Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Poll: The State of The League

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

  • #91
    slaw wrote: View Post

    What? Absolutely no one is saying that. Players can go anywhere they want.... in free agency. Free agents can get together and pick a place to go. I haven't seen a single person opposed to that. What people are opposed to is players not honoring the contracts they sign and, two, third parties (other teams or their employees) conspiring with players under contract to break their current obligations.
    It's a bit of a bias on the existing system though. We accept that teams can trade players whenever they feel like it, even though both sides signed that contract, because that's the way the rules currently work.

    Shaolin is probably trying to view things without that existing framework. Removing the way things are done now, why does it make sense to have a system where two parties sign a contract, but only one party has the power to move that contract off when they don't want it anymore?

    If teams are free to trade players, why wouldn't players be free to request trades? It's not like free agency is the balance to this, where the player can force a team to sign him if they don't want to, while players are free to choose their teams. In free agency, players can choose their teams, and teams can choose their players. In trades, by the rules, teams get to choose their players, while players don't have any choice.

    One can certainly argue that it's what they sign up for when they sign their contracts, and, sure. That is indeed the way the system is now. But the way the system is now is also the system that is very accommodating toward those trade requests. So if we're talking about changing the system to prevent this stuff from happening, then the larger discussion of which way it SHOULD be seems to be more relevant.
    twitter.com/dhackett1565

    Comment


    • #92
      DanH wrote: View Post

      One can certainly argue that it's what they sign up for when they sign their contracts, and, sure. That is indeed the way the system is now. But the way the system is now is also the system that is very accommodating toward those trade requests. So if we're talking about changing the system to prevent this stuff from happening, then the larger discussion of which way it SHOULD be seems to be more relevant.
      I can't speak for others but, for me, the issue is the tampering. There's a reason we have hundreds of years of laws concerning interference with contract.

      My objection to the players demanding out is more an ethical one than a legal one - I believe that one should honor his commitments. When you have a system where people come to see honoring their commitments as optional, you will eventually have a problem. As for the corollary - teams trading players - I view it in much the same light. But you can't throw away a basic framework of North American sports and expect all else will be equal. Players get paid big amounts of money and part of the bargain is that the team can both rely on that service and trade the player if he doesn't perform. Take those parts of the equation away and the money part won't stay the same....

      Comment


      • #93
        A writeup on Adam Silver comments regarding recent tampering and trade demands ....

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...=.c4d1bafd249f

        Comment


        • #94
          DanH wrote: View Post

          It's a bit of a bias on the existing system though. We accept that teams can trade players whenever they feel like it, even though both sides signed that contract, because that's the way the rules currently work.

          Shaolin is probably trying to view things without that existing framework. Removing the way things are done now, why does it make sense to have a system where two parties sign a contract, but only one party has the power to move that contract off when they don't want it anymore?

          If teams are free to trade players, why wouldn't players be free to request trades? It's not like free agency is the balance to this, where the player can force a team to sign him if they don't want to, while players are free to choose their teams. In free agency, players can choose their teams, and teams can choose their players. In trades, by the rules, teams get to choose their players, while players don't have any choice.

          One can certainly argue that it's what they sign up for when they sign their contracts, and, sure. That is indeed the way the system is now. But the way the system is now is also the system that is very accommodating toward those trade requests. So if we're talking about changing the system to prevent this stuff from happening, then the larger discussion of which way it SHOULD be seems to be more relevant.
          Right, however in the current system if the player is good enough, and they agree upon it, they can have a no trade clause.

          So in the current system a player can get a no trade clause, but a team can't require a player to fulfil his contract (if they request a trade). Also when a trade request is made public the team which the player is currently playing for; can get taken out at the knees at what they can get back for said player. (although the davis and george trades were hauls by new orleans and okc)

          In a sport where a top 5-7 player can completely change a team, I don't think it's irrational to think that at the next collective bargaining meetings that something that helps the teams (especially smaller markets) will be discussed.

          Comment


          • #95
            Shredder wrote: View Post

            Right, however in the current system if the player is good enough, and they agree upon it, they can have a no trade clause.

            So in the current system a player can get a no trade clause, but a team can't require a player to fulfil his contract (if they request a trade). Also when a trade request is made public the team which the player is currently playing for; can get taken out at the knees at what they can get back for said player. (although the davis and george trades were hauls by new orleans and okc)

            In a sport where a top 5-7 player can completely change a team, I don't think it's irrational to think that at the next collective bargaining meetings that something that helps the teams (especially smaller markets) will be discussed.
            Well, no. If a player is good enough, and they agree to it, AND have 8 years experience, AND 4 of those 8 years are with the team they are signing the contract with, then they can negotiate a no-trade clause.

