Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Poll: The State of The League

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Shaolin Fantastic wrote: View Post
    I'm not calling them literally slaves, nor am I calling every fan a racist. If you want to strawman by deflecting to that, go for it.

    My point is that fans have this weird "ownership" relationship with players where they feel they shouldn't be able to exert any influence or control over where their careers take them. Meanwhile the teams regularly flex their muscle and dictate where players go and people have no problem with it whatsoever.
    Some fans just want to see a bit more loyalty from the idols they emotionally invest in. It's as simple as that.

    It's not an owner vs. slaves thing. And it has nothing to do with fans wanting to restrict player's freedom of choice in their careers and legally negotiating the best situation for themselves. It's a complex problem. Money alone, is no longer the big swing factor in keeping your franchise player. Players can make that up in other ways, or the lesser amounts are still so massive that it doesn't even matter anymore.

    That said, OKC's owner has only himself to blame. They tried to low-ball Harden and screwed up a potential dynasty greater than the Warriors. In hindsight, Harden's contract would have been a huge bargain when the salary cap spiked. Why didn't genius GM Presti anticipate that? OKC tried to get Harden to take the the "Spurs Way" discount and it backfired. Same thing is happening with PG and Westbrook - they are thrilled to unload contracts to get out of the tax. There's rich and then there's Ballmer rich.

    Comment


    • Shaolin Fantastic wrote: View Post

      Why aren't teams required to keep the player for the duration of the contract then?

      What's the difference?
      Because its in the fucking CBA. Trades are part of the entertainment product. They can negotiate a no trade clause if they'd like, but its a part of the professional sport. If guys don't think they wanna stay somewhere long, they're also free to sign shorter deals
      It's Klaw Season. Time to hunt.

      Comment


      • A year ago I read about Kyle Korver’s very polite, private trade request (not a demand). Lebron has just left Cleveland and he said to the Cavs in the summer —Hey if you plan on rebuilding this year please trade me now so I can get my kids settled in a new school before the year starts. He is a bit older and asked politely and privately.
        The cavs waited until the end of November to maximize return. That is well within their right of course, but it leads to players taking more control of their careers.

        Maybe the Paul George scenario shows us that doing things privately is going to get more of a return for the teams. Maybe that is a best case scenario for everyone.

        Comment


        • Shaolin Fantastic wrote: View Post

          Why aren't teams required to keep the player for the duration of the contract then?

          What's the difference?
          They are employed by NBA. They get paid regardless where they play. Team that loses a franchise player never gets anything equivalent of value in return.
          Last edited by MixxAOR; Fri Jul 26th, 2019, 12:37 PM.
          Only one thing matters: We The Champs.

          Comment


          • Shaolin Fantastic wrote: View Post
            Ok answer the damn question.

            Why should a team be allowed to trade a player under contract but a player should not be allowed to demand or request a trade?

            And btw for the guy who tried to make the argument it's against the rules. Only a PUBLIC trade demand is against the rules, a private one is not.
            Should a player have a right to deny a trade then? If you give them a right to demand a trade why not give them a right to deny? What if Derozan told Masai "Tell Spurs that I will not play for them if you trade me?"
            Only one thing matters: We The Champs.

            Comment


            • MixxAOR wrote: View Post

              Wasn't Bosh a sign and trade and we got 2 picks from Miami?
              Yes, though this was back when sign and trades had value. Not anymore.
              twitter.com/dhackett1565

              Comment


              • MixxAOR wrote: View Post

                Should a player have a right to deny a trade then? If you give them a right to demand a trade why not give them a right to deny? What if Derozan told Masai "Tell Spurs that I will not play for them if you trade me?"
                You're just making my point for me. The players actually have LESS rights than the teams right now and you guys want to take even more away from them.

                Comment


                • KeonClark wrote: View Post

                  Because its in the fucking CBA. Trades are part of the entertainment product. They can negotiate a no trade clause if they'd like, but its a part of the professional sport. If guys don't think they wanna stay somewhere long, they're also free to sign shorter deals
                  Lol you didn't answer the question.

                  Why should a team be allowed to trade a player but a player not be allowed to request a trade?

                  I'll keep asking until I get an actual answer to that question. "Because it's the CBA" isn't one because first of all, the CBA doesn't prohibit (nor should it) players from requesting trades, and secondly "because demz the rules" isn't an answer because rules aren't always correct. It was illegal to smoke weed less than a year ago in Canada, justifying that with "because it's illegal" is a non-answer.

                  Comment


                  • golden wrote: View Post

                    Some fans just want to see a bit more loyalty from the idols they emotionally invest in. It's as simple as that.

                    It's not an owner vs. slaves thing. And it has nothing to do with fans wanting to restrict player's freedom of choice in their careers and legally negotiating the best situation for themselves. It's a complex problem. Money alone, is no longer the big swing factor in keeping your franchise player. Players can make that up in other ways, or the lesser amounts are still so massive that it doesn't even matter anymore.

