Poll: The State of The League

[golden]

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.

Like I said, these are complex issues and I can see both sides. The next CBA negotation could be epic. If I were the owners, I'd be making a play to increase the roster sizes and maybe do some radical things with the salary cap.

The other much bigger thing the owners should be shooting for is to get a portion of a rookie's basketball related endorsement money. It would be an extremely bold and highly contentious move, but entire worth discussing. The NBA has taken decades to painstakingly create a global distribution platform that exposes new products (i.e. rookies) to a worldwide network of consumers. The players and the brands they endorse get free access to this platform as soon as they are drafted into the NBA and then exposed through the various channels... the NBA should be charging a fee, royalty or commission to access this platform. This endorsement money is partially what allows elite players to not even care about the salary advantage offered by the incumbent small market teams who developed them.

Another thing the NBA could consider would be transfer fees, either as real cash or some type of long-term salary cap exception when superstars leave for nothing.

[Shaolin Fantastic]

50% of NBA revenue goes to players

Approximately* 50%, but yep that's correct. However when we're talking about players demanding trades, that's usually the higher end superstar players. And these guys are almost always paid LESS than their actual worth if it was a free and open market system.

[Shaolin Fantastic]

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.

And why don't you have a problem with a team doing the opposite of this? Blake Griffin signed with the Clippers because he wanted to be in LA. A few months later (according to you lot) they "dishonor" that contract and ship him off to Detroit.

Why is there no issue with that but there is an issue with a player demanding a trade?

[DanH]

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

Very few players are eligible to negotiate a no-trade clause.

[golden]

They still get paid. Teams don't get anything equivalent of value when superstar requests a trade. We got championship and Spurs got Derozan.

OKC got the equivalent return of 2 superstars, even though they only traded one player - a historic haul, many have said.

And people seem to think that the Pelicans got a king's ransom for AD......that's a haul, folks. Those are the last 2 superstars who requested trades.

For the Spurs, they could have held onto Kawhi and then played the Lakers and Clippers off against each other during the season and/or the trade deadline, with a few more teams in there just to run up the bids.... just like OKC did. That's on the Spurs front office for being incompetent. They haven't really made any great trades or drafts since Kawhi.... 8 years ago.

[Shaolin Fantastic]

OKC got the equivalent return of 2 superstars, even though they only traded one player - a historic haul, many have said.

And people seem to think that the Pelicans got a king's ransom for AD......that's a haul, folks. Those are the last 2 superstars who requested trades.

For the Spurs, they could have held onto Kawhi and then played the Lakers and Clippers off against each other during the season and/or the trade deadline, with a few more teams in there just to run up the bids.... just like OKC did. That's on the Spurs front office for being incompetent. They haven't really made any great trades or drafts since Kawhi.... 8 years ago.

This is my point. Even when a player requests a trade, a team still has a ton of leverage to make the most of that situation.

Hell if anything it's actually even better if the player requests it earlier in their contract because it means the team can get even more back for them (like the George situation).

[MixxAOR]

OKC got the equivalent return of 2 superstars, even though they only traded one player - a historic haul, many have said.

And people seem to think that the Pelicans got a king's ransom for AD......that's a haul, folks. Those are the last 2 superstars who requested trades.

For the Spurs, they could have held onto Kawhi and then played the Lakers and Clippers off against each other during the season and/or the trade deadline, with a few more teams in there just to run up the bids.... just like OKC did. That's on the Spurs front office for being incompetent. They haven't really made any great trades or drafts since Kawhi.... 8 years ago.

4 quarters don't make a dollar in NBA like one man said.

[planetmars]

And why don't you have a problem with a team doing the opposite of this? Blake Griffin signed with the Clippers because he wanted to be in LA. A few months later (according to you lot) they "dishonor" that contract and ship him off to Detroit.

Why is there no issue with that but there is an issue with a player demanding a trade?

What LA did was pretty crappy. And I get it when people were pissed off at Masai for trading DeMar (the loyal Raptor) I get that side of the argument.. but I'm a Raptor fan.. I've been following the Raptors a lot longer than I've been following DeMar. So I'm on the Raptors side generally. I think that makes sense right? Most of us are Raptors fans (or should be or else what are they doing on RR lol).

Obviously you care more about the players than the team. Must suck for you when your favourite player is no longer playing on your favourite team. That's the price to pay for being on that side of the fence.

Trust me if Paul George demanded out of OKC to play in Toronto.. I'd welcome him with open arms and wouldn't be sad at all for OKC or their fans.

[Shaolin Fantastic]

What LA did was pretty crappy. And I get it when people were pissed off at Masai for trading DeMar (the loyal Raptor) I get that side of the argument.. but I'm a Raptor fan.. I've been following the Raptors a lot longer than I've been following DeMar. So I'm on the Raptors side generally. I think that makes sense right? Most of us are Raptors fans (or should be or else what are they doing on RR lol).

Obviously you care more about the players than the team. Must suck for you when your favourite player is no longer playing on your favourite team. That's the price to pay for being on that side of the fence.

