2019 Offseason Thread

[dtgold88]

you guys are nuts.

its a game. The league has anti-trust exemptions because it is a game. Part of the attracation of that game is that trading is allowed in the league. If you want to- you can negotiate a no-trade clause into your contract. A player could without a doubt take a pay-cut to get a no trade clause if they wanted to--- or to have a no-trade clause that limits the teams they could get traded to.

A contract is about 2 things--- the team- whoever it is- agrees to pay you- and you agree to play and try and help the team win.

If you want the flexibility- sign a shorter contract- or negotiate a no trade clause.

But if you are able to talk you can ask the team to trade you...they are allowed to say no. And, sometimes, trading the player helps the team.

 

[CitySushi]

Its wrong for the player to want the security without honoring the commitment.

Economics of basketball make it different than real world applications, imo. But like I said we have two different view points on which side we stand on in terms of the player movement.

 

[dtgold88]

Its wrong for the player to want the security without honoring the commitment.


I am a bit concerned though, that @WiggyRuss and I agree on this.

It's not really wrong for anyone to want anything. doesn't mean one should have/get it.

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

It's not really wrong for anyone to want anything. doesn't mean one should have/get it.

In general, yes, but NBA is not like most circumstances.

A cancer in a locker room can spread very quickly.

Like I suggested, they want bonuses if they’re traded, then they should refund if they ask to be traded.

 

[dtgold88]

In general, yes, but NBA is not like most circumstances.

A cancer in a locker room can spread very quickly.

Like I suggested, they want bonuses if they’re traded, then they should refund if they ask to be traded.

seems fair.....if they are moved.

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

Economics of basketball make it different than real world applications, imo. But like I said we have two different view points on which side we stand on in terms of the player movement.

Isn’t that why contracts have many different terms and conditions?

In real life, you better read the fine print, or have someone that understands explain it to you before you sign.

 

[CitySushi]

Isn’t that why contracts have many different terms and conditions?

In real life, you better read the fine print, or have someone that understands explain it to you before you sign.

Yes but again the applications of an NBA job versus a real world job is a night and day difference.

No it's a supremely limited job field that also has a restriction on earning potential. Its not a truly free market. The salary cap and CBA prevent players from truly earning what they are worth. Lebron James his entire career has been GROSSLY underpaid. So no matter how valuable you are to an organization, there is a limit to what they can pay you. In a real world market place if you were truly that valuable you could choose your destination and salary.

In the NBA, you're not only restricted in how much money you make, but how many actual suitors have the ability to give you X amount of money based on prior commitments.

This is why I side with the players.

 

[WiggyRuss]

I get that it's a tricky situation. It's hard to apply real world principles to a capped market place for your services. Additionally you're in a situation where you have a limited amount of years on your earning potential. So by taking shorter contracts, you're risking huge exposure.

I tend to view things more from a players stand point than an organization. If you're viewing from the organizations perspective, 100% I'd agree with you. But from a player stand point, it's completely opposite.

I mean thats exactly what i am saying- you cant apply real world principles because its a game. Its a league with an anti-trust exemption.

I totally agree you are risking high exposure by taking shorter term contracts but thats the cost of having freedom of movement- either that or asking for a no-trade clause- or a limited no trade clause.

 

[CitySushi]

I mean thats exactly what i am saying- you cant apply real world principles because its a game. Its a league with an anti-trust exemption.

I totally agree you are risking high exposure by taking shorter term contracts but thats the cost of having freedom of movement- either that or asking for a no-trade clause- or a limited no trade clause.

Well I mean as an attorney, let's say your field has a cap on what each individual law firm can offer. You know you're one of the top people in your field but due to prior commitments and contracts the better firms in your area cannot offer you anywhere near your worth. And on top of that you can only be allowed to be an attorney for a maximum of 15 years of your life.

Then you have a law firm that you interned with that is going to offer you the max you can make as an attorney. How can you say no right?

So you end up signing a contract there. Then over the next year the law firm starts to go to shit. They start taking on all sorts of scumbag clients who you know you will have no chance of winning their cases. But it's good for their business, but ultimately it's doing your career no good. You're making good money, but all you're doing is tacking on L after L on your record.

Should you have the opportunity to be allowed to seek employment elsewhere while you're still under that contract?

 

[cooljack]

LOL based on what exactly?

Weak front court. If your guards don't hit their threes you're hurting bad.

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

Well I mean as an attorney, let's say your field has a cap on what each individual law firm can offer. You know you're one of the top people in your field but due to prior commitments and contracts the better firms in your area cannot offer you anywhere near your worth. And on top of that you can only be allowed to be an attorney for a maximum of 15 years of your life.

Then you have a law firm that you interned with that is going to offer you the max you can make as an attorney. How can you say no right?

So you end up signing a contract there. Then over the next year the law firm starts to go to shit. They start taking on all sorts of scumbag clients who you know you will have no chance of winning their cases. But it's good for their business, but ultimately it's doing your career no good. You're making good money, but all you're doing is tacking on L after L on your record.

