I hope the Siakam deal fails to go through.

[Diesel]

5 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Players union is getting too powerful. Is it that lil $hit Rich Paul? He’s the problem huh? Seems before him and the Bronskies came to town, players didn’t have this crazy power to decide their destination in a whim like that. 
 

LOOK IT WAS THE PLAYERS DECISION TO SIGN THE CONTRACT, HE HAD THE POWER…

He shouldn’t be able to change his mind like a girl changes clothes… {cue the music}  

 

YOU… CHANGE YOU MIND, LIKE A GIRL, CHANGES CLOTHES..

'Cause you're hot then you're cold
You're yes then you're no
You're in then you're out
You're up then you're down
You're wrong when it's right
It's black and it's white
We fight, we break up
We kiss, we make up
(You) You don't really want to stay, no
(You) But you don't really want to go
You're hot then you're cold
You're yes then you're no
You're in then you're out
You're up then you're down

 

  

Player's union doesn't really have power.

If I'm willing to give you 5 years 304 Million dollars, imagine how much money I'm making?

 

[JayBirdHawk]

22 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Every contract should have a trade clause in absence of these measures.   That would be giving equal power to the players. 

Change the trade kicker percentages and rules. A sliding scale depending on if owner trade vs player requested trade based on number of years left on deal.

[AHF]

The System We Have Lets Players Make Their Own Decision About Guarantees and Flexibility - What hypothetically should be done or not, we have the system we have which has been collectively bargained and ratified by the owners and the players.  Players have ways of limiting the teams ability to trade them.  They can have no trade clauses.  They can negotiate veto rights over certain teams or the flip of that which is that the team is only allowed to trade them to certain places.  You can build in an option for the player to walk away from the deal so they have flexibility if they like where they have been traded or what their team is doing.  All of these things and more are already possible to negotiate when a player signs his contract.

When a player opts to sign a contract that doesn't include these things, they have waived their rights to submarine a trade and threatening to not perform under the contract is a threat to breach the contract which is why the NBA recently warned Lillard and the players against doing this.  There is a big difference between saying that you won't sign a new contract if you are traded versus saying you won't play for certain teams if you get traded there and it is a legal difference.  A player doesn't owe it to any team to sign a new deal with them (in absence of some commitment ala Carlos Boozer which even then isn't contractual) but they owe it to give their best efforts as long as they are still collecting their salary under their contract.

As D notes, a player can always choose to retire and not to get paid but most of the problem behavior from the Hardens and Lillards of the world lately have been guys who want every penny of their contracts but they also want to quit on their teams and then try to take away the team's right to get fair value in a trade.  

The System Can Be Changed - @Spud2nique - The Union and the owners could agree on any number of changes including making it so players can't be moved for the first X years of a new deal or whatever they want.  In fact, there is already language like that in the CBA that says when you sign a certain contract you can't be traded for a certain period of time.  So the idea you are talking about has already been on the table in negotiations but likely for a variety of reasons the parties didn't opt to make it for as long as you are suggesting.  They could change that in a future CBA to "marry" the two for a longer period but I think both the players and the owners wouldn't necessarily like that idea.

What Teams Owe the Player and What Players Owe the Team and What They Both Owe the Fans - To me it is pretty simple that the team's primary obligation is to pay the player and as long as they are doing that then they can generally do whatever they want with him absent something in the player contract.  And I think as fans that is how it should be.  From a high level perspective, there are few things more demoralizing to a fan base than losing your star player.  The only bright side to that scenario is the fact that a star can usually bring significant assets back in a trade to give the fans hope for the future.  If all players had the right to just walk away from the team when the team started a rebuild or to prevent the team from trading them to certain places, it would cripple the return for the team and by extension for the fan base.  I personally think the need to get a return for the Trailblazer fan base outweighs the hardship of Lillard getting paid $50M a year somewhere other than Miami and I would say it isn't even close.  As an NBA players, you are basically guaranteed to be working in one of the top 50 largest cities in the US and while not all is equal between them we can't have players refusing trades because they will be subject to increased income tax or because there isn't beach front property or because it gets too cold in the winter unless they negotiated for that right in their contract.  That kind of flexibility is what free agency is for.  The player picks their location and then decides on what balance they want to strike between getting the most guaranteed dollars versus having the maximum personal flexibility.  