Trust me if Paul George demanded out of OKC to play in Toronto.. I'd welcome him with open arms and wouldn't be sad at all for OKC or their fans.

Ok so your motivations are purely selfish based off the bold and not principled at all. Congrats on torpedoing your entire argument.

And no I don't care more about the players than the team. I was gutted that Kawhi decided to leave and was really hoping he'd stay. But I also understand that it's within his rights to do what he thinks is best for his career. I was also the first one here saying we should ship DeRozan out the door to get Kawhi, despite him being my favourite player on the team.

[planetmars]

Ok so your motivations are purely selfish based off the bold and not principled at all. Congrats on torpedoing your entire argument.

And no I don't care more about the players than the team. I was gutted that Kawhi decided to leave and was really hoping he'd stay. But I also understand that it's within his rights to do what he thinks is best for his career. I was also the first one here saying we should ship DeRozan out the door to get Kawhi, despite him being my favourite player on the team.

Right my motivations are selfish.. like I said.. I will be happy if it benefits the Raptors not the players on the Raptors. Like I love Lowry.. but he's 33 and getting older. On a one year deal. I wouldn't mind trading him to get some youth/assets back. I'm a dick head.

And if you were okay to ship DeMar for Kawhi... than why do you care what most of us think when we're pissed off at players wanting to get traded? I mean we're basically a small market team. No free agent signs here.. No big star demands to be traded to the Raptors. So why take a side that hurts the Raptors? Shouldn't you want changes to the CBA to help the Raptors?

[Joey]

What LA did was pretty crappy. And I get it when people were pissed off at Masai for trading DeMar (the loyal Raptor) I get that side of the argument.. but I'm a Raptor fan.. I've been following the Raptors a lot longer than I've been following DeMar. So I'm on the Raptors side generally. I think that makes sense right? Most of us are Raptors fans (or should be or else what are they doing on RR lol).

Obviously you care more about the players than the team. Must suck for you when your favourite player is no longer playing on your favourite team. That's the price to pay for being on that side of the fence.

Trust me if Paul George demanded out of OKC to play in Toronto.. I'd welcome him with open arms and wouldn't be sad at all for OKC or their fans.

I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's a matter of where your allegiances lie at all ... I think it's just the general double-standard / hypocrisy displayed by those who trash the players for looking after their own best interests, but then turning a blind eye when Teams do the same, that some are taking issue with.

If you have no issue with teams trading players a few months after they signed the contract, or just generally "moving on" from a player, then you shouldn't have an issue when a player moves in FA, or requests a trade. Or vice versa.

That all being said, I think it is something that will be addressed in future CBAs and I will support it.

[Shaolin Fantastic]

I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's a matter of where your allegiances lie at all ... I think it's just the general double-standard / hypocrisy displayed by those who trash the players for looking after their own best interests, but then turning a blind eye when Teams do the same, that some are taking issue with.

If you have no issue with teams trading players a few months after they signed the contract, or just generally "moving on" from a player, then you shouldn't have an issue when a player moves in FA, or requests a trade. Or vice versa.

That all being said, I think it is something that will be addressed in future CBAs and I will support it.

Bingo.

[suspenders]

Shaolin, I get what you're saying. That being said, my thoughts are that the players depend on the league more than the league depends on specific players. The players are still getting paid regardless of where they are being shipped off to - and compared to the average population, are paid extremely well.

If the league and owners decided that players "can't" demand trades, and the elite players (i.e. Durant, Lebron, Curry...etc.) decided they'll sit out, those elite players have much more to lose than the owners. Will revenues get hurt? Sure, but by how much? There are still a lot of fans who want to see their "team" win, regardless of who's on the team. Sure, we get emotionally invested in players as well, but we also want to see our team win.

Also, with so many people wanting to play basketball, I'm sure the league will find other players who will willingly want to play for them, and who are amazing, regardless of a potentially new CBA that could seek out to limit some of these players rights.

There's a lot more that can be said, but I'm trying to be as concise as possible.

[Joey]

Shaolin, I get what you're saying. That being said, my thoughts are that the players depend on the league more than the league depends on specific players.

We had this debate here for many months when we had the lockout however many years ago, and I still think it's 50-50, right down the middle. There's no one without the other in my opinion. And the ultimate outcome of the CBA generally reflects that.

[planetmars]

I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's a matter of where your allegiances lie at all ... I think it's just the general double-standard / hypocrisy displayed by those who trash the players for looking after their own best interests, but then turning a blind eye when Teams do the same, that some are taking issue with.

If you have no issue with teams trading players a few months after they signed the contract, or just generally "moving on" from a player, then you shouldn't have an issue when a player moves in FA, or requests a trade. Or vice versa.

That all being said, I think it is something that will be addressed in future CBAs and I will support it.

People trashed West and Masai too though. I know plenty of people that were seriously mad at Masai for trading DeMar for Kawhi even though it was for Kawhi and made the team better. And that's my stance.. I'm more pissed off if the player wants out of Toronto to play somewhere else, because I know the reversed won't likely happen. So I gravitate towards the teams that lose their asset/star because it's personal. As a fan base we've seen stars leave us. But we've never seen a star want to come here.