I hope the Siakam deal fails to go through.

[Diesel]

On 8/7/2023 at 6:48 PM, AHF said:

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

I'm glad you saw the light. 

[AHF]

16 hours ago, Diesel said:

To that I say that it ought to be that if he signs a contract to play with a certain team, he ought to have say if that team decides to move him to some place that he has not chosen to play.

The New CBA is coming.  Until that is put into place, I'm not mad at any player who would rather retire than be forced to play for a team that he doesn't want to play for 

This is what I was trying to explore.  What does this mean?  I am not sure what you are proposing.

The new CBA is the same as the old CBA in this regard so nothing is changing and there is no need to wait for anything.  In fact, the new CBA is already here so there wouldn't be a need to wait anyway.  Players only had a say on trades under the old CBA if they negotiated some type of trade restriction into their contract and that remains the same.  This was the point I was trying to focus on with the "ought" versus "reality."  While you think a player ought to have a say, he doesn't today and doesn't with the new CBA.

But I'm not sure what you think he "ought" to be able to do.  That is what I was trying to better understand.

Quote

Even now, you are trying to equate a player with a draft pick.  Just because you can trade players for draft picks don't mean that they are equal.   

I wasn't trying to equate them, I was trying to understand what you were proposing.  The same logic that says that a player should be able to choose his team and not be forced to go somewhere else against his will could apply equally to be an argument against the draft.  It sounds like you are good with the draft and don't think that players "ought" to be able to have any say in where they play when they enter the league.

Quote

Players have lives my friend.  If I choose not to play in Milwaukee and you trade me there... It's my prerogative to retire.  Until Players get the right to have some say as to where they are traded without having to negotiate that right, I say I don't blame any one of them for sitting out. 

Retiring is a very rare thing and something Lillard has never discussed to my knowledge.  The rumors simply said he would refuse to perform what he committed to perform under his contract.  Official retirement voids the player's contract, triggers changes in salary cap, retirement benefit obligations for the NBA, etc.  The original team holds contractual rights that prevent the player from exiting retirement with anyone other than the team with whom they were under contract when they retired.  Notably, the player cannot return for 1 year after retiring.  Lillard had no intention of retiring.  His intention was simply to breach his contract.

--

So, again, once we were on the same page that players have no formal say in where they are traded I was interested to understand what you mean when you say a player "ought" to have some control over where they are traded.  I still have no idea what you really mean by this - whether it is a right to veto certain trade partners, a right to veto trades themselves, limited rights along these lines, etc.  Any hypothetical proposal would be a change from the old CBA and new CBA and would likely trigger other changes to go with it but understanding what control you think James Harden should have over where Philly trades him would be a helpful start.

[AHF]

4 minutes ago, Diesel said:

I'm glad you saw the light. 

This is a distinction without a practical difference.  No one ever advocated for ownership of people.  The topic has always been potentially modifying the contractual rights of teams and players with regard to where a player (or player's contractual rights to be precise) can be traded by teams without their consent.  I didn't think for a second you actually believed anyone was talking about owning Lillard.  It is that Lillard's contract is a valuable asset for the Trailblazers and teams and players have a set of rights that are defined under the CBA and that contract.  Those rights generally provide that a player (or again that player's contract) can be traded without their consent and that the player must perform for the new team or be subject to consequences for breaching their contract just like a team would be subject to consequences if they chose not to pay the player.

[Diesel]

31 minutes ago, AHF said:

The contract the player has signed is the asset not the player. 

Time for lesson two.  @AHF The league treats players like Human assets.   Let me disprove what you're saying about the contract. 

Last year, Gallo was traded for Murray.

The Spurs bought Gallo out of his contract. 

Gallo could sign with any team except Atlanta.  In fact, Atlanta couldn't obtain him for a calendar year. 

Now, if there is no contract in place because his contract had been bought out...  How was Gallo restricted?

Answer:  He was restricted because HE was seen as the asset and not his contract. 

This is wrong. 

 

 

[Diesel]

17 minutes ago, AHF said:

It sounds like you are good with the draft and don't think that players "ought" to be able to have any say in where they play when they enter the league.

Oh, the old Stevie Francis argument.   Drafted players do have a choice to sign or not.  Just like Steve Francis didn't want to play for Vancouver a drafted player can hold out. 

[Diesel]

23 minutes ago, AHF said:

Lillard had no intention of retiring.  His intention was simply to breach his contract.

Lillard could just as easily take the Ben Simmons route and claim some mysterious back injury.   The Kawhi way.   I said retirement because he's of a certain age but not play for that team. 

