OP makes good points. Morey is really just a nice guy who happens to be in his position because of his analytic skills, which he prioritizes in his decision-making over sentimental feelings like loyalty. That's something you should want out of your GM. The only real knock on him is that his constant shuffling of assets leads to instability in the locker room and on the court. Too much turnover can never be a good thing.
We are still in a transitional period though.. One more star If that guy arrives, then i'd expect to see a lot more settling down. Especially if DH re-ups.
Assets or no assets, it is a 'what have you done for me' world we live in. NBA is no different. Quit fooling yourselves.
Add Brooks to the list. While he let him go on more than one occasion, the last time he gave him the option to stay and play on the bench, or play for a contract and an nba future with Denver.
In Sac-town, although he got to start, it was on a perennial non playoff team. The last time he was on the Rox, they were a Contender without major injuries. He was a BIG part of their Production, Heart & Soul. I still miss my boi Mandry no matter how much humaniti Mauri has
Yeah!! Dareel Marry is a human racist!! And I hate, hate, HATE, anyone who is a human racist! Down with Mary and free all mankind! FREEEDOOOOMM!!! (To all the Morey Haters) P.S. - If my boss called me an asset to the company, I would be flattered. Yall are all stupid and need to go back to the world of real life where normal people walk and breathe and pay attention to the subtleties of human interaction . Cyber Space has warped your weak little minds.
The difference between you being an asset to your company and the NBA is that your boss doesn't have the ability to trade you to Utah or Sacramento based on your asset value.
Th NBA is just different from most regular jobs. The players can get guaranteed contracts, but this also comes with a restrictive non-compete clause meaning that they can't just quit and sign with a new team (including both NBA teams and foreign teams under FIBA jurisdiction) if they are not satisfied with, for example, the state of their current team or if they got traded to an undesirable team. The best players have tremendous power as free agents deciding where to go-- or even as upcoming free agents (like Kevin Love)!able to use the status to force a trade to a team they find desirable or at least acceptable. At the same time, a player under contract doesn't have the same freedom to move from employer to employer that people in most other fields do. It is a matter of contract and a matter of there being a limited number of NBA teams (and other top pro teams around the world) and they are all covered under the non-compete terms. As a result, when signing a contract, a high level NBA player will tend to consider how likely he is to be dangled as a trade bait by the team as a factor in deciding where to go.
A player can negotiate a no trade clause... Theoretically, Chandler coulda said he'd sign for 5M/yr for 5 years, as long as he had a no trade clause for the entirety of the contract and Morey woulda prob jumped at it... but the player (outside of min guys) weighs his max earning potential vs such concerns...
OP, I like the bottom part about where players got traded. Excellent point that few probably thought of.
Let me make a simple point to you... The lowest paid player in the NBA makes more money than the average American makes in 4 years and all he has to do is sit on a bench a few hours a night and watch a basketball game. Don't feel sorry for these people. They are richer than 90% of the rest of the WORLD so knock it off with your cap. We are all tired of your obnoxious view of things.
Will he? I've watched a lot of NBA offseasons, and I've yet to see any indication that the likelihood of being subsequently traded is a deciding factor for anyone. The fact that you can construct a logic argument for something is not enough to prove that it is true. Maybe you have some actual evidence? The thing I like best is how you criticize the Rockets for doing something that your signature advocates for them to do.
My personal take on the whole "asset" thing in general. The NBA players CHOSE to be treated like assets once they focused on guaranteed contracts. In most other jobs, the employee can basically quit at any time when better opportunities arise, but also face the same risk of being laid off when the company deems said employee not useful anymore. NBA players don't get that same freedom, but in return they have guaranteed money regardless of production as long as they actually "work." And by work I mean they actually show up to practices and games, even if they suck at their job. If NBA players cared about not ever being traded, it would've been brought up in CBA negotiations. Yet this NEVER happens. It's all centered around getting the most money for players, not around freedom of choice. I'm certain if players want more freedom, like having no-trade clauses, they can get it if they allow owners to give them only partially guaranteed contracts(similar to the NFL). They don't do it. Why? Because they care about money first and foremost. Everyone makes choices in life and all choices means we have to give up something else. For NBA players, they chose the type of financial security in their jobs most others can't even dream of, but they don't get to choose where they work.
Being an 'asset' is part of the gig. DM isn't dehumanizing millionaire athletes in some meaningful way, he's doing his job, which is to replace guys with superior players more often than not until the team is good enough to win a championship. End of story. Don't let CH distract from that with poor reasoning (demonstrated by his use of SA/LAL/DAL/MIA as a gold standard for how to 'properly' treat players, which is suspect at best, and was thoroughly answered [but not responded to] by another poster). There's nothing more to this - ESPN / print media have decided to attach a narrative to how DM does business, and while it's true to an extent, it doesn't really have a meaningful impact on how we ought evaluate him as a GM.
Morey's strength is evaluating players dispassionately based on the numbers and finding untapped potential and talent. Numbers are not as good at measuring or quantifying team chemistry and the value of continuity. I really wonder if the calculus of team stability versus improvement in caliber of individual players will ever shift for Morey, more towards valuing the team component? Yes, if we get a third star, he is likely to really try to keep that three star core together. But will he not then keep shuffling role players?