                    That said, OKC's owner has only himself to blame. They tried to low-ball Harden and screwed up a potential dynasty greater than the Warriors. In hindsight, Harden's contract would have been a huge bargain when the salary cap spiked. Why didn't genius GM Presti anticipate that? OKC tried to get Harden to take the the "Spurs Way" discount and it backfired. Same thing is happening with PG and Westbrook - they are thrilled to unload contracts to get out of the tax. There's rich and then there's Ballmer rich.
                    Ok, then hopefully they can acknowledge how hypocritical it is to demand loyalty from players and then at the same time have multiple threads talking about shipping guys out the door for parts, or be celebrating the trade of a guy like DeRozan (who showed the utmost loyalty to the franchise).

                    The non-hypocritical stance is to realize that neither the team NOR the players are required to show "loyalty" to each other. In order to succeed in your basketball career and succeed as a franchise you must act in the interest of your career or in the interest of your franchise. Most fans seem to understand this from the team perspective, but think the players should sit there languishing in a shitty Cleveland franchise (for example) praying that the ownership figures things out (while getting criticized by media for not winning anything).

                    You don't want these guys to move to improve their career prospects but you'll lambast them later for not winning enough. You can't have it both ways.

                    Comment


                    • Shaolin Fantastic wrote: View Post

                      You're just making my point for me. The players actually have LESS rights than the teams right now and you guys want to take even more away from them.
                      Players have different rights. Not every term in a transaction has to be or should be 100% reciprocal. NBA players get massive consideration for signing contracts, including large dollars, term and guaranteed payments. The latter is an extraordinary right. Teams obviously benefit by having that player play for them but they also get certainty that player will be there and, in the case of top players, will be a guy they can build around. The team's ability to trade a player is consideration for the guarantee term and money that they player gets. Perhaps that right should be restricted but, if it is, the players will need to give something as well. And let's not forget that the other thing players get is free agency: the ability to play anywhere that will have them. In exchange, they agree to enter a draft and have their movement restricted for a period of time.

                      Personally, I'm less concerned with the legalities of it and more with whether what we are seeing is good. If a player signs somewhere to win a ring and the team starts rebuilding, then it makes perfect sense to me for that player to say to management that perhaps both sides should move on. That seems perfectly fair and reasonable and right on its face. When a player wants out of a big contract he just signed to go play with a buddy or because someone promised him a movie deal or he made a bad decision, that strikes me as unfair and unreasonable and wrong on its face. I have no problem with Kawhi Leonard going wherever he wants in free agency. I have a big problem with him inducing other players to breach their commitments to third parties.

                      I'm a big believer that things that are built on wrong decisions are doomed to fail even if it all looks good in the short term. Have the recent Leonard and Davis moves broadened competitive balance in the league? Absolutely. Is having star players force their way out of deals to go play in a few select markets while tampering with other teams to force them to sell their players good for the long term health of the league? I would say the answer is no but your mileage may vary.

                      Comment


                      • Shaolin Fantastic wrote: View Post

                        You're just making my point for me. The players actually have LESS rights than the teams right now and you guys want to take even more away from them.
                        They still get paid. Teams don't get anything equivalent of value when superstar requests a trade. We got championship and Spurs got Derozan.
                        Only one thing matters: We The Champs.

                        Comment


                        • MixxAOR wrote: View Post

                          They still get paid. Teams don't get anything equivalent of value when superstar requests a trade. We got championship and Spurs got Derozan.
                          Teams make money off having the players on their team, in the case of superstar players they make SIGNIFICANTLY more than what they pay them to suit up.

                          Hell just by having Kawhi we got probably 7 extra home playoff games. Capacity in the arena is almost 20K and the average ticket price was more than $1000. That's $140M in extra revenue.

                          And that's just ONE area where he boosted us.

                          Comment


                          • If you're fan of big market team you obviously don't have to worry. Farm teams do have to worry.
                            Only one thing matters: We The Champs.

                            Comment


                            • Shaolin Fantastic wrote: View Post

                              Teams make money off having the players on their team, in the case of superstar players they make SIGNIFICANTLY more than what they pay them to suit up.

                              Hell just by having Kawhi we got probably 7 extra home playoff games. Capacity in the arena is almost 20K and the average ticket price was more than $1000. That's $140M in extra revenue.

                              And that's just ONE area where he boosted us.
                              50% of NBA revenue goes to players
                              Only one thing matters: We The Champs.

                              Comment


                              • There is a difference. The team is paying the player. The team that is trading for the player still pays the player. The player gets paid the contract.

                                Unlike most other businesses or services sometimes the player's contract is inflated to adjust for player growth. If the team thinks that they can get more value in a trade than what they are paying player x, they move the player.

                                Typically speaking the team doesn't trade the player that is out preforming the contract.

                                The team trades the player that is being paid to increase their performance but is not (the reason is irrelevant, aging, injury, etc). The team can not get out of the contract if the player doesn't live up to the salary, that is why they are able to trade. The player, regardless of where he plays, or how good he plays, gets paid the salary agreed upon. Therein lies the difference.

                                The players get a king's ransom for a child's game because that child's game gets a ton of exposure. They are what we pay to see. They do have a ton of power, hence why they get such a big cut of bball related income.

                                I don't think people are upset about people demanding trades when they are in the last year of their contract (in fact I think a lot of people are for it, considering you get at least something back). I think people are upset when a player utilizes programs in place to keep players in smaller markets and sign bigger contracts, and then request a trade soon after to go to a bigger market.

                                There is also the issue that players salaries don't always match their ability, or Middleton would never make more than Kawhi. but that's an entirely different issue.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X