First - I am no expert in the business of sports. I prefer the game over the business. I am unclear on this topic of losing a superstar for nothing. It seems losing a superstar for nothing could be equal or greater to losing a superstar to trade. The Dwight Howard situation is an example. How is trading Dwight Howard better than having a max salary off the books? It isn't as if you are able to trade a superstar for a superstar. Why is there an advantage to trade him for role players, bad contracts or expiring contracts instead of letting him walk? I can see getting draft pics as part of the package as potentially beneficial, but isn't having extreme cap room also beneficial? How is this "nothing"?
Because most "superstars" these days are looking to play in big markets. Orlando isn't exactly one of the bigger markets.
That's not what he asked about. He asked about the benefit of trading a player vs. letting him walk. In most cases, I'd say if your star player is going to walk, trading him for picks is the best thing to do, or young, unproven talent... or at the very least, even more expiring contracts. Trading a star for decent complimentary pieces is kind of dumb (i.e. how Orlando did with TMac). Like willfully stepping onto the mediocrity treadmill.
I agree. Losing a SUPERSTAR for nothing means who are in immediate tank mode. As Morey says, Jbeing terrible "is the easiest way" to rebuild. See Lebron James and Kyrie Irving. Trading a SUPERSTAR for a package off players and picks could leave you in mediocrity for a long time. Plenty of examples in history of that. To Tank or to Trade. That's the question. imo, never trade midseason...just hold onto the superstar and trade him for the #1 pick in the draft...once the ping pong balls have come to rest. Of course, you must do this before he becomes a FA. Once he becomes a free agent...let him go...don't do a SnT.
The best you can hope for is to get back somoe high draft picks and expiring contracts so you can rebuild quickly. Getting a bunch of second tier players with long contracts is worse than just letting the guy walk.
Getting some high draft pics and expiring contracts for a superstar does seem to be the best case scenario. Letting him walk and having the financial flexibility seems to be the second best scenario. But if you look at trades involving "superstars" it seems that typically the team doing the trading is not receiving what I would deem as equal value- either in draft pics or young talent. And expiring contracts are a wash. So why not call the bluff with your "superstar"? If he wants to take less money to go to a bigger market you thank him for his time and send him on his way; having huge financial flexibility as the by-product. If you call his bluff and he re-signs then you win. Yet a team that lets a superstar walk is typically referred to as a team that "loses a superstar for nothing".
It's mainly because in baseball, losing a top player to another team as a free agent would still yield some draft picks as compensation. Obviously in the NBA, there is no such mandate to get forced compensation for losing a top FA, but then it appears as if you lose one for nothing.
I have to agree. You owe it to the fans to attempt all you can to sign him in the summer as a free agent. If he doesn't, then the fans know at least you tried. Do NOT offer a SnT. You have to fully convince the SUPERSTAR that you only want to keep him at all costs. As soon as you mention SnT, you are toast.
Edit: apparently they changed it up a bit in the last CBA, but there will still be draft compensation in MLB. Also, there used to also be draft compensation in the NHL, but that was done away with in the last CBA as well.
Behold the beauty of oncoming expiring contracts. Its like letting your superstar walk AND getting a bunch of treats. If the NFL worked that way the Texans would have a first round pick right now instead of depth issues at 34OLB.
What's worse is having your superstar to walk (in crutches) off to an early retirement. Recently happened to us 3 times: Sura, Deke and Yao. they were superstars damnit!
If a team lets their superstar walk they don't neccessarily get extreme cap room, it depends on their cap situation. Since the NBA has a soft cap teams can and often do go over the cap. This year's Laker's payroll is amost $30M over the cap. Orlando's payroll was right behind LA until they amnestied Arenas so I'm not sure where they rank now. If a superstar leaves his salary comes off the books but your cap space is still based on the remaining total salary of the team. Let's say a team is $15M over the cap and they let a player making something simillar to Dwight Howard's $18M leave for nothing. Unless they have other players coming off the books too then they would be without a superstar and still only be $3M under the cap. $3M in cap space isn't going to help you do much nowdays (since it less than the MLE) and it certainly isn't going to get you a replacement for a superstar. It's doubly tough because even if you have significant cap space there's still no easy way to acquire another superstar. Also , typically teams who are trading superstars don't take on bad contracts but instead they ship them out with the superstar. For example the rumored SnT for Howard to NJ would allow Orlando to dump Hedo's contract on NJ. Those type SnT deals allow the team losing the star to get some young guys with potential who could develop into stars down the road.