Once players make that choice, they should have to live with it without threatening to breach their contract, etc.  Such a threat would be the equivalent of a team threatening not to pay the player if the player doesn't do something they want.  Neither should be allowed.

[swanlee]

So is this deal dead or not?

[AHF]

1 minute ago, swanlee said:

So is this deal dead or not?

My own sideline, armchair QB take is that Toronto either needs to resign Siakam or trade  him.  They have shown no interest in resigning him so I figure they are set on trading him.  They clearly haven't gotten what they want from any team in a trade offer or they would have trade him already.  When you look at teams that might have the assets to deal for him and the interest in adding him as a pending UFA, that isn't a huge list but Atlanta seems to be one of those teams.  So until Toronto either gives an indication that they will actually keep Siakam (which I don't even think they have a little) or Siakam gets traded, I would consider us still "in the mix."  

[TheNorthCydeRises]

3 hours ago, Diesel said:

I agree here.   People like @TheNorthCydeRises wants to trade whatever we have for Siakam.   Just get him because he has skills. 

So.. with Scottie Barnes, Fred Van Vleet, & OG... this greatly skilled player couldn't even make the playoffs.  His former coach was fired.  FVV left for greener pastures, and Barnes and OG wants him gone because he's a ball hog and he ruins the offense. 

• Barnes was ROY
• FVV was an allstar. 
• OG is well respected. 
• Nurse was considered one of the smartest coaches and a championship coach.  Even Quin don't have a Chip. 

Why didn't this team make the playoffs??  Couldn't even beat Chicago. 

Nobody wants to talk about that.     With all those players, they should have never been in the 9 vs. 10 game in the first place.

 

 

I'll tell you why.  

• 3 point shooting % ( 28th in the league )
• piss poor defensive rebounding ( dead last in the NBA )
• 3 point shooting defense % ( 27th in the league )
• lack of a legit #2 guy ( VanVleet was their #2 )

That team had to trade for Jakob Poeltl, just to shore up their frontline to help Siakam, who had to do it all.  And that's why Siakam had to play center, because they didn't have legit big men on the roster.

That facts are that the Raptors stocked up on a lot of young talent, but didn't pay attention to proper roster building. And none of the young guys they have on the roster have elevated themselves to be a legit #2 guy to Siakam.  Even VanVleet, who made 1 All-Star team, isn't even one of the top 10 PGs in the league.

Masai failed to get another high level guy in Toronto to play with Siakam, as he was going into his prime. He's in love with his kids, and values their potential more than actually dealing them for a higher level player.

Sound familiar?

 

We are in a unique situation.

• We have a top 5 PG in the NBA, who at times, can elevate his game to top 10 player / MVP type level
• We have a 2nd guy who can operate as a high level facilitator and score the basketball
• And we have enough young talent to either try to develop, or deal for a higher level player

 

Here's what I don't want to see next season. I don't want to see anybody in this fan base cry about how the Hawks can't get off from around the .500 mark, if the kids aren't developing as fast as they can, or if Trae can't consistently play at MVP level. 

Star players don't win by themselves in this league the vast majority of the time.  If you're not surrounding your star player with other high level star players, you're not winning in the NBA.  Even a team like Boston legit needs 1 more high level player to pair with Brown and Tatum ( preferably either at PG or at C ).

Milwaukee needed Jrue Holiday to pair with Giannis and Middleton. Steph, Klay, and Draymond needed Andrew Wiggins as a 4th guy, to help them win a chip. Denver had to trade for Aaron Gordon to add with Jokic and Murray.  Hell, even Phoenix has realized that good young talent doesn't put you over the top, so they've gone all-in with high level stars.

 

We can talk all day on whether keeping our kids is the right move or not.  What I do know about the NBA is that you do not win without high level talent. And our talent overall is mid at best, at this time.

 

 

[JayBirdHawk]

20 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

We can talk all day on whether keeping our kids is the right move or not.  What I do know about the NBA is that you do not win without high level talent. 