            The team can absolutely require a player to fulfill his contract. They are 100% able to do that. But teams are far better off acquiescing and getting value out of a trade, so that's what they do. What benefit is there to them in forcing the player to continue to play for the team, or docking their wages if they don't want to? Does anyone imagine that would actually benefit teams?

            In a sport where a top 5-7 player can completely change a team, you simply can't take away that power from the players. It is impossible.

            There are already rules about public trade requests. But if the trade request is "private" but leaks (intentionally), do you punish the player? What if the rule is that the player can't be traded if they leak a trade request? Wouldn't the team just leak the request and blame the player, ensuring the player is stuck there? Or a player doesn't want to be traded, could they not leak a fabricated trade request? What punishment for the player short of denying the request would be effective?
            twitter.com/dhackett1565

            Comment


            • #96
              DanH wrote: View Post

              Well, no. If a player is good enough, and they agree to it, AND have 8 years experience, AND 4 of those 8 years are with the team they are signing the contract with, then they can negotiate a no-trade clause.

              The team can absolutely require a player to fulfill his contract. They are 100% able to do that. But teams are far better off acquiescing and getting value out of a trade, so that's what they do. What benefit is there to them in forcing the player to continue to play for the team, or docking their wages if they don't want to? Does anyone imagine that would actually benefit teams?

              In a sport where a top 5-7 player can completely change a team, you simply can't take away that power from the players. It is impossible.

              There are already rules about public trade requests. But if the trade request is "private" but leaks (intentionally), do you punish the player? What if the rule is that the player can't be traded if they leak a trade request? Wouldn't the team just leak the request and blame the player, ensuring the player is stuck there? Or a player doesn't want to be traded, could they not leak a fabricated trade request? What punishment for the player short of denying the request would be effective?
              Fair I didn't realize that there was more to no-trades than just being good enough. I should have known better going against you good sir.

              I also agree that it would be tough to enforce.

              I also agree that forcing a player to play, could result in a situation we had with Vince. In that he didn't play to his ability and the we got stiffed on the trade. Afterwards he lit it up again proving he was just sulking.

              For the record I'm not mad that Kawhi went home. We knew what we were getting into when we traded for him. He lived up to his obligations, we got a Larry OB, We lived up to ours, gave him the ultimate resigning pitch. He still choose to go home. Can't fault him for that.

              I'm a little bit more concerned with the George and Davis deals. Both team got hauls, but how can you celebrate a player resigning and then requesting a trade halfway(or before) through the deal.

              A sticky subject that doesn't have a clear path to resolution (for all parties)

              Comment


              • #97
                Why does everybody keep callng PG's trade request a "demand"? Let's say it all together now..... re-quest. OKC had no vested interest in making Kawhi happy. They could have let Kawhi go the Lakers and whole situation goes away.

                Even if PG's request became public, it gets swept under the rug like a million other off-season rumours. Bottom-line: OKC liked the trade package from the Clips and loved the tax relief even more, so they took it. Simple as that.
                Last edited by golden; Wed Jul 10th, 2019, 04:57 PM.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Here's something to consider too we comparing "team traded player without him wanting it" vs "player asked to be traded out without the team wanting it".

                  When the player signs a multi-year contract, his salary is guaranteed. Doesn't matter where he plays, doesn't matter if he produces on the court at the expected level, most of the time doesn't matter if he's injured and not playing either. He'll get paid no matter what, for as long as he signed for originally. He will get that security, term, and financial stability regardless.

                  When a franchise top 7 player asks to be traded out, the team is usually left scrambling. Yes, they can sometimes still get a boatload of picks and prospects for it, but the reality is those are all unknowns that you can only hope it would turn into the very thing you lost: a top 7 player. A lot of times you can't even get said boatloads of picks and prospects because the player is very specific about where they want to play, crippling the teams leverage on the forced trade.

                  "Term" on a contract is as valuable as money a lot of times. It's what gives people and organizations the security to plan ahead. That's true if you're an NBA player, an NBA team, a tenant, or a landlord. Right now players can always get term, but teams can't never get it, since you can ask out any time and take your guaranteed money with you.
                  2019 NBA Champions. Glad to have doubted the doubters.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Shaolin Fantastic wrote: View Post
                    Genuinely don't see an issue with any of this. People just want players to be restricted and bend to their will. Very, very suspect attitude towards them.
                    Because when you sign a contract you ought to honour it. It’s a nature of the sport to be traded, it’s the same as exercising your agency when your contract is up. What’s wrong is demanding a trade and dragging another guy out of his team too. We don’t want players to be unreasonably restricted but as I’ve said before they are professional athletes, they live in a different world than us.

