Since when is that the starting lineup? When did Harris lose his spot? When did Aldridge become a permanent starter?
Yep. No way they are leaving Harris out of the line-up. What's crazy is I think the rockets would have won a championship if they could have had LMA and Harris on the squad. LMA really should have teamed up with Harden in his prime.
NBA is bullshit. How are Spurs and Detroit paying for Brooklyn to be favorites? How a player can get his guaranteed dozens of millions of contract he signed with one team, just to force move to 'better place to live' for free? Who is benefiting from it other than the players? And then they are gonna run to the media and cry that owners make them play? I literally stopped watching this bullshit after LMA and Griffin forced their moves
change my view: if player wants to play for another team then he gets 0$ from the buyout. If he gets money from the buyout, the moment he decides to play again should be for the team that bought him out
That is part of the negotiation, right? LMA gave up $7M on his contract to get bought out. If he was willing to give up more, then it's up to the Spurs to negotiate for that.
lol at people crying about buyouts Tell me, who forced San Antonio and Detroit to buy out LMA and Blake Griffin? They didn’t want them, and tried to find a trade but couldn’t. They even told these dudes to not even show up and stay at home while they try and find a way to get rid of them. LMA and Blake were at home for weeks. Now we got people crying. Gtfoh buyouts weren’t an issue when the Rockets were always using it or hoping to use it, so keep that same energy and stop being hypocritical
The team that signs the bought out player should have to assume a decent percentage of the cost, or at minimum a cap hit. This subverts the intent of a salary cap otherwise, because those players are getting compensated in a way that isn't being recorded against the cap. It punishes the team that signed them to a large deal, but not the player for underperforming or falling out with the team, and obviously is a loophole for the new team. Its an easy fix but it just requires enough owners or players to care that it gets negotiated in the CBA. In other words ain't gonna happen. This league is owned by superteams and players sell gear, parity is not its interest. Acceptance is bliss.
The team that signs the player *does* assume part of the cost. They have to sign the player at least at the appropriate minimum as dictated by the players union agreement. And then they have to make the player happy...LMA gave up $7M from his contract for the Spurs to buy him out, so then LMA has to decide if he's willing to sign with the Nets for the minimum or to have them make up for the money he gave up. In this case, the Nets were attractive enough to Aldridge that he was willing to sign for the minimum. If someone willing to get paid less to play somewhere more attractive, is that a bad thing?
Yes, you're right, but it doesn't necessarily conflict with anything I wrote. I'm not a fan of it, I think it could be improved. I doubt anyone would argue that it's already maximized for competitive balance. Just because a team has to play those players a CBA designated minimum does not mean it's anywhere near market value. The intent of a salary cap relies on players being valued properly. In these cases a player goes from being over-compensated to under-compensated because they're still splitting the difference, but for the salary cap and team perspective this escapes the intended process. In MOST cases this prevents a trade from occurring instead of a buyout, where the original team could get an asset back in exchange, at least. The CBA could work on mechanisms to improve that.
But what is "market value"? If a player is willing to get paid less to play for a specific organization, does that not represent market value? If an organization makes itself so attractive that players are willing to get paid less than what others are willing to pay, I don't see a problem with that. Regarding your point about buyouts prevent a trade, remember that these contracts are 3-4 years long, sometimes longer...so the team has the trade leverage for much longer than the player has any kind of buyout leverage.
That is the fun part. The player could sign another Max contract theoretically People b!tched that players care more about money than championships Now People bitxhing because players care more about championships than money Cannot have it both ways. Rocket River
I am saying that Spurs and particulary Detroit are paying for player that suits up for Brooklyn. What Blake Griffin did is just plain wrong
Blake Griffin gave up $13M on his contract for the buyout in exchange for a $1.2M contract with the Nets.
and? Detroit could have saved no but it saved them a ton of money, flexibilty, and time. so if Griffin went to the Lakers or Utah, will Detroit feel better or will you stop crying?
People just enjoy complaining. As if super teams never existed in the past lol. If they choose money, they are sell outs, if they choose to take less and team up to win they are taking a easy path and if they win the "right way" people will still find some type of issue.
In the 80s, Bill Walton and Bob McAdoo, former MVPs, came off the bench for the Celtics and Lakers. Former superstars taking less money and a smaller role to win is nothing new. The Spurs and the Pistons don't seem too upset. If these overppaid, over-the-hill vets are not useful for a rebuilding team focused on developing young players, what's the problem with buying them out? They are paying these guys either way.