 

[Diesel]

5 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Change the trade kicker percentages and rules. A sliding scale depending on if owner trade vs player requested trade based on number of years left on deal.

That seems fair.  Although giving the player yes and no ability on the trade  is fairer. 

[theheroatl]

3 hours ago, AHF said:

My own sideline, armchair QB take is that Toronto either needs to resign Siakam or trade  him.  They have shown no interest in resigning him so I figure they are set on trading him.  They clearly haven't gotten what they want from any team in a trade offer or they would have trade him already.  When you look at teams that might have the assets to deal for him and the interest in adding him as a pending UFA, that isn't a huge list but Atlanta seems to be one of those teams.  So until Toronto either gives an indication that they will actually keep Siakam (which I don't even think they have a little) or Siakam gets traded, I would consider us still "in the mix."  

They have this clock ticking as well of August 9th.

[Diesel]

3 hours ago, AHF said:

If all players had the right to just walk away from the team when the team started a rebuild or to prevent the team from trading them to certain places, it would cripple the return for the team and by extension for the fan base. 

The old Kareem argument. Again.   You asserted that if the players are getting paid, they become the property of the owners.   This indentured servanthood that you speak of....  Why should the players be loyal to the team if the team is never loyal to the player.   I think the understanding is misunderstood here.   When a player is a FA, the team says I will pay you this amount to play for my team.   However, you suggest and the way it has been is FAcy is used like I will pay you this amount to be my asset. My servant.   So what is the player truly choosing?   Is he choosing to play for your team or is he choosing to be your servant?  If he's choosing to play for your team, then there are to be some protections given for him if you decide that you want to move him.  Shouldn't he have a choice of where he wants to go... just like he had a chose to play for your team?  But the servant route is.. you are now my servant and I can do what I damn well please with you. 

 

 

 

[Diesel]

1 hour ago, JayBirdHawk said:

 

Sounds nice, but you have to define what high level talent is.

Wouldn't you say that Trae is high Level talent?

The Lakers and Brooklyn established teams with high level talent.   Didn't win diddly.

 

[AHF]

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

The old Kareem argument. Again.   You asserted that if the players are getting paid, they become the property of the owners.   This indentured servanthood that you speak of....  Why should the players be loyal to the team if the team is never loyal to the player.   I think the understanding is misunderstood here.   When a player is a FA, the team says I will pay you this amount to play for my team.   However, you suggest and the way it has been is FAcy is used like I will pay you this amount to be my asset. My servant.   So what is the player truly choosing?   Is he choosing to play for your team or is he choosing to be your servant?  If he's choosing to play for your team, then there are to be some protections given for him if you decide that you want to move him.  Shouldn't he have a choice of where he wants to go... just like he had a chose to play for your team?  But the servant route is.. you are now my servant and I can do what I damn well please with you. 

 

 

 

WTF are you talking about?

• Indentured servitude is a form of labor in which a person is contracted to work without salary for a specific number of years.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude
• A contractual obligation (or duty) is something that parties agree to do or become responsible for when they sign a contract. https://juro.com/learn/contractual-obligation

Do you see the difference here?  No one is being forced to work without salary in the NBA.  The NBA players sign a contract and have a contractual obligation to perform the duties and fulfill the rights granted by that contract.  That includes a right for teams to trade the player and an obligation to give a good faith effort to play as required under the contract.  The consequence of not doing that means not getting paid.

No NBA player is a servant.  They don't have to clean their owner's pool.  They aren't working the fields.  They have to do one thing:  play basketball for their team and if they don't write in rights to block trades in their contract that means their team can change over time.  No one should cry for Lillard earning $50M to play in Minnesota or something.  That isn't indentured servitude.

This is just insulting to people who suffer actual oppression versus people who are getting more money than any of us will see in a lifetime over the course of about 6 months of work.  Players aren't indentured servants when they are drafted - they don't have to sign a contract to play for the team that drafts them.  Once they sign the contract, they can be traded.  That is a trade off for playing in the NBA.  And they get a say about it when they are UFA and can play wherever they want and build whatever flexibility they want into their contract.  But once they sign that contract, they are contractually obligated to fulfill it.  And that isn't remoted comparable to servitude of any kind just because you can be moved to a different city to work.  At will employees can get transferred as well and their choice is to get a different job or go.  It is very much the same for NBA players.  You don't have to go play in Minnesota but you don't get that $50M if you choose not to play.  And if you try to collect your $50M while threatening to breach your contract, you put yourself at legal risk and under the CBA at risk of discipline from the league.

