Poll: The State of The League

[DanH]

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".

Yeah, but that's basically what they have. Teams can trade players. Players can request trades.

[golden]

Speaking of tampering....

https://beta.canada.com/sports/baske...a1de0d979/amp/

It’s here that we might point out that Clippers owner Steve Ballmer is worth somewhere around $50 billion U.S. We’ll put this as delicately as possible. Free agency and tampering in the NBA continues to spin out of control and it’s all but impossible to enforce gifts or promises to family members. There’s no evidence to suggest that happened here, just that it wouldn’t shock anyone in this day and age, given the deep pockets of some owners.

Add to that Bruce Arthur's recent interview where he said that people around the team knew that Uncle Dennis was in constant contact with the Clippers from when he started travelling with the team (during the Sixers series). Uncle Dennis is a high level banker, by profession. Steve Ballmer is richer than god. Off-shore accounts exist. You do the math.

[LJ2]

Surprise, surprise, uncle Dennis isn't a genuine, nice fella.

Has any of what has now transpired with Kawhi changed peoples minds about what really went down in San Antonio? Was he forcing his way out of San Antonio or an actual loss of trust with the organization?

[Apollo]

Has any of what has now transpired with Kawhi changed peoples minds about what really went down in San Antonio? Was he forcing his way out of San Antonio or an actual loss of trust with the organization?

No because you're talking conspiracy theories. 3rd party doctors diagnosed differently. Their reputation is on the line.

[golden]

Surprise, surprise, uncle Dennis isn't a genuine, nice fella.

Has any of what has now transpired with Kawhi changed peoples minds about what really went down in San Antonio? Was he forcing his way out of San Antonio or an actual loss of trust with the organization?

Yeah, I fell hook, line and sinker for Uncle Dennis bromance with Masai. In hindsight, it does seem a tad over the top. However, I do believe that Uncle Dennis was genuinely thrilled with Masai, but probably because it allowed him to jack up his fee to Ballmer for delivering Kawhi.

[Bendit]

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".

A good stab at the issue. The NBA is the most forward looking N American pro league I believe. And Adam Silver a most progressive commissioner.

Compensation being the primary source of conflict between most/all working groups and their bosses, my sense is this aspect has been handled quite well in terms of revenue sharing in the NBA.

Further it also seems that the important "free agency" matter is also mostly acceptable. But what we now have is the creep of player-managed movement arrangements coming up hard against some fundamental tenets of operational and league management processes ...namely the draft and trades. It seems to me that these are inviolable aspects to maintaining fairness in the process of the distribution of talent within the league. Where it becomes even more so critical is that the small market teams (I exclude badly managed teams and admittedly cannot come up with metrics to define this) need to be protected in order not to degrade a league into the "haves" and the "have nots" franchise groups. Parity too is an aspect in this.

I don't know how a league can be successful if certain tactics are employed both by ownership or players (the elites) to get an edge on their other respective group participants by circumventing defined rules which everyone has bought into via the CBA. Maybe this needs to be tightened up/more clearly stated with penalties.

I come at this from a simple place. When parties sign a contract .... please fulfill it ...unless both parties agree to end it without coercion. Fans also have certain rules which most have to follow in their own more "mundane" lives or at some point come to lose interest.

[slaw]

Speaking of tampering....

https://beta.canada.com/sports/baske...a1de0d979/amp/



Add to that Bruce Arthur's recent interview where he said that people around the team knew that Uncle Dennis was in constant contact with the Clippers from when he started travelling with the team (during the Sixers series). Uncle Dennis is a high level banker, by profession. Steve Ballmer is richer than god. Off-shore accounts exist. You do the math.

That's not only breaking the CBA, though, that's likely tax fraud, etc. cause you'd have to hide those payments from the authorities otherwise the NBA would know and it would leak like a sieve. Not saying it couldn't happen but it would be a dangerous game, particularly in the US where they actually prosecute stuff like that (unlike Canada, for example).

[RaptorsVictim]

The NBA is pure business, nothing more.

[inthepaint]

Yeah, but that's basically what they have. Teams can trade players. Players can request trades.

That's right, which is why almost every year lately you got either a player being moved against his will, or a top player (non free agent) asking out early leaving the franchise hanging. "Term" on the contract doesn't mean anything at the moment, as the purpose of "term" in the real sense is to give some predictability/security to both player and team. As it is though, both can get canned early.

The difference is the player will take his guaranteed money regardless of where they go, whereas the team losing a top 10 player outside free agency is left short. So in a sense, players can still get the security of "term" (they'll get their pre-arranged money no matter what), but teams don't (they don't get a "guarantee" top 10 player back)

[golden]

That's right, which is why almost every year lately you got either a player being moved against his will, or a top player (non free agent) asking out early leaving the franchise hanging. "Term" on the contract doesn't mean anything at the moment, as the purpose of "term" in the real sense is to give some predictability/security to both player and team. As it is though, both can get canned early.

