in a tough spot here. The reality is that like 90% of the players are vaccinated and some of them are starting to speak up about their teammates not getting vaccinated.

The union has been reasonable and co-operative regarding Covid, but why would they accept a mandate or willingly give up any money?

They are not at-will employees, the terms of their employment are defined by the CBA.

Well, the unvaccinated are far, far more likely to contract and spread Delta. In this case, that includes breakthrough cases to their teammates and opponents. So who are you protecting here if you're incentivizing the unvaccinated to remain so as the union.

[JonFromVA]

The union is in a tough spot here. The reality is that like 90% of the players are vaccinated and some of them are starting to speak up about their teammates not getting vaccinated.

The union has been reasonable and co-operative regarding Covid, but why would they accept a mandate or willingly give up any money?

They are not at-will employees, the terms of their employment are defined by the CBA.

Well, the unvaccinated are far, far more likely to contract and spread Delta. In this case, that includes breakthrough cases to their teammates and opponents. So who are you protecting here if you're incentivizing the unvaccinated to remain so as the union.

Which is why the union agreed that un-vaccinated players would be tested before every game and fans in attendance would need to be vaccinated. If they don't trust those provisions are sufficient (I personally wait with baited breath to find out) they shouldn't have agreed to them.

So, it's about balancing $$$ and risks for both sides. If the players weren't willing to accept any risk and refused to play in a Bubble they understand the league would be forced to exercise their Force Majeure ("Act of God") clause and tear up every existing NBA contract.

[jbk1234]

The union has been reasonable and co-operative regarding Covid, but why would they accept a mandate or willingly give up any money?

They are not at-will employees, the terms of their employment are defined by the CBA.

Well, the unvaccinated are far, far more likely to contract and spread Delta. In this case, that includes breakthrough cases to their teammates and opponents. So who are you protecting here if you're incentivizing the unvaccinated to remain so as the union.

Which is why the union agreed that un-vaccinated players would be tested before every game and fans in attendance would need to be vaccinated. If they don't trust those provisions are sufficient (I personally wait with baited breath to find out) they shouldn't have agreed to them.

So, it's about balancing $$$ and risks for both sides. If the players weren't willing to accept any risk and refused to play in a Bubble they understand the league would be forced to exercise their Force Majeure ("Act of God") clause and tear up every existing NBA contract.

My point is at some point as a union leader, it behooves you to remember you're elected by the members, or not. If you're on the wrong end of a 90/10 split, and something goes wrong, you won't be a union leader for much longer.

[JonFromVA]

Well, the unvaccinated are far, far more likely to contract and spread Delta. In this case, that includes breakthrough cases to their teammates and opponents. So who are you protecting here if you're incentivizing the unvaccinated to remain so as the union.

Which is why the union agreed that un-vaccinated players would be tested before every game and fans in attendance would need to be vaccinated. If they don't trust those provisions are sufficient (I personally wait with baited breath to find out) they shouldn't have agreed to them.

So, it's about balancing $$$ and risks for both sides. If the players weren't willing to accept any risk and refused to play in a Bubble they understand the league would be forced to exercise their Force Majeure ("Act of God") clause and tear up every existing NBA contract.

My point is at some point as a union leader, it behooves you to remember you're elected by the members, or not. If you're on the wrong end of a 90/10 split, and something goes wrong, you won't be a union leader for much longer.

Nobody is going to accept a mandate or losing salary unless the alternative was the league was going to close up shop.

[jbk1234]

Which is why the union agreed that un-vaccinated players would be tested before every game and fans in attendance would need to be vaccinated. If they don't trust those provisions are sufficient (I personally wait with baited breath to find out) they shouldn't have agreed to them.

So, it's about balancing $$$ and risks for both sides. If the players weren't willing to accept any risk and refused to play in a Bubble they understand the league would be forced to exercise their Force Majeure ("Act of God") clause and tear up every existing NBA contract.

My point is at some point as a union leader, it behooves you to remember you're elected by the members, or not. If you're on the wrong end of a 90/10 split, and something goes wrong, you won't be a union leader for much longer.

Nobody is going to accept a mandate or losing salary unless the alternative was the league was going to close up shop.

All it will take is for an unvaccinated player to test positive with a few of his teammates catching breakthrough cases and the team losing a stretch of games. I can imagine worse scenarios than that but won't mention them.