I believe that there ought to be a no trade clause or something close to it for all signed players.   It should be inherent in the contract.   Why?  Because a player ought to be notified that they are going to be traded and given some say on what team he is going to.   Why would this be so troubling?

My premise is that the players chose to play for your team.   However, when you trade a player, you take that player's choice away.  As if they were an asset.   Players are not assets.   They are not chess pieces.   They are people with lives.   They ought to be some form of arbitration if there's a disagreement between the player and the team. 

Right now..

• A team can trade you. 
• The league can tell you that with or without a contract, you can't play here. 

The only thing a player has is a salary.   

 

 

[JayBirdHawk]

6 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Lillard could just as easily take the Ben Simmons route and claim some mysterious back injury.   The Kawhi way.   I said retirement because he's of a certain age but not play for that team. 

I believe that there ought to be a no trade clause or something close to it for all signed players.   It should be inherent in the contract.   Why?  Because a player ought to be notified that they are going to be traded and given some say on what team he is going to.   Why would this be so troubling?

My premise is that the players chose to play for your team.   However, when you trade a player, you take that player's choice away.  As if they were an asset.   Players are not assets.   They are not chess pieces.   They are people with lives.   They ought to be some form of arbitration if there's a disagreement between the player and the team. 

Right now..

• A team can trade you. 
• The league can tell you that with or without a contract, you can't play here. 

The only thing a player has is a salary.   

 

 

The players have put pen to paper on this and past CBA's - it is what it is. 

[Diesel]

5 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

The players have put pen to paper on this and past CBA's - it is what it is. 

That is true but between now and the next CBA, expect to see more "hold outs".    The realization is here for players that they are more than just "human assets". 

 

[AHF]

46 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Time for lesson two.  @AHF The league treats players like Human assets.   Let me disprove what you're saying about the contract. 

Last year, Gallo was traded for Murray.

The Spurs bought Gallo out of his contract. 

Gallo could sign with any team except Atlanta.  In fact, Atlanta couldn't obtain him for a calendar year. 

Now, if there is no contract in place because his contract had been bought out...  How was Gallo restricted?

Answer:  He was restricted because HE was seen as the asset and not his contract. 

This is wrong. 

 

 

This is easy to answer.  The contract has to be read in the context of the CBA.  The CBA is what restricts him.  It is also a contract known as a collective bargaining agreement between the NBA and the Union that applies to all players.  It is right for teams to follow the CBA.

[JayBirdHawk]

11 minutes ago, Diesel said:

That is true but between now and the next CBA, expect to see more "hold outs".    The realization is here for players that they are more than just "human assets". 

 

Hold outs?

Stop trying to make this a thing.

Players hear 'Non-guaranteed' contracts and they'll be signing up for the next CBA quickly.

[AHF]

26 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Lillard could just as easily take the Ben Simmons route and claim some mysterious back injury.   The Kawhi way.   I said retirement because he's of a certain age but not play for that team. 

 

 

If a player is committing fraud and gets caught there are a heap of consequences that flow from that.  It doesn't change anything about how the rights work in a trade context.

Players also have a lot more than salary under their CBA and a handful of other things under their contract.

Quote

I believe that there ought to be a no trade clause or something close to it for all signed players.   It should be inherent in the contract.   Why?  Because a player ought to be notified that they are going to be traded and given some say on what team he is going to.   Why would this be so troubling?

 

I think could be profoundly troubling from a team management and a fan perspective.  Giving players the right to trades to every other team in the league completely changes how the league works.  But the devil in the details which is why I was asking these questions:

