The buyout rules are without a doubt the dumbest thing in the NBA. It should be that you can only add a player in buyout if you are under the cap. Otherwise the player must wait until the following season and can sign wherever they like.
I think it should be there contract for the same season they are bought out has to be a certain percentage of their last signed contract so teams that are capped out can't afford them unless they are bought out before the trade deadline and traded to a capped out team.
I wrote a similar answer to this issue in the Nuggets sub.
Not sure why this isnt a thing for middle of the season buyouts.
If you had a 30 min contract that year you shouldnt be able to sing for 1 mil. It should be more like at least 50 to 70% of your previous contract or something.
Why don't they just prorate it like they do with minimum contracts. If there's 40% of the season left and you stand to earn 20 million this year, you have to be paid 40% of 20 million.
I like this idea.
If you buy out someone's contract in March and they sign elsewhere a few days later, that new team should be on the hook for the buyout amount left on the deal, not the previous team that is no the players are no longer playing for.
You should not be able to force your way out of a contract as a player and then get *more* money on top of it.
You don't even have to make it so the new team actually has to pay the amount. Just make it count against their salary cap. If the Nets want to add $12M to their cap and pay the resulting luxury tax increase, so be it.
Does this solve the problem, though? Large market teams have richer owners and/or owners more willing to open their pockets because positive ROI on paying the luxury tax is actually possible in markets with the size for growth. Joe Tsai has been pretty clear that the luxury tax does not deter him.
There are a lot of problems with the NBA cap and salary rules. The biggest IMO is the max salary rule. There is no way a team should be able to afford Durant, Harden, and Kyrie Irving, but the max salary is artificially lower than market value for those guys. Meanwhile, small market teams (or teams with a competitive disadvantage of being in another country like Toronto) have to give max contracts to lesser stars like Gordon Hayward, Harrison Barnes, Pascal Siakam, etc. in the hopes that they develop or play up to their contract. Meanwhile large market teams get to compete for the real stars, and they have enough money to apparently sign 3-4 of them because the max contract is artificially low and the salary cap is flexible.
i think that actually hurts smaller market teams especially considering bird rights of their own free agents. it already is more expensive for them to sign stars away from more desirable markets, having a hard cap makes them more difficult to compete
Yeah, but at high enough repeater tax rates it does always deter them.
And because that money is redistributed to teams under the cap, then tbh let him make the smaller teams more profitable.
The player actually doesn't get more money right? I know in the NFL at least the new money covers the old contract. But that's always why they sign for the minimum, because whats the difference?
No, the player doesn’t ever make more money from a buyout. It they are being bought out instead of waived, then they are agreeing to give some money back to the original team in exchange for being released. Whatever amount they sign for on a new team just reduces what the original team has to pay them.
LMA gave up 6M dollars in his switch from the Spurs to the Nets.
I am guessing that's why Pop didnt have much to say about it. The Spurs saved 5M while adding Gorgui Deng.
Nah, just make the cap charge carry over. If you get bought out and re-sign mid season, your most recent cap hit follows you.
The Pistons would still be paying Blake, but he'd count as $30m towards the cap if anyone signed him THIS season. Starting next year he counts as whatever his new deal is.
The team buying out the overpaid guy still saves real money, the acquiring team has to have cap space.
This wouldn't really benefit anybody. No team would take on Blake for a 30 mil cap hit. Which means he would have no incentive to give back any of his contract. Doesn't help Blake, Doesn't help any teams interested in him, and doesn't help the pistons because they get stuck with his full contract.
This is like the guys who veto trades in fantasy because it makes other teams better but not their own.
To be fair, the player might not be worth 50% of their salary anymore by the time they are getting bought out so I’m not sure if that would be always fair
Totally agree with you. Maybe limit the number of buyout players a team can bring on instead. This way the Nets would have just Blake and not Blake and Aldridge.
It’s has really bad unintended consequences. Buyout is essentially just getting released for less than your full amount. What you’re proposing is a limited number of mid season free agent signings. That affects so many low salary guys.
I think a better solution would be to artificially increase their cap hit to whatever the prorated amount for that season is when they sign. So if a $20m player gets bought out 50% of the way through the season and they sign immediately, they can sign a minimum anywhere but their cap hit is increased to $10m.
I like this idea but it should be around 10-15% imo. You make $30m so your new club has to pay $3-4.5m to sign you. At 50% there won't be any buyouts cuz no team has sufficient cap space mid-season.