[toooskies]

Coming into the Cleveland revenge game, Isaiah Hartenstein is a +28 in 33 minutes of game time and has shot 9/11 from the field. He managed to foul out in just 17 minutes of game time against Portland.

[JonFromVA]

Coming into the Cleveland revenge game, Isaiah Hartenstein is a +28 in 33 minutes of game time and has shot 9/11 from the field. He managed to foul out in just 17 minutes of game time against Portland.

IH's foul rate has always been problematic ... but this shouldn't be a revenge game for him per se. We let him out of his contract and gave up his Bird rights so he could go explore his other options freely. He still had to go win a job in pre-season, so, it's not clear if anyone would have given anything up for him in a S&T.

It would be nice to have him as a backup on the bench (and perhaps jbk's guy to deliver some hard fouls), but clearly he deserved a better opportunity and that went out the door when we drafted Evan.

[toooskies]

Coming into the Cleveland revenge game, Isaiah Hartenstein is a +28 in 33 minutes of game time and has shot 9/11 from the field. He managed to foul out in just 17 minutes of game time against Portland.

IH's foul rate has always been problematic ... but this shouldn't be a revenge game for him per se. We let him out of his contract and gave up his Bird rights so he could go explore his other options freely. He still had to go win a job in pre-season, so, it's not clear if anyone would have given anything up for him in a S&T.

It would be nice to have him as a backup on the bench (and perhaps jbk's guy to deliver some hard fouls), but clearly he deserved a better opportunity and that went out the door when we drafted Evan.

He'd have had a chance to play ten minutes a night as our backup C. (Although that was less apparent when we assumed Nance was getting minutes at the 4/5, or Markkanen later in the summer.)

[JonFromVA]

Coming into the Cleveland revenge game, Isaiah Hartenstein is a +28 in 33 minutes of game time and has shot 9/11 from the field. He managed to foul out in just 17 minutes of game time against Portland.

IH's foul rate has always been problematic ... but this shouldn't be a revenge game for him per se. We let him out of his contract and gave up his Bird rights so he could go explore his other options freely. He still had to go win a job in pre-season, so, it's not clear if anyone would have given anything up for him in a S&T.

It would be nice to have him as a backup on the bench (and perhaps jbk's guy to deliver some hard fouls), but clearly he deserved a better opportunity and that went out the door when we drafted Evan.

He'd have had a chance to play ten minutes a night as our backup C. (Although that was less apparent when we assumed Nance was getting minutes at the 4/5, or Markkanen later in the summer.)

Mobley is soaking up the backup C minutes, there's literally 0 available for IH unless Allen/Mobley get in foul trouble or get hurt.

[toooskies]

IH's foul rate has always been problematic ... but this shouldn't be a revenge game for him per se. We let him out of his contract and gave up his Bird rights so he could go explore his other options freely. He still had to go win a job in pre-season, so, it's not clear if anyone would have given anything up for him in a S&T.

It would be nice to have him as a backup on the bench (and perhaps jbk's guy to deliver some hard fouls), but clearly he deserved a better opportunity and that went out the door when we drafted Evan.

He'd have had a chance to play ten minutes a night as our backup C. (Although that was less apparent when we assumed Nance was getting minutes at the 4/5, or Markkanen later in the summer.)

Mobley is soaking up the backup C minutes, there's literally 0 available for IH unless Allen/Mobley get in foul trouble or get hurt.

With the current lineup I'd take 5 minutes from Love and 5 from Allen.

[jbk1234]

He'd have had a chance to play ten minutes a night as our backup C. (Although that was less apparent when we assumed Nance was getting minutes at the 4/5, or Markkanen later in the summer.)

Mobley is soaking up the backup C minutes, there's literally 0 available for IH unless Allen/Mobley get in foul trouble or get hurt.

With the current lineup I'd take 5 minutes from Love and 5 from Allen.

The best I can do with IH is that if the Cavs re-signed him to the type of deal he'd want to play in Cleveland, that they felt they would've been further leveraging themselves with the Love situation. Love getting 10-20 minutes a game, depending on play and lineup, seems like a situation that's making everyone relatively happy. We weren't sure whether Mobley would be able to play PF or even that he'd be willing to play meaningful minutes at all. We were sure that if Love wasn't getting any PT, the rest of the league would assume he was worthless and evaluate him accordingly. The proposals for roster balancing trades on the T&T board no longer start out with "Love and two unprotected first for...* X. Getting production and spacing from him off the bench helps.