[Diesel]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

WTF are you talking about?

Ok... @AHFlet me make it more clear.

You want to sign a player and believe that you have ownership over the player and his future because you are giving him money.  I don't know what you call that.  Call it what you like.  I will use "asset".  Like furniture or Jelly beans.   But back to my original assertion (not the tangent you got stuck on). 

Why should the players be loyal to the team if the team is never loyal to the player.   I think the understanding is misunderstood here.   When a player is a FA, the team says I will pay you this amount to play for my team.   However, you suggest and the way it has been is FAcy is used like I will pay you this amount to be my "asset".   So what is the player truly choosing?   Is he choosing to play for your team or is he choosing to be your "asset"?  If he's choosing to play for your team, then there ought to be some protections given for him if you decide that you want to move him.  Shouldn't he have a choice of where he wants to go... just like he had a chose to play for your team?  But the "asset" route is.. you are now my "asset" and I can do what I damn well please with you. 

 

[AHF]

41 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Ok... @AHFlet me make it more clear.

You want to sign a player and believe that you have ownership over the player and his future because you are giving him money.  I don't know what you call that.  Call it what you like.  I will use "asset".  Like furniture or Jelly beans.   But back to my original assertion (not the tangent you got stuck on). 

Why should the players be loyal to the team if the team is never loyal to the player.   I think the understanding is misunderstood here.   When a player is a FA, the team says I will pay you this amount to play for my team.   However, you suggest and the way it has been is FAcy is used like I will pay you this amount to be my "asset".   So what is the player truly choosing?   Is he choosing to play for your team or is he choosing to be your "asset"?  If he's choosing to play for your team, then there ought to be some protections given for him if you decide that you want to move him.  Shouldn't he have a choice of where he wants to go... just like he had a chose to play for your team?  But the "asset" route is.. you are now my "asset" and I can do what I damn well please with you. 

 

The CBA very expressly makes players assets in the sense that you are describing.  Players like Lillard have options to choose a different path because they have leverage to get no trade clauses.  If they choose not to, they have no right to complain and fans have every right to insist the team trade him for actual value.  Under the current rules, players should only have a right to have input (beyond simply asking the teams to be nice) into where they are traded if they negotiate that into their deal which probably means taking less money in many cases.  The whole system is built on the assumption that teams will receive market value when they trade a player.  If the players want to change that system in the future they can absolutely do so but it will likely cost them a bit of their profit sharing.  (I don’t think they will otherwise have the leverage to do so.)

So for players individually and as a collective it comes down to prioritizing flexibility and control versus money.  They have consistently chosen money and security over control and flexibility in the past with a handful of rare exceptions like LeBron signing one year deals to keep his options wide open.

[Diesel]

3 hours ago, AHF said:

The CBA very expressly makes players assets in the sense that you are describing.

I don't think so...

Here's how NBA.COM defines UFA...

Quote

In short, an unrestricted free agent (UFA) is free to sign with any team. Once they sign, they are a part of that new team. 

The idea of asset is one that owners would like you to blindly adopt.   But if the FA is joining the team i.e. choosing the team...  then he is certainly not becoming an asset.   The fanbase doesn't view players as assets either.   Fanbases become vested in their players.   Because they are "their" Players.   When Babcock used Dominique as an "asset" saying we trade our stars before they get old on us, the backlash from the city is still felt.  If Landry were to do the same with Trae, the fanbase may not survive it.  That's because Trae is a part of the team and not just an asset. 

 

 

[Final_quest]

16 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Here's what I don't want to see next season. I don't want to see anybody in this fan base cry about how the Hawks can't get off from around the .500 mark, if the kids aren't developing as fast as they can, or if Trae can't consistently play at MVP level. 