                    Comment


                    • golden wrote: View Post
                      Why does everybody keep callng PG's trade request a "demand"? Let's say it all together now..... re-quest. OKC had no vested interest in making Kawhi happy. They could have let Kawhi go the Lakers and whole situation goes away.

                      Even if PG's request became public, it gets swept under the rug like a million other off-season rumours. Bottom-line: OKC liked the trade package from the Clips and loved the tax relief even more, so they took it. Simple as that.
                      Do help me understand your position here because I am not getting your take from the sequence of reporting I have read.

                      To my vantage, neither "a request" nor "a demand" has been articulated/made public because no one is talking. I do believe that like the VC case one can infer strongly that the PG wanted out to join Kawhi with the Clips. He asked to be traded. This is semantics to make a fine point on the terms "asked", "demanded" and "requested". What does one believe would have occurred if Presti told PG or his agent to take a hike? The same I believe as with VC. And we know how that ended. Wish we had Presti instead of Babcock.

                      To Presti's credit, his nimble of mind as well as a two season experience of PG & Westbrook faiure... he decided that he had made a mistake and that this was a fortuitous occurrence ... the "request". The cap relief reasoning doesn't seem plausible since he would have known an upcoming crunch when he re-signed PG just a year previously. We have no idea now what the personal dynamics were between PG and Westbrook. In any case Presti went to work to pit the Raptors against the Clips and make the most of events.. At some point it seems Masai smelled something afoul and pulled out but not before Presti squeezed a great haul from the Clips.

                      I have read/heard that PG was actually Kawhi's 4th choice ... after Kyrie, KD, Butler. How about that? And imv he wasn't going anywhere other than the Clips. But that would be confirmation I am sure we shall hear another time. You were correct in another post ... wouldn't want to play poker with KL ...which reminds me of that pic of him in Vegas after the win ...at a Bingo table or was it BJ?

                      Imo, that was a "veiled threat" couched as a request by PG's agent to Presti. If Presti had refused he would be unsure of how his team would perform in '20 ... he couldn't take the chance. I am just glad Masai did not bite if for nothing else he as well was unsure whether Kawhi would have signed in TO even if PG were acquired here. Both Presti & Masai acted in the best interests of their respective orgs.

                      A new understanding needs to be resolved going forward on both the tampering and contractual obligation issues. Having the most valuable of your commodity decide midway thru an agreed obligation that their goals would be better achieved elsewhere is ethically suspect and unfair to the team and org. involved.

                      On a personal note, I have always assumed that there was a kinship and bond formed on a championship level team or even one trying to but failing to achieve that status. Times have changed that now many seem to think nothing of it to just decide he wants to leave in the middle of his commitment and virtually upset the hopes and dreams of the other members.

                      Comment


                      • Bendit wrote: View Post

                        Do help me understand your position here because I am not getting your take from the sequence of reporting I have read.

                        To my vantage, neither "a request" nor "a demand" has been articulated/made public because no one is talking. I do believe that like the VC case one can infer strongly that the PG wanted out to join Kawhi with the Clips. He asked to be traded. This is semantics to make a fine point on the terms "asked", "demanded" and "requested". What does one believe would have occurred if Presti told PG or his agent to take a hike? The same I believe as with VC. And we know how that ended. Wish we had Presti instead of Babcock.

                        To Presti's credit, his nimble of mind as well as a two season experience of PG & Westbrook faiure... he decided that he had made a mistake and that this was a fortuitous occurrence ... the "request". The cap relief reasoning doesn't seem plausible since he would have known an upcoming crunch when he re-signed PG just a year previously. We have no idea now what the personal dynamics were between PG and Westbrook. In any case Presti went to work to pit the Raptors against the Clips and make the most of events.. At some point it seems Masai smelled something afoul and pulled out but not before Presti squeezed a great haul from the Clips.

                        I have read/heard that PG was actually Kawhi's 4th choice ... after Kyrie, KD, Butler. How about that? And imv he wasn't going anywhere other than the Clips. But that would be confirmation I am sure we shall hear another time. You were correct in another post ... wouldn't want to play poker with KL ...which reminds me of that pic of him in Vegas after the win ...at a Bingo table or was it BJ?

                        Imo, that was a "veiled threat" couched as a request by PG's agent to Presti. If Presti had refused he would be unsure of how his team would perform in '20 ... he couldn't take the chance. I am just glad Masai did not bite if for nothing else he as well was unsure whether Kawhi would have signed in TO even if PG were acquired here. Both Presti & Masai acted in the best interests of their respective orgs.

                        A new understanding needs to be resolved going forward on both the tampering and contractual obligation issues. Having the most valuable of your commodity decide midway thru an agreed obligation that their goals would be better achieved elsewhere is ethically suspect and unfair to the team and org. involved.