[KuruptedCav]

IH was an easy to like player, but, like backup QBs and backup catchers, I don’t want to base my decisions around them.

Sure, at his Clippers salary I’d rather have him than Ed Davis or Tacko Tuesday or Even Stevens; but, no indication that salary keeps in him Cleveland as a 3rd big. And I have zero issue with not giving him the multi-year $5/yr estimates people were throwing around at the start of Free Agency.

Best of luck to the young man. He and the Cavs did exactly what was right for them.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[toooskies]

Mobley is soaking up the backup C minutes, there's literally 0 available for IH unless Allen/Mobley get in foul trouble or get hurt.

With the current lineup I'd take 5 minutes from Love and 5 from Allen.

The best I can do with IH is that if the Cavs re-signed him to the type of deal he'd want to play in Cleveland, that they felt they would've been further leveraging themselves with the Love situation. Love getting 10-20 minutes a game, depending on play and lineup, seems like a situation that's making everyone relatively happy. We weren't sure whether Mobley would be able to play PF or even that he'd be willing to play meaningful minutes at all. We were sure that if Love wasn't getting any PT, the rest of the league would assume he was worthless and evaluate him accordingly. The proposals for roster balancing trades on the T&T board no longer start out with "Love and two unprotected first for...* X. Getting production and spacing from him off the bench helps.

Eh, pretty much everyone on the T&T board starts out from a position where Love's salary is dead or close-to-dead money. They're just sure to to hit a Cavs fan now who will say he's engaged and playing well off the bench in a key role for our lineups. And then they get to "so is Hield" or "so is Eric Gordon" and, well, it's apparently a good early season for overpaid veterans taking on smaller roles.

The last two prominent Cavs trades on T&T I believe were Love and 5 2nds for Gordon, Theis, House (treating Love and Gordon as equally dead-ish money) and Love + Allen + Rubio + 1st + HOU 2nd for THT and expirings, where Love is not only dead money there but the crux of why the Cavs can't compete next year. T&T has not adjusted their values for the Cavs' early season success and what that means for team direction and player evaluation.

That said-- I'd have loved IH as a spare big right now while Love and Markkanen are out with COVID instead of needing to play Allen and Mobley 40 minutes each.

[Revenged25]

With the current lineup I'd take 5 minutes from Love and 5 from Allen.

The best I can do with IH is that if the Cavs re-signed him to the type of deal he'd want to play in Cleveland, that they felt they would've been further leveraging themselves with the Love situation. Love getting 10-20 minutes a game, depending on play and lineup, seems like a situation that's making everyone relatively happy. We weren't sure whether Mobley would be able to play PF or even that he'd be willing to play meaningful minutes at all. We were sure that if Love wasn't getting any PT, the rest of the league would assume he was worthless and evaluate him accordingly. The proposals for roster balancing trades on the T&T board no longer start out with "Love and two unprotected first for...* X. Getting production and spacing from him off the bench helps.

Eh, pretty much everyone on the T&T board starts out from a position where Love's salary is dead or close-to-dead money. They're just sure to to hit a Cavs fan now who will say he's engaged and playing well off the bench in a key role for our lineups. And then they get to "so is Hield" or "so is Eric Gordon" and, well, it's apparently a good early season for overpaid veterans taking on smaller roles.

The last two prominent Cavs trades on T&T I believe were Love and 5 2nds for Gordon, Theis, House (treating Love and Gordon as equally dead-ish money) and Love + Allen + Rubio + 1st + HOU 2nd for THT and expirings, where Love is not only dead money there but the crux of why the Cavs can't compete next year. T&T has not adjusted their values for the Cavs' early season success and what that means for team direction and player evaluation.

That said-- I'd have loved IH as a spare big right now while Love and Markkanen are out with COVID instead of needing to play Allen and Mobley 40 minutes each.

Thankfully Toronto doesn't have a true big like Nurkic so the Cavs will likely be able to get away with just rotation Mobley/Allen at the 5, heck even DWade might be able to bang vs Precious.