1. Would you eliminate the draft and let players sign with whatever team they want ala the Premier League?  So in this world, Miami could have signed LeBron, Wade and Bosh right as they entered the league?  No.  D's earlier post makes clear the draft would remain.
2. If you still have a draft or some system to allow all teams to get access to star talent, would you read the automatic no trade clause into rookie contracts?  
3. Would you eliminate RFA?  That is a step farther that what you are talking about.  You sign with one team and never even get to play with them when your team matches.
4. For veterans who are UFA under today's CBA, would you read a no trade clause into all contracts?  
5. How broad would the no trade clause you want automatically included in every contract be?  Would the player be able to block a certain number of teams?  Every team in the league?  Would the player just be able to ban certain teams or would they also get to reject the trade itself?  Example:  Rudy Gobert demands to be traded to the T-Wolves but when Utah and Minnesota agree on a deal would you let Gobert block the trade under his no trade clause if he had some other reason he didn't like it such as thinking the T-Wolves were giving up too much and would not be sufficiently competitive in his mind after the trade?
6. What would you do for players who demand to be traded or becomes actively hostile to his team?  Example:  James Harden had all the right in the world under his existing contract to choose his team this year.  He could have declined his option with the Sixers but he chose to exercise it instead.  Now, Harden is demanding to be paid the $35M owed under his option but also to be traded because he doesn't want to play for Philadelphia.  Are you saying that you will let him block trades that the Sixers might agree to with another team even when he both opted into this deal and demanded a trade?  If he has a no trade clause automatically included in his contract, presumably you would allow him to block every trade the Sixers agree to until he approves of it.
7. How would you compare the expected return on a trade where a player has a single team they want to play for (i.e., the Lillard example) in light of how broad you would make the no trade clause automatically included in every contract?  For example, if Rudy Gobert went and told Utah last year that he was done playing for the team and would not approve a trade to anyone other than the Lakers how much do you think the Lakers would offer in return beyond salary filler to make the trade work and how do you think that would compare against what they actually got from the T-Wolves?

[shakes]

so apparently the Hawks offered Hunter/AJ/draft pick for Siakam and were turned down.

 

I'm glad the Hawks are looking at this the same way I am in terms of what they would be willing to give up.   ONly thing I would miss in that offer is AJ.

 

hopefully this ends the flirtation with Toronto.  I wouldn't pay a dime more than what was offered.

[Johnnybravo4]

I think this is a done deal.  Probably working on an unofficial extension number for Siakam.

[Diesel]

1. Would you eliminate the draft and let players sign with whatever team they want ala the Premier League? 

No.  But that's FAcy.   Let's be honest, the draft is just a measure of control exerted by the league to keep certain markets afloat.   If the markets could stay afloat on it's own, then I would see no need for a draft.   

1. If you still have a draft or some system to allow all teams to get access to star talent, would you read the automatic no trade clause into rookie contracts?  

They already have that right?  By the contract, a team has the ability to keep a rookie for what.. 6 years. 

1. Would you eliminate RFA?  That is a step farther that what you are talking about.  You sign with one team and never even get to play with them when your team matches.

Yes.   The whole purpose of RFAcy is to give the original team control over the players' future. The player should not be treated like a human asset. 

1. For veterans who are UFA under today's CBA, would you read a no trade clause into all contracts?  

Yes. When a player chooses to play for a team, he is not just choosing to take the money, especially if the money is the same everywhere else.   If 5 teams could offer a player a 5 year 100 Million Dollar deal, how does a player decide?  He decides by where he would rather play.  What if the team he signed with says... Great, we have you, we only wanted you so that we can use you in a trade to the Newport News Devildogs...  where nobody wants to play..   How is that at all fair to the player?

 

1. How broad would the no trade clause you want automatically included in every contract be?  Would the player be able to block a certain number of teams?  Every team in the league?  Would the player just be able to ban certain teams or would they also get to reject the trade itself?  Example:  Rudy Gobert demands to be traded to the T-Wolves but when Utah and Minnesota agree on a deal would you let Gobert block the trade under his no trade clause if he had some other reason he didn't like it such as thinking the T-Wolves were giving up too much and would not be sufficiently competitive in his mind after the trade?

I suggest to make it fair, case by case, a player gets to apply the no trade clause and then it goes to arbitration.  In arbitration, Either the player gets paid a trade kicker of 15% or the team gets 15% from the player salary.   So this is what it would look like..

If said player goes to a new team that he doesn't want to play for, he gets 15% trade kicker added to his salary. 

If said player either stays or is sent to a team of his choice, he pays 15% from his salary to the original team. 

So Harden.   Let's say he signed a 4 year 200 Million dollar deal with the 76ers and demanded a trade.   In arbitration he would get a trade to whereever he wanted to go.... let's say Houston.   Houston pays Harden 4 years 200 Million (the trade kick doesn't change their cap).  However, Harden owes the 76ers... 7.5 Million dollars a year.   So even though Houston is paying Harden 200 Million, Harden only sees what he would see Salary - 7.5 Million per year.  The 76ers get that 7.5 Million dollars per year as an exception.

If Harden gets to Houston and after year 1, wanted to be traded somewhere else...  It would cost him 7.5 Million dollars per year to go to his new team.   His new team would still be responsible for the original contract .. Let's just say 3 year 150 Million, but Harden would have to pay 15% of his original deal.  So now, he would be paying the 76ers 7.5 Million for the next 3 years and Houston 7.5 Million for the next 3 years. 