The difference is the player will take his guaranteed money regardless of where they go, whereas the team losing a top 10 player outside free agency is left short. So in a sense, players can still get the security of "term" (they'll get their pre-arranged money no matter what), but teams don't (they don't get a "guarantee" top 10 player back)

One thing the league could consider might be transfer fees, like European football, or to create large/long-term cap exceptions when a top player leaves for nothing.

[The Great One]

Speaking of tampering....

https://beta.canada.com/sports/baske...a1de0d979/amp/



Add to that Bruce Arthur's recent interview where he said that people around the team knew that Uncle Dennis was in constant contact with the Clippers from when he started travelling with the team (during the Sixers series). Uncle Dennis is a high level banker, by profession. Steve Ballmer is richer than god. Off-shore accounts exist. You do the math.

God i hate that smug looking little piece of shit.

[inthepaint]

One thing the league could consider might be transfer fees, like European football, or to create large/long-term cap exceptions when a top player leaves for nothing.

Yeah I could see something like that working. Cap space is really valuable in the NBA, so that could help offset the loss of a top player under contract. They won't be able to take anything away from players, so offsetting some of the loss suffered by the teams when franchise players asks out before their term by making up for them somehow (without hurting the player) might be the way to go.

[DanH]

That's right, which is why almost every year lately you got either a player being moved against his will, or a top player (non free agent) asking out early leaving the franchise hanging. "Term" on the contract doesn't mean anything at the moment, as the purpose of "term" in the real sense is to give some predictability/security to both player and team. As it is though, both can get canned early.

The difference is the player will take his guaranteed money regardless of where they go, whereas the team losing a top 10 player outside free agency is left short. So in a sense, players can still get the security of "term" (they'll get their pre-arranged money no matter what), but teams don't (they don't get a "guarantee" top 10 player back)

Yeah, but this is simplifying it in a biased way.

You could just as easily say the team can duck the money they owe the player by trading him elsewhere, but the player has to play basketball somewhere for the duration of the contract.

Yes, the player gets his guaranteed money. Yes, the player has to play basketball for that money. Yes, the team can trade the player, even though the team was supposed to be the one paying the player. Yes, the player can ask to be traded, even though that team was the one the player was supposed to be playing for.

It's an incredibly equal situation right now. It's only unequal if you choose to view it as one side getting a guarantee they really aren't getting. Neither side truly makes a commitment to the other. And unless you fix it so both sides are fully committed with no recourse (something neither side wants), there is not much logic to a system where the team can bail on their commitments (by transferring them to another team) while the player cannot.

[slaw]

Yeah, but this is simplifying it in a biased way.

You could just as easily say the team can duck the money they owe the player by trading him elsewhere, but the player has to play basketball somewhere for the duration of the contract.

Yes, the player gets his guaranteed money. Yes, the player has to play basketball for that money. Yes, the team can trade the player, even though the team was supposed to be the one paying the player. Yes, the player can ask to be traded, even though that team was the one the player was supposed to be playing for.

It's an incredibly equal situation right now. It's only unequal if you choose to view it as one side getting a guarantee they really aren't getting. Neither side truly makes a commitment to the other. And unless you fix it so both sides are fully committed with no recourse (something neither side wants), there is not much logic to a system where the team can bail on their commitments (by transferring them to another team) while the player cannot.

The right to get out of the contract via trade isn't the only consideration in play. It isn't an incredibly equal situation unless you view that as the sole contractual term. It isn't. And, even if a movement right was the only consideration, it isn't equal in the sense that the risk to the team is far greater than the risk to a player. The player only needs to worry about himself. He will get paid either way and will be able to play. The team, on the other hand, could have its entire billion dollar organization thrown into chaos for years.

And the bolded part is absolutely false. Both sides do make a binding, enforceable commitment to each other. Do people not know what a contract is? Fuck, I'm glad I don't do business with some people on this board.

"Hey, let's sign a 5-year $200 million agreement!"
"Excellent, we will re-organize our affairs and all our business plans to accommodate that."
One year later.
"Meh, just kidding. I don't really feel like doing it anymore. I want to do a better deal with another company."
"?????"

[Apollo]

The reaction to a superstar trade request from 99.9999999% of the league is to hold an auction. OKC made a secret trade under the cover of darkness. Nobody was twisting their arms to do that. Ownership didn't want the backlash from the fanbase to lobby them to change their minds or PGs. Trading an All-NBA player this fast without anybody knowing has never happened before. OKC wanted badly to do it.

In the NFL teams get compensatory picks. Not to mention they have the franchise tag which they can use to continually block a player from leaving by giving them high price one year deals.