[JonFromVA]

Mobley is soaking up the backup C minutes, there's literally 0 available for IH unless Allen/Mobley get in foul trouble or get hurt.

With the current lineup I'd take 5 minutes from Love and 5 from Allen.

The best I can do with IH is that if the Cavs re-signed him to the type of deal he'd want to play in Cleveland, that they felt they would've been further leveraging themselves with the Love situation. Love getting 10-20 minutes a game, depending on play and lineup, seems like a situation that's making everyone relatively happy. We weren't sure whether Mobley would be able to play PF or even that he'd be willing to play meaningful minutes at all. We were sure that if Love wasn't getting any PT, the rest of the league would assume he was worthless and evaluate him accordingly. The proposals for roster balancing trades on the T&T board no longer start out with "Love and two unprotected first for...* X. Getting production and spacing from him off the bench helps.

At the moment in LA, IH is playing behind a center who's never played more than 22 mpg, and he's an injury away from being a starter.

In Cleveland, he'd be competing for the 18 backup minutes behind Allen with the Cavs new franchise player, Lauri, and Kevin ... which could very well mean a whole bunch of DNP CD's.

Players/agents don't like to gamble when they don't have to. The greatly prefer an open spot over a contested one let alone one with an incumbent.

[JonFromVA]

The best I can do with IH is that if the Cavs re-signed him to the type of deal he'd want to play in Cleveland, that they felt they would've been further leveraging themselves with the Love situation. Love getting 10-20 minutes a game, depending on play and lineup, seems like a situation that's making everyone relatively happy. We weren't sure whether Mobley would be able to play PF or even that he'd be willing to play meaningful minutes at all. We were sure that if Love wasn't getting any PT, the rest of the league would assume he was worthless and evaluate him accordingly. The proposals for roster balancing trades on the T&T board no longer start out with "Love and two unprotected first for...* X. Getting production and spacing from him off the bench helps.

Eh, pretty much everyone on the T&T board starts out from a position where Love's salary is dead or close-to-dead money. They're just sure to to hit a Cavs fan now who will say he's engaged and playing well off the bench in a key role for our lineups. And then they get to "so is Hield" or "so is Eric Gordon" and, well, it's apparently a good early season for overpaid veterans taking on smaller roles.

The last two prominent Cavs trades on T&T I believe were Love and 5 2nds for Gordon, Theis, House (treating Love and Gordon as equally dead-ish money) and Love + Allen + Rubio + 1st + HOU 2nd for THT and expirings, where Love is not only dead money there but the crux of why the Cavs can't compete next year. T&T has not adjusted their values for the Cavs' early season success and what that means for team direction and player evaluation.

That said-- I'd have loved IH as a spare big right now while Love and Markkanen are out with COVID instead of needing to play Allen and Mobley 40 minutes each.

Thankfully Toronto doesn't have a true big like Nurkic so the Cavs will likely be able to get away with just rotation Mobley/Allen at the 5, heck even DWade might be able to bang vs Precious.

In theory he could dust off Tacko ...

[toooskies]

With the current lineup I'd take 5 minutes from Love and 5 from Allen.

The best I can do with IH is that if the Cavs re-signed him to the type of deal he'd want to play in Cleveland, that they felt they would've been further leveraging themselves with the Love situation. Love getting 10-20 minutes a game, depending on play and lineup, seems like a situation that's making everyone relatively happy. We weren't sure whether Mobley would be able to play PF or even that he'd be willing to play meaningful minutes at all. We were sure that if Love wasn't getting any PT, the rest of the league would assume he was worthless and evaluate him accordingly. The proposals for roster balancing trades on the T&T board no longer start out with "Love and two unprotected first for...* X. Getting production and spacing from him off the bench helps.

At the moment in LA, IH is playing behind a center who's never played more than 22 mpg, and he's an injury away from being a starter.

In Cleveland, he'd be competing for the 18 backup minutes behind Allen with the Cavs new franchise player, Lauri, and Kevin ... which could very well mean a whole bunch of DNP CD's.

Players/agents don't like to gamble when they don't have to. The greatly prefer an open spot over a contested one let alone one with an incumbent.

Sure, from IH's perspective it makes sense that he'd want to be playing for the Clippers than here.

