Topic: NBA Thread: Brought To You By The Tampa Bay Raptors Of Toronto

[Adrock]

The Lakers claimed Kostas Antetokounmpo off waivers and signed him to a two-way contract. Hmm, I wonder why they did that.........

[BeautifulShy]

The Lakers claimed Kostas Antetokounmpo off waivers and signed him to a two-way contract. Hmm, I wonder why they did that.........

Maybe they are trying to get good young players to develop using their 2 ways so they have some options going forward... But it is likely what everyone is thinking. 2021!
https://www.silverscreenandroll.com/2019/7/21/20703017/lakers-claim-kostas-antetokounmpo-off-waivers-nba-rumors

[ejamer]

The Lakers claimed Kostas Antetokounmpo off waivers and signed him to a two-way contract. Hmm, I wonder why they did that.........

Hahaha... There were a bunch of reports about the Raptors putting a claim in, following years of rumors that Ujiri dearly wants to recruit Giannis once his contract with the Bucks expires. Obviously it's not a terribly difficult (or subtle) move to bring his family in, and no surprise the Lakers grabbed Kostas when he was available.
 

But didn't Giannis say that Kostas might be the best player of them all eventually during All-Star weekend? Seems like he was just being a good big brother, but maybe this will be another scenario like the Gasol brothers, where both go on to be fantastic player. It would be awesome to see him earn some minutes with the Lakers squad this year and keep developing; hopefully he doesn't just end up being a pawn getting played as teams pursue his brother.

EDIT: Nope, Giannis said that his youngest brother Alexis might be the best of them, but Alex is still too young for the NBA. Guess we'll see in a few years.  But hey, taking a flyer on Kostas still might end up paying off - whether it helps draw his older brother or not.

[BeautifulShy]

Ya know I thought of another reason why this is a good pick up for the Lakers. Lebron is getting older so if Kostas develops nicely in a few years Kostas can be slotting in to that spot when LeBron retires. Kostas is only 21 right now so that could work out if he develops nicely.

[BeautifulShy]

The NBA is looking into tampering violations for some of the early signings for this offseason. ESPN did a good article on it and The Jump chimed in on it.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27243621/inside-tense-nba-owners-meeting-change-free-agency

[Adrock]

There was no tampering, only lightning-quick negotiations. Owners are just mad they weren’t able to pay Harrison Barnes $85 million for four years...

[Adrock]

Kerr: Forced trade by Davis 'bad for the league'

”I'm talking more about the Anthony Davis situation," Kerr told The Warriors Insider Podcast. "Where a guy is perfectly healthy and has a couple years left on his deal and says, 'I want to leave.' That's a real problem that the league has to address and that the players have to be careful with.

"When you sign on that dotted line, you owe your effort and your play to that team, to that city, to the fans. And then it's completely your right to leave as a free agent. But if you sign the contract, then you should be bound to that contract.”

Shut up, Steve Kerr. Just shut the **** up.

I will admit I’m biased because as stated numerous times, I typically always side with players on these matters. My major issue is primarily the bolded part because it completely ignores the fact that teams have the autonomy to trade players who may not want to play for a particular team or in a particularly city. The implication is that players should honor the contracts they sign, but teams don’t have to honor the contracts they offer players. Motherfucker, you were a player. What are you talking about?

Let’s not ignore the fact that Kerr coaches the Warriors, a team that just jettisoned Andre Iguodala, a guy who gave his heart and soul to the team for six years, to what is projected to be one of the worst teams in the league this season. Granted, the trade made sense from a business perspective. And Kerr said the trade was “devastating” for him. Of course, he isn’t going to dunk on his employer, but this is exactly why he should shut the **** up.

It’s also really weird that Kerr would point directly to Anthony Davis. First, players have been requesting trades for decades. Paul George demanded a trade twice in three years. Second, the Pelicans did nothing for seven years after drafting a generational player. Dell Demps signed bad contracts and kept trading draft picks. I don’t blame players like Davis for wanting to peace out. If it was a good situation, they’d be more likely to stay.

[broodwars]

Kerr: Forced trade by Davis 'bad for the league'

”I'm talking more about the Anthony Davis situation," Kerr told The Warriors Insider Podcast. "Where a guy is perfectly healthy and has a couple years left on his deal and says, 'I want to leave.' That's a real problem that the league has to address and that the players have to be careful with.

"When you sign on that dotted line, you owe your effort and your play to that team, to that city, to the fans. And then it's completely your right to leave as a free agent. But if you sign the contract, then you should be bound to that contract.”

Shut up, Steve Kerr. Just shut the **** up.

