Bill Simmons: Morey would think about trading for Bynum

Lol I read today he is going to make a come back next year. I would give him the vet minimum 1 yr deal.

 

Oden article
http://www.slamonline.com/online/nb...um-says-greg-oden-plans-to-return-to-the-nba/

 

I enjoy reading Simmons, but every once in a while he goes off on a bizarre tangent. This is one of those times, IMO. Morey would be nuts to trade for Bynum.

 

Oh my goodness friend, this is just a first google result:

http://www.csnnw.com/pages/landingd...he-NBA-would-cos=1&blockID=740392&feedID=8351


He "came back" to play with Minnesota so that the Blazers would have to pay him on his original contract. Which wasn't even insured, by the way.

 

To help you understand it better, the partially insurance amount was money that the team would NOT have to pay the player on his contract. So if they DO have to pay the full amount on the contract, guess where that money goes?

That's right. To the player.

I hate to bash a guy who's been through so much, but this "he keeps trying to come back for the love of the game" characterization with Roy is incredibly shady and false.

 

They call this cocaine confidence as in only a world class snorter would be cocky enough to waste assets/time/money on Bynum.

Perhaps Morey was a Hollywood producer in his previous life?

 

*partially insured amount


Eh, you know what I mean. I think you understand it now.

 

The partial insurance is how much the insurance company as opposed to his team paid out of his contract.

By coming back, the insurance policy was void, and the team was up 100% of it.

He was going to get the full amount, all this changed was who paid what of it.

 

This is wrong. The amounts owed vary based on the payor. The insurance company would have paid 80% to Roy. Instead, the Blazers had to pay him 100%. It is almost certain that Brandon Roy's financial advisor alerted him to this fact.

 

then when Yao Ming walks through the door, Morey would snap his fingers and go, "oh yeah"!

 

Considering Simmons and Morey are both pretty public about being friends with one another, its hard to imagine that Simmons just "thinks the rockets are a scrap yard"

 

I think you'll find that this isn't even that uncommon outside of sports. People who collect disability insurance on their salaries are paid a percentage of what they would be making if they were healthy working.

And so it is with NBA players as well.

 

Hell no, if he really wants him, then sign him outright next summer (which would still be a mistake). No reason to give something up for him when he's a FA in the summer.

 

Did that person also not know that an insurance company pays just a percentage of the guaranteed base salary of an NBA contract in cases of disability? I feel so "corrected" on this point. Well, FAQ you. Here is the relevant provision from Larry Coon's FAQ:

 

And you will find that it is extremely more common for people to struggle with the idea of retirement.

If you're going to say that "Brandon Roy came back and played 5 games of basketball [just] so he could collect millions in insurance money" you better have a damn good source to make such a claim. Roy's intentions are legitimate until the contrary is proven, his trajectory as a player and person have earned him that much considering the circumstances. Why are you assuming a fraud? If you were a public writer you would most likely be committing libel.

 

Oh I see, so you're through trying to tell me I'm wrong about this under NBA contract rules (I'm clearly not wrong at all) and so you've shifted gears to some shaky moral argument informed by what exactly, an ESPN human interest story scored to sad piano music? Is that really an argument? That's not really an argument, is it?

You like this player and find him what, inspiring? Well fantastic I guess. I won't take that away from you.

 

You didn't continue reading the FAQ.

The league takes out the policy on behalf of the teams. That means the teams are the beneficiary of the insurance contract, not the individual players.

If that wasn't clear enough, the last line from Larry Coon seals it. You are generally correct, but the insurance company is paying the Blazers, not Roy. That is why, from the link you posted previously, http://www.csnnw.com/pages/landingd...he-NBA-would-cos=1&blockID=740392&feedID=8351

Roy's contract was guaranteed either way, and was an agreement between he and the Blazers. Not dissimilar to the Darius Miles debacle.

 

I'm done wasting my time on you, you clearly can't sustain a healthy discussion and have demonstrated to be deliberately obtuse. In the meanwhile, I'll leave with your outrageous claims and will hope that you reflect on this.

 

That's fascinating and cogent analysis and all, but the point that was being disputed was the guaranteed amount of the contract, NOT who had to pay the money and to whom. It matters not if the insurance company pays the team, who in turn pays the player the partially insured amount.

What matters is that when that circumstance is triggered, the amount that is paid to the player on disability is less than it otherwise would be.

Don't get thrown by the use of the words "guarantee" or "guaranteed." These deals are only mostly guaranteed.

And furthermore, why is it you believe a sentence related to the trade of a player is not only relevant, but some sort of critical ommission, when Brandon Roy was NOT traded to the Timberwolves?

 

*shrug* You went all silly moralistic argument on me because the facts weren't in your favor. And now you're moral high grounding me again after being snippy and curt with me earlier, and starting this argument with me in the first place. Those are more facts, my friend.