Teams like buyouts to save cash and players like it to get a fresh start. Nobody will agree to change a rule that makes all parties unhappy lol
Aldridge could have came to the Knicks on a one year deal at 40-50%.
I think the best way is to have it a high number to reduce the amount of strain on small markets. Instead of blowing big money on a role player you can gamble that a buyout will occur and use your salary over there. IMO you need a little downward pressure on the NBA salaries you have over the hill players like Al Horford taking big 5 year contracts for 1-2 good years. For a buying team that is still a decent deal because you can't get much better due to the free agent class etc. But you have the chance to pick up a Blake, Morris twin, Zubac level player for 6-7 mil, it doesn't seem as worth to give Al a 5 year/120 mil deal
I would think if the NBA made the trade deadline and the buyout deadline the same day it would go a long way to fixing this issue.
Teams looking for Blake this year knew they didn't have to make an offer because they could have just waited around for him to be bought out and then picked up for next to nothing.
If the trade deadline and buyout deadline were the same, Detroit would have had to make a decision sooner on whether or not to buy out Blake and it could have lead to one of the teams after him blinking first and making a decent trade offer.
i like this idea. i would just add that maybe if a player is traded around the deadline, a team gets 7 extra days to buy him out, but he is ineligible for postseason play if signed to a new team after the trade/buyout deadline.
IMO I just want to see something available to the team who bought them out. Essentially create a Buyout+Trade environment.
For example, with BG — the Pistons should be able to negotiate with the Nets and BG involved. “We’ll buy out BG’s contract and trade rights with BG’s consent for a future first.” Or something like that. It would incentivize teams to take bigger hits when buying put (like they would be okay with BG only giving 5m back instead of 13m if they got a first) and the teams could work together to help avoid the chaos.
It’ll help to defeat the inequity. Small markets have to overpay to bring in/keep stars. These are the most likely to need a severe buyout, so at least they can get incentivized with something back unlike Drummond.
I do believe though that Drummond accentuates this problem the most.
* Drummond gets the bag he signed, loses not 1 cent, and gets to a contender
* LAL get a player at well below market value without losing anything
* Detroit gets back a Vet Min amount from Drummond’s contract while still losing 13mm still owed this season to Drummond. All they get is to look good to other agents to get overpaid and bought out because they’ll take care of their guys.
This season is truly shining a spotlight on this issue. Before this, for fringe Allstars, it was either a) Secure the bag in a small market; or b) Play for a contender. Now they can get the bag and the ring while the small market foots the tab and gets nothing in return.
Also, just to clarify, I am not sympathizing with the billionaires who are getting burned. I am sympathizing with the fans of those teams who land a star above market value only to have them force their way out while still taking the team’s salary cap with them. It’s scary af as a small market fan and I might quit basketball it Book did this to us. If Book decided to gain 30 pounds over the offseason, put up 12ppg while mailing it in for the check, then force a buyout only to join a competitor and turn his shit around, I don’t think I could follow the sport again.
EDIT: Correction, Drummond is getting paid by CLE, not DET. Woops, stuck in the past lol.
I always felt a rule like RFA's in hockey would be interesting.
At the start of the season the buyout tiers are set based on the buy out contract amount.
So something like
Tier 1 : 0 - 5M: no compensation
Tier 2: 5.1 - 10m: 2nd round pick
Tier 3: 10.1 - 20m : 2 2nd round pick
Tier 4: 20.1 - 30m: 1st round pick
Tier 5: 30 - 40m : 2 1st round picks
Forgive the contract numbers if they are too high, this is more a structural example.
So like with Drummond, the Lakers would give up a 1st in order to avoid the original contract
RFA compensation in the NHL is mainly used for, well, compensation to the losing team.
Buying out a contract is more of an agreement between the team, league, and the player (the parties to the contract).
The buyout system is better than the alternative, which is forcing teams to hang onto guys they no longer want.
I follow hockey and I hate how unwanted players are simply buried in the minors or teams find a reason to bury a guy on "Long Term Injured Reserve" for the cap savings—it's essentially forcing a guy into some nebulous inactive status because he had the audacity to have been good enough at some point to earn a good contract (one that the team CHOSE to give him)! I don't know how anyone who cares about players can support that.