I will admit I’m biased because as stated numerous times, I typically always side with players on these matters. My major issue is primarily the bolded part because it completely ignores the fact that teams have the autonomy to trade players who may not want to play for a particular team or in a particularly city. The implication is that players should honor the contracts they sign, but teams don’t have to honor the contracts they offer players. Motherfucker, you were a player. What are you talking about?

Let’s not ignore the fact that Kerr coaches the Warriors, a team that just jettisoned Andre Iguodala, a guy who gave his heart and soul to the team for six years, to what is projected to be one of the worst teams in the league this season. Granted, the trade made sense from a business perspective. And Kerr said the trade was “devastating” for him. Of course, he isn’t going to dunk on his employer, but this is exactly why he should shut the **** up.

It’s also really weird that Kerr would point directly to Anthony Davis. First, players have been requesting trades for decades. Paul George demanded a trade twice in three years. Second, the Pelicans did nothing for seven years after drafting a generational player. Dell Demps signed bad contracts and kept trading draft picks. I don’t blame players like Davis for wanting to peace out. If it was a good situation, they’d be more likely to stay.

I'm kind of with Kerr on this, mainly because I've had a chip on my shoulder regarding player entitlement since the 90s due to an asshole named Rony Seikaly.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1998-02-19-9802190364-story.html
.
There's the link to the original Orlando Sentinel story if you want the full details but the short version is that back in 1998 the Jazz wanted to trade 2 good bench players & a 1st round draft pick for Rony Seikaly to bolster their roster for the coming playoffs. The deal got approved, the Jazz sent their players off on the plane to Orlando...and Rony Seikaly refused to leave Orlando. He absolutely refused to be traded to one of the best teams in the league (and depending on which season it was, it WAS the best team in the league), and he dug in his heels and whined until he got his way. He apparently wanted to renegotiate his contract.

The end result is that the trade ended up getting scrapped, and the traded players ended up getting flown back to Salt Lake to a hero's welcome at the airport from the fans.

With exceptions, I couldn't care less about players griping about contracts. You sign them, you honor them. You don't throw tantrums about it, and you don't try to force the team to trade or break your contract by airing your grievances in public.

[Adrock]

I'm kind of with Kerr on this, mainly because I've had a chip on my shoulder regarding player entitlement since the 90s due to an asshole named Rony Seikaly.

I read that article. Seikaly forfeited money to facilitate a trade then demanded the money he previously forfeited. The Jazz refused so he didn’t report to the team. That isn’t remotely the same thing I’m talking about.

You sign them, you honor them.

Fine, but then teams should be held to the same standard. They offer a contract to a player, honor the contract then. There should be no trades unless literally every single person involved agrees to the terms. Chances are, very few trades would actually get made. I’m fine with teams trading players because again, the NBA is a business. If a team thinks it can improve in the short or long-term via a trade, they absolutely should. That’s the same reason I support players that demand trades. Players generally don’t want to leave favorable situations.

Anthony Davis could have signed his qualifying offer years ago if he didn’t want to be in New Orleans. Except he did want play there, but the Pelicans squandered those years.

[ejamer]

Yeah, I disagree pretty solidly. A contract should be (a) negotiated before being signed, and (b) binding afterwards unless there is some kind of unusual or unexpected circumstance.

If you don't want to be traded, negotiate a no-trade clause (or at least a trade kicker) or sign shorter contracts.
Getting traded against your will might earn some sympathy, but a superstar who simply decides not to honor a massive contract with the team that originally signed him, and then forcing his way out like what happened with Davis only makes NBA players look bad.

There are certainly some unfair and unreasonable things that players have to ensure, but this specific situation with Davis is clearly not one of them.

[Adrock]

Yeah, I disagree pretty solidly. A contract should be (a) negotiated before being signed, and (b) binding afterwards unless there is some kind of unusual or unexpected circumstance.

Again, fine, teams should be held to the same standard. If it's binding, then a player shouldn't be allowed to be traded without their consent. Do you agree?

If you don't want to be traded, negotiate a no-trade clause (or at least a trade kicker) or sign shorter contracts.

No trade clauses have stipulations: eight years experience and four years with the same team (doesn't have to be consecutive). Anthony Davis was ineligible. More importantly, no trade clauses are extremely rare. Steph Curry wasn't even able to negotiate a no trade clause or an option on his final year. Yes, that Steph Curry.

Getting traded against your will might earn some sympathy, but a superstar who simply decides not to honor a massive contract with the team that originally signed him, and then forcing his way out like what happened with Davis only makes NBA players look bad.