This would be for every player. 

Now if The 76ers wanted to trade Harden to Brooklyn...  the arbitration may go that the trade goes through and the 76ers would pay Harden 7.5 Million dollars per year...  And this 7.5 Million sits on their cap situation. 

 

 

[Diesel]

1 minute ago, Johnnybravo4 said:

I think this is a done deal.  Probably working on an unofficial extension number for Siakam.

If this is a done deal, that would suggest that maybe Bogi is part of the deal and not Hunter. 

So that would be Bogi/AJ and a Draft pick or maybe Bogi/Bufkin and a draft pick. 

Either way, we would be the worst shooting team in the league. 

 

[JayBirdHawk]

3 minutes ago, Diesel said:

If this is a done deal, that would suggest that maybe Bogi is part of the deal and not Hunter. 

So that would be Bogi/AJ and a Draft pick or maybe Bogi/Bufkin and a draft pick. 

Either way, we would be the worst shooting team in the league. 

 

Que?

Bogi isn't trade eligible until Sept 16th.

Hawks shouldn't trade their 2 best 3pt shooters.

[shakes]

26 minutes ago, Diesel said:

If this is a done deal, that would suggest that maybe Bogi is part of the deal and not Hunter. 

So that would be Bogi/AJ and a Draft pick or maybe Bogi/Bufkin and a draft pick. 

Either way, we would be the worst shooting team in the league. 

 

How is that the deal if Toronto already rejected that deal?  I doubt replacing Hunter with Bogi moves the needle for Toronto.

[AHF]

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

1. If you still have a draft or some system to allow all teams to get access to star talent, would you read the automatic no trade clause into rookie contracts?  

They already have that right?  By the contract, a team has the ability to keep a rookie for what.. 6 years. 

 

 

No.  There is no "no trade" clause in rookie contracts or any other contract today.  No trade clauses cannot be part of rookie contracts even if the team would be willing to grant them.  Only new contracts after the rookie contract have that as a possibility.  So automatically including no trade clauses in these would be new.

Quote

1. Would you eliminate RFA?  That is a step farther that what you are talking about.  You sign with one team and never even get to play with them when your team matches.

Yes.   The whole purpose of RFAcy is to give the original team control over the players' future. The player should not be treated like a human asset. 

 

Thanks.  I see this as a disaster for fans and the league as a whole without major changes to the CBA and other provisions.  Imagine if Luka was already gone from Dallas.  What hope would they have?

Quote

1. For veterans who are UFA under today's CBA, would you read a no trade clause into all contracts?  

Yes. When a player chooses to play for a team, he is not just choosing to take the money, especially if the money is the same everywhere else.   If 5 teams could offer a player a 5 year 100 Million Dollar deal, how does a player decide?  He decides by where he would rather play.  What if the team he signed with says... Great, we have you, we only wanted you so that we can use you in a trade to the Newport News Devildogs...  where nobody wants to play..   How is that at all fair to the player?

He might also decide based on other terms of the deal such as which teams are willing to give him a no trade clause.  In any case, all NBA markets are in large cities so there is no equivalent to a Newport News scenario.  Even the smallest markets are among the biggest cities in the US.

Quote

 

1. How broad would the no trade clause you want automatically included in every contract be?  Would the player be able to block a certain number of teams?  Every team in the league?  Would the player just be able to ban certain teams or would they also get to reject the trade itself?  Example:  Rudy Gobert demands to be traded to the T-Wolves but when Utah and Minnesota agree on a deal would you let Gobert block the trade under his no trade clause if he had some other reason he didn't like it such as thinking the T-Wolves were giving up too much and would not be sufficiently competitive in his mind after the trade?

I suggest to make it fair, case by case, a player gets to apply the no trade clause and then it goes to arbitration.  In arbitration, Either the player gets paid a trade kicker of 15% or the team gets 15% from the player salary.   So this is what it would look like..

If said player goes to a new team that he doesn't want to play for, he gets 15% trade kicker added to his salary. 

If said player either stays or is sent to a team of his choice, he pays 15% from his salary to the original team. 

So Harden.   Let's say he signed a 4 year 200 Million dollar deal with the 76ers and demanded a trade.   In arbitration he would get a trade to whereever he wanted to go.... let's say Houston.   Houston pays Harden 4 years 200 Million (the trade kick doesn't change their cap).  However, Harden owes the 76ers... 7.5 Million dollars a year.   So even though Houston is paying Harden 200 Million, Harden only sees what he would see Salary - 7.5 Million per year.  The 76ers get that 7.5 Million dollars per year as an exception.