                        On a personal note, I have always assumed that there was a kinship and bond formed on a championship level team or even one trying to but failing to achieve that status. Times have changed that now many seem to think nothing of it to just decide he wants to leave in the middle of his commitment and virtually upset the hopes and dreams of the other members.
                        People are moaning that PG somehow violated his contract. He did no such thing. The trade “request” was widely reported by Woj with direct Presti quotes. OKC didn’t have to play ball... they did so far too willingly as to make one believe that they wanted this outcome just as bad.

                        And technically, Kawhi wasn’t tampering because he was a free agent not attached to any team when he contacted PG.

                        As per kinship and team bonding... ask Derozan how he feels about that.

                        Comment


                        • golden wrote: View Post

                          People are moaning that PG somehow violated his contract. He did no such thing. The trade “request” was widely reported by Woj with direct Presti quotes. OKC didn’t have to play ball... they did so far too willingly as to make one believe that they wanted this outcome just as bad.

                          And technically, Kawhi wasn’t tampering because he was a free agent not attached to any team when he contacted PG.

                          As per kinship and team bonding... ask Derozan how he feels about that.
                          PG did not violate his contract in a legal sense. By his request he forced Presti's hand.

                          What was Presti supposed to tell WOJ? He has a business/team to run into the next phase. Like I wrote, it was a fortuitous "request"...his team wasn't working... please don't tell me he saw it coming. He could not say "no" even if he wanted to.

                          I did not mention Kawhi & "tampering" ... he recruited all free agents until they had other plans and settled on George. I'll let the NBA decide if that was tampering which will be an issue I am sure to be discussed at meetings.

                          I'd like to know what PG's OKC teammates feel about his departure. He dumped them.

                          I would think you'd notice the difference between PG taking off on a dime and a absolutely normal trade of DD for a superior talent. Multiple OKC teammates being pissed while apart from Lowry & DD (?) the closest of friends. Wonder how many are dissatisfied with the DD trade ...then & especially now.

                          Comment


                          • Bendit wrote: View Post

                            A new understanding needs to be resolved going forward on both the tampering and contractual obligation issues.
                            Here's how you do it:

                            On tampering: Ignore it.
                            On contracts: Enforce it.

                            Nothing can be done about tampering. Nothing can prevent two players from different teams getting together for a BBQ on a cottage somewhere and talk about their future together. To me that's actually fine, and should be within the players rights , as long as they honour what they signed up for at the present time.

                            That's why you need crystal clear contracts. To me you should either have (a) double no-trade clauses (neither player nor team initiate trades) or (b) open ended contracts (either team or player can ask for a trade). Pick one and stick to it.

                            If you think you're a hotshot player, just sign 1yr deals and be a perpetual free agent. Do it right out of college, don't even put your name on the draft. If you like the security of term and guaranteed money though, which most do, sign with term, and wait for free-agency. Term works both ways.

                            In an ideal system, if hypothetically Zion just wanted to play in LA, he wouldn't put his name on the draft. Be a free-agent right outta college, and wait for the offer from LA, OR put his name on the draft for the security of term and time to figure out who he can really be on the NBA, THEN go where he wants in free agency. As it is, there's nothing preventing him from saying 1 year form now "thank you Pelicans for the confidence and for the guaranteed money, but now that I know who I am in the NBA, I want to go to LA. Sorry you used your No1 pick on me but you're gonna have to start over looking for top-end talent".
                            2019 NBA Champions. Glad to have doubted the doubters.

                            Comment


                            • Shredder wrote: View Post
                              There should be a team no trade clause. Not built into every contract, but could be used as another option. We already have, player option, team option, no trade clause for the player. The team should get something similar, especially when signing a player to a max or super max contract.

                              If a team is planning on building around a max player, that max player should be there for them to build.

                              It shouldn't be an option. Full no trade to the team's option and benefit on all max and super max contracts. Sounds good to me.
                              Hell, no trade demands during ANY valid contract year. Don't like it? Sign 1 year deals.....or see if you can get a month to month

                              Comment


                              • How about just a financial penalty if a player demands a trade? If player X makes 30 million a year and has signed a contract for 4 season. If they demand a trade in the first year of a 4 year deal they have to sacrifice 40% of the yearly contract for the length of the deal which will be returned to the team. Year 2 30 %. Year 3 20% and year 4 10%. In fariness the team who trade a player in the first year of a big contract (Ex>blake griffin in LAC). They would have to pay an extra amount of money to the player on the same scale. This would only apply to player who have signed a max or super max contract.
                                To be the champs you got to beat the champs

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X