Getting a trade demand against your will might earn some sympathy, but a team that simply decides not to honor a massive contract with a player who originally wanted to sign, and then forcing him out like what happened with [Demar Derozan, Blake Griffin, Chris Paul etc. etc.) only makes NBA teams look bad.

There are certainly some unfair and unreasonable things that players have to ensure, but this specific situation with Davis is clearly not one of them.

Why not? Kerr said, "When you sign on that dotted line, you owe your effort and your play to that team, to that city, to the fans." What does a team owe the player, city, and fans? Davis originally wanted to be in New Orleans; the Pelicans failed to build a winning team around him for seven years. He got tired of it. Davis could have played out his contract and left the Pelicans with nothing. Then, owners and people like Kerr who forgot they used to be players would complain about that. Instead, Davis got to the team he wanted to play for, the Lakers got the player they wanted, and the Pelicans got young players and draft assets. Both the Lakers and Pelicans are going to be good next year. How is that not good for the NBA? (And yes, it sucks for Ingram, Ball, and Hart because they didn't choose to be traded)

It's so weird that y'all are dunking on players while giving teams a pass. You're a Raptors fan. Demar Derozan thought about going home to California then chose to stay in Toronto, and the Raptors rightly upgraded to Kawhi Leonard and Danny Green. If it's fair for a team not to honor a contract, it should be fair for a player as well.

[ejamer]

I understand you have problems with the established system regarding teams and trades. That's fine. Fighting to empower players and give them fairer contracts is totally ok by me. But that doesn't mean you can just disregard the established system - which does provide reasonable compensation for players in the vast majority of cases - whenever you feel like it.


Your comparison of teams trading players (and following all rules of the contracts signed and the long-establish system in the process) and players forcing their way out of contracts simply isn't valid.

A closer comparison would be teams having a player on contract and refusing to let them play or practice when healthy without reasonable justification just because they decide they don't like how that player handles their business - think similar to what New Orleans did after the Davis saga, but without clear provocation and reasonable goals of focusing on the assets they will maintain going forward. In that case the league stepped in to say they couldn't just ice Davis, even though it clearly made sense for the team to do so. Some of that is marketing and optics, but that's the problem with the Davis trade too - it's not the fact that he forced his way out, but how he forced his way out.

[Adrock]

I understand you have problems with the established system regarding teams and trades. That's fine. Fighting to empower players and give them fairer contracts is totally ok by me. But that doesn't mean you can just disregard the established system - which does provide reasonable compensation for players in the vast majority of cases - whenever you feel like it

I actually don’t have a problem with the established system. If a player wants to pay the league fine for publicly requesting a trade, that’s on them. They don’t have to like their situation, but they still have to go to work (or face consequences of not going to work like any other job). As long as they do, I don’t have a problem with it. 99% of the time they keep going to work so they are upholding their end of the contract.

I disagree with the double standard. A player requesting a trade is not the same thing as voiding a contract because they can’t, you know, legally do that. Equating the two is not really fair. When a player who signs to play for a team, a city, and its fans gets traded, y’all turn into the shrug emoji and say, “Well, that’s business.” When a player merely requests a trade because [insert a reason but it’s usually due to unfavorable conditions like losing, a toxic culture etc.), they’re vilified for it.

Your comparison of teams trading players (and following all rules of the contracts signed and the long-establish system in the process) and players forcing their way out of contracts simply isn't valid.

Except players can’t actually “force their way out” and that’s because of their contract. A team doesn’t have to trade anyone, and I feel like that’s a piece many people like Kerr are missing or flat-out ignoring. Players can request/demand a trade and complain all they want, but they are bound to their contract. If they don’t attend practice, games etc., the team and/or league can fine them basically up to their entire yearly salary (maybe more, I’d have to check the CBA again). The comparison is valid because this isn’t about breaking contracts or “forcing their way out” since players can’t do either. I’m advocating for a player’s right to say, “I don’t want to play here anymore” just as its a team’s right to say, “I don’t want this player anymore.”

Anthony Davis informed the Pelicans he would not re-sign with the team and requested to be traded. The Pelicans don’t have to honor his request and ultimately didn’t by the deadline in February so he played when the team let him. Had Davis not been traded this summer, he most likely would have played out his contract because I highly doubt he’d give up ~$27 million.

Want to deter trade requests/demands? Build a better team and win. However, there’s ultimately no way to outright stop trade requests/demands due to the human element. Players won’t always be happy with a situation. Even if a team wins, they may not like the weather or something. The only recourse is to get rid of trades altogether, and literally, no one will agree to that.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I gotta side with Adrock on this one.

Like with any other job, if I see an opportunity somewhere else that I think may benefit me in a way I'm not getting at my current employer, then I will seek to move.