Should you have the opportunity to be allowed to seek employment elsewhere while you're still under that contract?

Then you agree to give back X% in order to get out of the situation you agreed to.

Again, why work a trade kicker bonus into your contract, then bitch if you get traded?

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

Yes but again the applications of an NBA job versus a real world job is a night and day difference.

No it's a supremely limited job field that also has a restriction on earning potential. Its not a truly free market. The salary cap and CBA prevent players from truly earning what they are worth. Lebron James his entire career has been GROSSLY underpaid. So no matter how valuable you are to an organization, there is a limit to what they can pay you. In a real world market place if you were truly that valuable you could choose your destination and salary.

In the NBA, you're not only restricted in how much money you make, but how many actual suitors have the ability to give you X amount of money based on prior commitments.

This is why I side with the players.

Another option, just get rid of max contracts, but work within perimeters of a salary cap like the NFL?

Thats best option to avoid superteams.

 

[thunderc]

Agree with Shannon Sharpe right now. If Kerr and others don't like what AD did then front office shouldn't be able to trade players with multiple years left under contract either

I disagree wholeheartedly. Having a guaranteed contract is the reason. Name me another occupation where if you can’t perform your job any longer or if you start sucking you still get paid your full salary.

 

[CitySushi]

Then you agree to give back X% in order to get out of the situation you agreed to.

Again, why work a trade kicker bonus into your contract, then bitch if you get traded?

Ehh, I think we're getting into semantics instead of the principle. There's all sorts of variants that come into play. Ultimately I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this.

 

[CitySushi]

I disagree wholeheartedly. Having a guaranteed contract is the reason. Name me another occupation where if you can’t perform your job any longer or if you start sucking you still get paid your full salary.

Something I hadn't considered. You make a valid point.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Well I mean as an attorney, let's say your field has a cap on what each individual law firm can offer. You know you're one of the top people in your field but due to prior commitments and contracts the better firms in your area cannot offer you anywhere near your worth. And on top of that you can only be allowed to be an attorney for a maximum of 15 years of your life.

Then you have a law firm that you interned with that is going to offer you the max you can make as an attorney. How can you say no right?

So you end up signing a contract there. Then over the next year the law firm starts to go to shit. They start taking on all sorts of scumbag clients who you know you will have no chance of winning their cases. But it's good for their business, but ultimately it's doing your career no good. You're making good money, but all you're doing is tacking on L after L on your record.

Should you have the opportunity to be allowed to seek employment elsewhere while you're still under that contract?

wait a minute- which is it for you? not applying real world principles or applying real world principles? becuase it seems you aretrying to argue both

i am saying you CANT---- its a separate thing- its a league in and of itself that is subject to an anti-trust exemption- other teams just cant "join"---- it follows its own by-laws.


andto answer your question- absolutely not- if you are under contract you are under contract---- if you didnt protect yourself by having an "out" in your contract you are stuck---if you want to give something back to negotiate your way out of it- then have at it.

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

wait a minute- which is it for you? not applying real world principles or applying real world principles? becuase it seems you aretrying to argue both

i am saying you CANT---- its a separate thing- its a league in and of itself that is subject to an anti-trust exemption- other teams just cant "join"---- it follows its own by-laws.


andto answer your question- absolutely not- if you are under contract you are under contract---- if you didnt protect yourself by having an "out" in your contract you are stuck---if you want to give something back to negotiate your way out of it- then have at it.

Clearly some here have never been in this type of a situation.

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

Ehh, I think we're getting into semantics instead of the principle. There's all sorts of variants that come into play. Ultimately I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this.

Fair enough, but contracts solidify negotiations.
You either honor what you agreed to or pay a penalty.

Dont want your I Phone anymore? No problem. Pay early termination fee.
Same with Direct TV, and everywhere else.

 

[CitySushi]

wait a minute- which is it for you? not applying real world principles or applying real world principles? becuase it seems you aretrying to argue both

i am saying you CANT---- its a separate thing- its a league in and of itself that is subject to an anti-trust exemption- other teams just cant "join"---- it follows its own by-laws.


andto answer your question- absolutely not- if you are under contract you are under contract---- if you didnt protect yourself by having an "out" in your contract you are stuck---if you want to give something back to negotiate your way out of it- then have at it.

Yeah I confused myself a bit after I wrote it. It doesn't apply apples for apples, just was trying to give a comparison. Unfortunately there are pretty much flaws with any comparison.

 

[Heatles84]

I disagree. With two bad contracts, give me the VASTLY better player, as well as the player that will play hard every night and drive his teammates to do so as well.

Ok, how's Chris Paul vastly better though? And if he drove his teammates to be so much better, why has he been considered a problem in the lockerroom? Add into the fact that often times, Paul looks out of shape which likely contributes to him being injured consistently.