Star players don't win by themselves in this league the vast majority of the time.  If you're not surrounding your star player with other high level star players, you're not winning in the NBA.  Even a team like Boston legit needs 1 more high level player to pair with Brown and Tatum ( preferably either at PG or at C ).

Milwaukee needed Jrue Holiday to pair with Giannis and Middleton. Steph, Klay, and Draymond needed Andrew Wiggins as a 4th guy, to help them win a chip. Denver had to trade for Aaron Gordon to add with Jokic and Murray.  Hell, even Phoenix has realized that good young talent doesn't put you over the top, so they've gone all-in with high level stars.

 

We can talk all day on whether keeping our kids is the right move or not.  What I do know about the NBA is that you do not win without high level talent. And our talent overall is mid at best, at this time.

 

 

This is exactly what's gonna happen if we don't get some more talent.  It's so predictable.  Trae would be the fall guy. 

Remember all the years KG, Ray Allen, and Paul Pierce couldn't get their teams over the hump until they joined together?  Instead of saying the equivalent of trade Al Jefferson to get PP some help, people on here are gonna say trade Trae Young and build around Jalen and AJ.  

We have a guy who can lead the league in scoring and assists, plus he's shown he can deliver BIG results in the playoffs.  But I think we only have to trade one of our top prospects anyways to get another All NBA type of guy.  We can both bring in another allstar and develop the remaining young players.  We don't need to kill the youth movement will we work towards being top 3 in the east.  
 

[Diesel]

2 hours ago, Final_quest said:

Instead of saying the equivalent of trade Al Jefferson to get PP some help, people on here are gonna say trade Trae Young and build around Jalen and AJ.  

I don't think that's what people are saying at all.   I think what @TheNorthCydeRises and you may miss is that the bigger question is is Siakam the talent that can take us places.

Since you mentioned Ray, KG, and Pierce.

• Didn't Ray play with Rashard Lewis? 
• Didn't KG play with Marbury?
• Didn't Pierce play with Antoine Walker?

These were good players who just didn't materialize a chip winning combination.   So you can have good players and still not be able to win.  That's what getting Siakam will be here. 

Our players are good enough on the trade Blocks to bring back good players, the right player...

Siakam is not a good fit for what we do and he doesn't want to be here and he may end up being a rental.   This is not akin to trading Jefferson for KG,   This is equivalent to trading Nique for Manning.. in this way..  once you make that trade, you will no longer have those players to trade again.

Go back and look at Toronto's problems from last year.  @TheNorthCydeRises has already pointed them out.   Which of those problems did Siakam help solve?  Their bad three point shooting?   Their league worst rebounding?  Their poor defense?  When you think about those problems that he didn't help them solve, think about our problems.  Because once you pull that trigger and Clint is gone....  OO is a great young player but our rebounding has become really bad.   Our shooting from outside to open up space inside has become really bad.   When teams will be able to pack the inside and make us into a three point shooting team and all we're doing is throwing up garbage...  will we applaud the deal to get a Siakam?

 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

2 hours ago, Final_quest said:

This is exactly what's gonna happen if we don't get some more talent.  It's so predictable.  Trae would be the fall guy. 

Remember all the years KG, Ray Allen, and Paul Pierce couldn't get their teams over the hump until they joined together?  Instead of saying the equivalent of trade Al Jefferson to get PP some help, people on here are gonna say trade Trae Young and build around Jalen and AJ.  

We have a guy who can lead the league in scoring and assists, plus he's shown he can deliver BIG results in the playoffs.  But I think we only have to trade one of our top prospects anyways to get another All NBA type of guy.  We can both bring in another allstar and develop the remaining young players.  We don't need to kill the youth movement will we work towards being top 3 in the east.  
 

 

Perfect comparison with Allen, Pierce, and KG.

[Peoriabird]

10 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 

Perfect comparison with Allen, Pierce, and KG.

We're those 3 all NBA before the trade?

[Final_quest]

It seems like Jokic, Giannis, and Steph are maybe the only three guys people think are worth giving anything of value for in a trade, other stars either cost too much or are too flawed.  Yet we have 3-4 guys who have never started that are untradeable.