There's nothing wrong with a player letting the team know they are not happy in the current situation and to either make the necessary adjustments or allow me to go to another situation somewhere else.

As was stated, alternatively, the player could sit quietly, play out said contract, and then just bounce the moment they were free to do so, leaving the team with a sudden and unexpected vacancy.

There's nothing stopping the teams themselves from trading players like cards to improve the teams situation, so I see no reason the players can't request their card be traded to another team improve their own situation. At that point it's up to the team to honor the request and hopefully get something of value back in return, or try to fix the situation and hope for the best when the clock runs out.

[Ian Sane]

Each of the big four sports leagues has at least 30 teams and the league has an obvious need to make sure that fans are excited in all of those markets and will support their team.  If players have too much control over where they go then you're going to end up with a handful of teams, usually in the large markets, that get everybody.  In most of the sports one player here and there isn't going to make that much of a difference but with the smaller rosters a single star in the NBA can change a team into a contender and obviously their departure can sink a team.  So if players demanding trades and refusing to play and coordinating their own super teams becomes the norm then two thirds of the teams become irrelevant.  I can see why broodwars is complaining because in such a scenario, no one is going to the Jazz.

I do side with the players however in terms of entry contracts as there is always some time where the team gets exclusive rights until the player first hits free agency.  In that scenario the team has some unfair leverage and I'm fine with a player weaseling their way out of a contract they had little control over.  But once you've reached free agency and every contract was negotiated on your terms you own up to it.  The team has to pay you and you have to play for them.

[nickmitch]

The leagues can prevent super teams with salary caps. Two superstars might take pay cuts to win championships, but five won't.

With Anthony Davis, the whole situation was kind of messy. I'm generally ok with players asking for trades. Like BnM said, the warning is better for the the teams. But when it's as public as that was, the trade value for the player actually goes down. Few teams are gonna bank on the one year and hope they can keep him. Although, that could change with how the Raptors panned out. But I think Paul George was the last similar risk, and he did stay until recently.

[broodwars]

Yeah, if there's one thing I wish they would implement, it's a hard salary cap: no going over it, period. That would stop "Super Teams" quickly enough, and would certainly prevent the Big Market Teams from just spending whatever they want to buy their talent. As it stands, they can afford to just pay the luxury tax if they're so inclined, which Small Market teams cannot do. Sure, you could still see such teams forming from big name players accepting pittances to come together, but there's no real preventing that from happening unless the League starts implementing minimum salaries (which they already have for Rookies).

Just IMO, players need to keep their gripes in private with their team management. In my experience, most teams try to work with their players when they're unhappy or if they have to be traded or released so long as the players aren't airing their dirty laundry in public, hurting the team.

[Adrock]

FYI on the Anthony Davis thing: According to Rich Paul, he informed the Pelicans of Davis’s request to be traded on January 25. Former Pelicans GM, Dell Demps, told Paul he would confer with ownership then proceeded to go above Paul and call Davis to convince him to stay. Paul decided to go public after the Pelicans ignored Davis’ trade request.

Demps never refuted the claims, and the above story has been repeated by several NBA insiders since so at the very least they believe it. I’m of the belief that players and their representation are willing to keep trade demands private especially because they don’t want to pay the league fine (maximum of $50,000). Once teams do weird **** like circumventing a player’s agent, all bets are off. Additionally, other teams leak trade requests out of spite or to lower a player’s value so they don’t give up as much. This makes it sound like the player publicly demanded a trade because the information is out there.

Yeah, if there's one thing I wish they would implement, it's a hard salary cap: no going over it, period. That would stop "Super Teams" quickly enough, and would certainly prevent the Big Market Teams from just spending whatever they want to buy their talent.

LOL, the Jazz were ~$11 million above the salary cap last season and are ~$8 million above the salary cap this season.

Large market teams can’t just “buy talent” or sign whomever they want. All incoming salary in trades for tax playing teams have to match a maximum of 125% of the outgoing salary, plus $100,000. The soft cap is primarily for Bird rights. Building superteams is really hard to do and it usually starts with already having homegrown pieces. The Warriors, for example, were able to sign Kevin Durant in 2016 because the stars aligned. Steph Curry was on an extremely team friendly deal due to injuries early in his career, the cap exploded that year, and Durant took a slight pay cut.

As it stands, they can afford to just pay the luxury tax if they're so inclined, which Small Market teams cannot do.