If Harden gets to Houston and after year 1, wanted to be traded somewhere else...  It would cost him 7.5 Million dollars per year to go to his new team.   His new team would still be responsible for the original contract .. Let's just say 3 year 150 Million, but Harden would have to pay 15% of his original deal.  So now, he would be paying the 76ers 7.5 Million for the next 3 years and Houston 7.5 Million for the next 3 years. 

This would be for every player. 

Now if The 76ers wanted to trade Harden to Brooklyn...  the arbitration may go that the trade goes through and the 76ers would pay Harden 7.5 Million dollars per year...  And this 7.5 Million sits on their cap situation. 

Trade Kicker Not No Trade Clause When Team Trades A Player - Just to be clear then, your proposal is that the players don't actually have a no trade right they have a right to a trade kicker if the team trades them without their consent?  Basically the same thing many players already negotiate on their own today.

How Do Player Trade Demands Work? One thing that is unclear to me is the scenario where a player demands a trade to Houston. 

In arbitration he would get a trade to whereever he wanted to go.... let's say Houston.

Is the team forced to trade him to Houston?  If so, is that based on the outcome of the arbitration that might take weeks or months (unless it is unlike every other arbitration)? I

How It Works - From a process perspective, our scenario is that Portland decides to rebuild and Lillard demands a trade but only wants to go to Miami.  Portland agrees  trading him now that he is disgruntled is in their best interest.  So they start taliking to teams and reach an agreement to a trade with Houston.  Then Lillard exercises his "no trade / trade kicker" because he only wants to go to Miami.  Portland then faces the choice of taking the great offer from Houston or the garbage trade offer from Miami.

Scenario 1 - The Portland trades him to Houston anyway.  Lillard then has to go without a need to finish the arbitration first.  Then Portland and Lillard go to arbitration and argue about...what?  What is the arbitrator deciding on here?  Is it about who is really to blame for the breakup ala a divorce proceeding?  Is it just a matter of showing that Lillard objected to the trade but Portland did it anyway?  (if the latter why even have an arbitration?)

Scenario 2 - Portland trades him to Miami.  Lillard goes and then the team files for arbitration claiming they didn't want to trade  him to Miami but did it to satisfy his demand and so should get 15% of his salary remaining on his deal.  But presumably Lillard will be arguing that it was really Portland's idea to trade him in the first place because they were starting into a rebuild or maybe he would argue that when he signed his contract they promised him the team would contend but the team had changed direction and started into a rebuild and therefore he shouldn't have to pay the penalty for demanding a trade.  Key question again is what the arbitrator is deciding on here.

Broad Comments

This also seems like it would generate lots of gamesmanship since players will be incentivized to block trades just to ensure they get the 15% kicker.

The 15% payment to the team seems antithetical to the Union which has always prioritized guaranteed money for the members above just about everything else.  If an arbitrator can now decide it was more the player's fault that he got moved and he is suddenly giving up $30M of his $200M deal that would be a huge issue for them internally.

I would also suspect that many trades would involve drag out fights over whose fault it was if that is going to be the key issue at an arbitration.  Use the Ben Simmons example.  He poisons the well in Philly refusing to play for mental health reasons.  Now they go to trade him and he vetoes the deal because he wants the trade kicker.  Philly then has to carry this cancer for years or go through with the trade because they want to compete now and want to move on.  If they complete the trade over his objection, the matter goes to arbitration and they potentially pay him an extra 15% to boot?  (I am assuming that if the player wins at arbitration that there is no cap impact to the team that traded him or traded for him under your system.)  Imagine swallowing that as a team owner or a fan.  Your "star" poisons the well, you can't get real value back in a trade if the player can block or force trades, and then that same problem player gets a 15% kicker that removes money that might otherwise have been spent making the team better.

[macdaddy]

AJ is on a rookie deal and played 20 minutes a game for a coach that doesn't play a lot of young players.  Plus AJ is Landry's draft pick.   He isn't going anywhere (crosses fingers).  

[Hawkish]

Just now, macdaddy said:

AJ is on a rookie deal and played 20 minutes a game for a coach that doesn't play a lot of young players.  Plus AJ is Landry's draft pick.   He isn't going anywhere (crosses fingers).  

Hope you’re right.  Hunter, Capela, Bogi, and the SAC 1st are the only assets I’m willing to use to facilitate a Pascal trade.