Right - But saying that the salary doesn't matter because the team is already 10 million dollars over the cap with their superstar on the roster is not a valid argument. If they resign him they are still millions over the cap. If they let him walk they still have the capacity to pay millions over the cap if they choose. Shipping out bad contracts with the superstar and getting pics or young talent back is certainly valid. However, the reality is that I do not see teams who trade a superstar getting much value back for their efforts. In the real world that is. I'm trying to think of a time when a team traded a superstar and it worked out well for them. I'm drawing a blank. In respect to how easy it is to get a superstar, there is no easy way. Although if you believe the hype around this join all you have to do is lose a lot. My point is that letting a superstar walk is a strategy worth pursuing depending on the team situation. I do not see this "nothing" that is consistently referenced in that scenario.
So it's like dealing with terrorists. You don't yield to their threats because once you do, they will escalate their terror acts.
that's not true... they were likely only so far over the cap in the first place because they resigned their own guys using bird rights. You can't just keep signing random free agents and go over the cap.. hence the term cap. this is a function of the fact that they are trading a superstar anyway, and not really the right thing to look at. What you need to be looking at are teams that traded a superstar vs. teams that just let them walk. Did it turn out meaningfully better for Orlando when Shaq left as a free agent? No. It didn't work out for them either. When a team is trading a superstar, it is often when they are about to become free agents, thus lowering their trade value a bit anyway. Then consider that the trading team knows their best shot is usually draft picks and young players, which can take years to work out, and it's not an exact science to analyze afterwards. I wouldn't call Ray Allen a superstar, but I think the philosophy certainly worked for the Sonics/Thunder. Trade star player for draft pick. No, it wasn't the only move required, but becomes part of the philosophy. Even look at the oft-ridiculed Memphis-Lakers Gasol trade. Again, it's not a 1:1 correlation, but when it's all said and done, you'd have to argue that trade likely helped push the Grizzlies somewhere where they never went with Pau, and likely never would... playoff series win. I think you're looking too hard for a scenario where a team trades their superstar and stays as good as they were just before the trade. That's almost never going to happen. Things are going downhill already when you learn you'll have to trade your superstar... at that point it's about salvaging value. Finally, just a random thought... but if part of the strategy becomes to play the superstar's bluff, and see if he really does walk in the offseason, isn't there something where that player still counts against your cap until he's either resigned or signs with another team? Not a major negative, but another one. I see no reason why a team would want to lose a superstar for nothing. You're better off getting draft picks and other contracts back that also expire that offseason, if your goal is to maximize cap space.
haha...didn't think of it that way...but yeah. Give him a iPad if you have to, but I would only negotiate signing...not leaving. SnTs should be abolished anyhow.
yeah because the rockets had undeniable success on that trade. man what the magic gave up, first round exits
Wait what? Do you have any concept of what a cap is? This is the basic NBA salary structure: Under Cap--->Salary Cap----->Luxury Tax If you're under the cap you can sign players and trade for players. If you're over the cap you can't sign players anymore, and every trade you do has to more or less have matching salaries. If you're significantly over the cap, then it doesn't matter if you let your 20M franchise player walk, there will be no cap room waiting for you. Secondly,even if you do have cap room there's no guarantee you'll have players willing to sign for it, look at the Nets and Detroit who cleared cap room and didn't have anyone to spend it on. Finally, having a superstar lowers your pick, and once they leave you'll have a horrible team and low picks.
Well, so who's in better shape, Nuggets or Cavaliers? You may have different answers from different perspective.
The hockey guy thought he made out like bandit on that deal. Look at Utah - - what do you think? I think Sloan + that roster and they would have a sure p/o ticket. Look at Denver - - they traded superstar for pieces and look good now and better tomorrow. Look at Rox - - superstar goes to physical purgatory and brings back hope but little reality; superstar goes to physical hell and brings back nothing but woulda/coulda/shoulda. No trade, no pieces just great regret over a great fellow's truncated career.