Yes, small-market teams goddamn can, and it’s weird that you think this. The owners of professional sports teams are billionaires. They absolutely can afford to pay the luxury tax; they just don’t want to pay it. That’s fine; they don’t have pay the luxury tax if they don’t want to, but they also don’t have to own a professional sports team. Pardon me for not shedding a tear for billionaire owners of small market teams.

[broodwars]

LOL, the Jazz were ~$11 million above the salary cap last season and are ~$8 million above the salary cap this season.

Yes, and do you have any idea how rare that is? If this site is anything to go by, that would only have been the 3rd or 4th time in the franchise's history that they'd ever done that. It's just not something the Jazz are known for doing.

Incidentally, researching net worth I have to give props to Gail Miller. Her husband only had an estimated net worth of $480 million when he died in 2009, which is the number I've always had in mind when thinking about the Jazz's expenditures. She managed to take her inheritance and spin that into an estimated $1.75 billion.

https://hoopshype.com/2018/11/16/how-many-times-has-each-nba-team-paid-the-luxury-tax/

I got a good laugh out of the Knicks having the largest number of luxury tax pay-outs, considering the results they got from it.

[Adrock]

Yes, and do you have any idea how rare that is? If this site is anything to go by, that would only have been the 3rd or 4th time in the franchise's history that they'd ever done that. It's just not something the Jazz are known for doing.

I don’t care how rare it is. That’s irrelevant. Point is, the Jazz can afford to go over the cap, have gone over the cap, and are currently over the cap. For that extra spending, the Jazz are going to be fucking awesome this season. You’re championing a hard cap when the team you support is benefiting from not having a hard cap and stands to benefit in the near future. Implementing a hard cap means no Bird rights since the entire point of Bird rights is to go over the cap to retain players. Donovan Mitchell, for example, has two years (including this season) on his rookie contract with the last year being a player option. With a hard cap and no Bird rights, I hope you’d enjoy seeing Mitchell play for another team.

[Soren]

Every team can afford to go over the cap. Hell, every team could afford to play in a system without a salary cap. Some owners are just more brazen about their motives than others.

[broodwars]

Every team can afford to go over the cap. Hell, every team could afford to play in a system without a salary cap. Some owners are just more brazen about their motives than others.

No, they really can't, and it comes down to ticket prices & merchandising sales. Yes, the Jazz have gone over the salary cap before and will again, but despite Gail Miller being a nearly $2 billion owner, the Jazz themselves are in a separate Trust with only $243 million in revenue last year.

https://www.forbes.com/teams/utah-jazz/#19a483f868b3

Yes, the luxury tax is an option, but it's a very costly option for a small market team. Just to use an example, take the Lakers. They had $395 million in revenue last year. If they needed to, they could much more easily absorb the cost of the luxury tax & higher salaries than a team like the Jazz can.

https://www.forbes.com/teams/los-angeles-lakers/#55178d403101

Most of this comes down to ticket sales. The Jazz, apparently, had the lowest-cost tickets in the league last season at $6 a game for some seats and are only this season raising them to $15:

https://www.sltrib.com/sports/2019/01/02/jazz-season-ticket-prices/

Again, by comparison, check out the pricing on the Lakers' seats:

https://www.barrystickets.com/blog/how-much-are-lakers-tickets/

It's not a matter of "well, just raise the ticket prices" when you're in a small market. The average income in Salt Lake City is only $28,428 per year, just below the US average. And perhaps you've noticed, but the Jazz don't tend to get included in big sports broadcasting contracts like the Big Market teams do.

https://www.bestplaces.net/economy/city/utah/salt_lake_city

The Jazz are spending this kind of money right now because it's the only way to compete with how the West has shaken out the past few seasons, and if they didn't spend to compete they wouldn't be able to keep Donovan Mitchell happy. It's not good business in the short term, but they're hoping it'll work out in the long term.

[nickmitch]

After some light googling, I saw that going $20M over the cap costs ~$65M ($45M in tax + $20M in salary).  According to forbes, that would put roughly 2/3 of teams in the red.  Even if the teams are owned by billionaires, they wouldn't be too thrilled to have a revenue driver turn into a cost center, but they certainly could stand pumping $10-20M into the team, if they wanted, since it's not like owning a team is gonna be their primary business.

[broodwars]

It's a small thing, but...YES! It's finally happening! The Jazz are bringing back the 90s purple mountain jerseys and matching court! 

https://www.slcdunk.com/latest-utah-jazz-news-recent/2019/8/3/20752801/utah-jazz-throwback-purple-mountain-court-leak-nba-90s

It's about time. They're the best logo and jerseys the Jazz ever had. Unfortunately, they swapped them out for those godawful black & red jerseys soon after.

[Soren]

Draymond got paid. I have no problem with that.