From the Cavs' perspective, I'd rather have him on the roster than Tacko or Ed Davis if neither is going to see the floor with both Love and Markkanen out, and all they needed to do was give him a qualifying offer.

[JonFromVA]

The best I can do with IH is that if the Cavs re-signed him to the type of deal he'd want to play in Cleveland, that they felt they would've been further leveraging themselves with the Love situation. Love getting 10-20 minutes a game, depending on play and lineup, seems like a situation that's making everyone relatively happy. We weren't sure whether Mobley would be able to play PF or even that he'd be willing to play meaningful minutes at all. We were sure that if Love wasn't getting any PT, the rest of the league would assume he was worthless and evaluate him accordingly. The proposals for roster balancing trades on the T&T board no longer start out with "Love and two unprotected first for...* X. Getting production and spacing from him off the bench helps.

At the moment in LA, IH is playing behind a center who's never played more than 22 mpg, and he's an injury away from being a starter.

In Cleveland, he'd be competing for the 18 backup minutes behind Allen with the Cavs new franchise player, Lauri, and Kevin ... which could very well mean a whole bunch of DNP CD's.

Players/agents don't like to gamble when they don't have to. The greatly prefer an open spot over a contested one let alone one with an incumbent.

Sure, from IH's perspective it makes sense that he'd want to be playing for the Clippers than here.

From the Cavs' perspective, I'd rather have him on the roster than Tacko or Ed Davis if neither is going to see the floor with both Love and Markkanen out, and all they needed to do was give him a qualifying offer.

IH's QO was under $2M, if the Cavs tried to hold him hostage with that; he could have easily gotten that much from a Euroleague team. What it likely comes down to is that the Cavs just didn't need an unhappy player at the end of their bench, so took the high road. Maybe it pays off sometime down the line, maybe not.

[toooskies]

At the moment in LA, IH is playing behind a center who's never played more than 22 mpg, and he's an injury away from being a starter.

In Cleveland, he'd be competing for the 18 backup minutes behind Allen with the Cavs new franchise player, Lauri, and Kevin ... which could very well mean a whole bunch of DNP CD's.

Players/agents don't like to gamble when they don't have to. The greatly prefer an open spot over a contested one let alone one with an incumbent.

Sure, from IH's perspective it makes sense that he'd want to be playing for the Clippers than here.

From the Cavs' perspective, I'd rather have him on the roster than Tacko or Ed Davis if neither is going to see the floor with both Love and Markkanen out, and all they needed to do was give him a qualifying offer.

IH's QO was under $2M, if the Cavs tried to hold him hostage with that; he could have easily gotten that much from a Euroleague team. What it likely comes down to is that the Cavs just didn't need an unhappy player at the end of their bench, so took the high road. Maybe it pays off sometime down the line, maybe not.

It's not really "holding hostage" if it was the only guaranteed money on the table (he's non-guaranteed in LA), and I'm not sure IH was upset with the Cavs given they'd just given him the most playing time he's ever had in the NBA.

I think it's much more reasonable to believe the Cavs just didn't want him and thought Kabengele was more interesting at the time, although we don't have evidence either way.

[JonFromVA]

Sure, from IH's perspective it makes sense that he'd want to be playing for the Clippers than here.

From the Cavs' perspective, I'd rather have him on the roster than Tacko or Ed Davis if neither is going to see the floor with both Love and Markkanen out, and all they needed to do was give him a qualifying offer.

IH's QO was under $2M, if the Cavs tried to hold him hostage with that; he could have easily gotten that much from a Euroleague team. What it likely comes down to is that the Cavs just didn't need an unhappy player at the end of their bench, so took the high road. Maybe it pays off sometime down the line, maybe not.

It's not really "holding hostage" if it was the only guaranteed money on the table (he's non-guaranteed in LA), and I'm not sure IH was upset with the Cavs given they'd just given him the most playing time he's ever had in the NBA.

I think it's much more reasonable to believe the Cavs just didn't want him and thought Kabengele was more interesting at the time, although we don't have evidence either way.

Hartenstein had guaranteed money, it's just that it was across the pond, but clearly what he valued even more than guaranteed money was playing time and exposure which he's getting in LA. At least for now.

I'm not sure how much the Cavs valued IH, probably less than fans did - but I seriously doubt they valued Kabengele more.