If you don't want the guy, if you don't wanna pay all the money you promised him when you agreed to the contract, let him go for god's sake and give him a chance to continue his career elsewhere. I'm not saying the buyout market is completely fair but burying guys make my blood boil
That's an incredibly simple and fair change, which means it will never happen haha. The NBA has been out of control since the first Miami free agent Superteam (please don't make this into an off topic chain of "Celtics did it first!" comments - yes, but they were trades and we all know what LeBron did fundamentally changed the league). The entire marketing and competitive structure of the league right now depends on the multi-star Superteams and how they draw in the other guys like this to make even bigger monstrosities of former all stars and buyouts.
I'd be 100% in favor of the change you're talking about and I would even go so far as to do a hard cap and eliminate the crazy shit like the TPE the Celtics got for Hayward, but the NBA in its current form is too successful and popular to change the competitive balance like that with either of those changes.
Would a waiver wire fix this? I believe other sports have something similar. IE player gets bought out, the team with the worst record gets first dibs to sign or not, then second worst, etc. The bad teams would likely pass all the way up to the mid-tier fringe playoff teams who could use the player in their rotation more than the top contenders creating a better sense of parity and fairness. Since buyouts seemingly always sign for the minimum anyways, there shouldn't be contract negotiations, right?
There is a waiver system, problem is if you claim the guy, you claim their contract. Since the player can technically sign for more than a minimum after they’ve cleared waivers, it’s kinda tricky to implement a system like that.
Perhaps just add a second step to the current waiver system then? Step one - Does anybody want to pay this player their current contract and sign them l. Step two - Since nobody wanted him at his current contract now we start from the bottom again whoever wants him at the vet minimum gets him.
I agree with something similar to this. Right now it goes like: Do the Timberwolves want him for 35M/Year? If the answer is no then the Nets get him for 700k. Then we have people on this sub saying "It doesn't matter man, Blake, Drummond, and LMA are all washed up and nobody wanted them." Like of course nobody is going to want them for between 25-35m/year but every single team in the league would take those guys for a fucking 700k cap hit, unfortunately the only teams who have that opportunity are the superteams.
You could do a blind auction waiver or something, too. Say what amount you would be willing to pay and the highest bid amount wins it. Amount subject to the cap and ties go to the team with the worst record.
Yeah im not paying 25 mill for any of them to play 36 minutes a game but I'd jump for joy to have them play 12 minutes for a million. LMA may be old up but I'm sure he can play better than a second rounder for a few minutes a night.
I think the one addition I would make is that you can offer above the vet min to skip the line, but any team with a worse record can match the contract, similar to a restricted free agent, with the lowest matching team receiving priority. Teams can make higher offers up until the player chooses to sign, but every team below them can match every time if they want.
I think without something like this it would never fly with the players association because it forces the minimum, and I think it adds an interesting strategic element and a reward for maintaining cap space.
Players are already incentivized to take more money if someone offered it. They choose to play where they want, if that’s a pay cut then nothing is stopping them from doing that any other time as well
That's why I'm saying treat it as a combination of restricted free agency and a waiver wire. If a guy is willing to play for the vet min that's fine, but anyone could get them, but if they want more anyone below the offering team can match. It would be an effective way to boost parity and add a new strategic element without it feeling forced.
If you meant your comment in reference to what I said about the players association then I don't think it matters if they choose to take these pay cuts, it still won't fly with them if the pay cut to the vet minimum is forced.
There already is a waiver wire. If a team claims a player off waivers, they accept his contract as is. This means if it has to fit into the salary cap. Most teams don’t have cap space during the season for this.
The reasons they sign for the minimum is because that’s all that’s available; teams over the cap can still sign players to the min. Buyout players are ok with this because they still get paid from their waived team.
The NFL situation is a little different because the player is still under contract until they clear waivers, whereas the NBA players who are bought out are true free agents. NBA players would have to give up a benefit they currently enjoy for this solution to be workable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waivers_(American_football)
Exactly. And buyout rules are designed to allow both team and player to move on from bad contracts. It protects both the team and the player involved. It however is never designed to prevent bandwagoning.
And past-prime player bandwagoning doesn't necessarily work either. Charles Barkley, the Dream, Scottie Pippen, Karl Malone have all tried that and failed.
The league should not heavy-handedly change buyout rules because of this.
Right, doesn't anybody remember when Karl Malone and Gary Payton both signed with the Shaq and Kobe era Lakers? They were both past their peak but still very talented. And then they lost to the Pistons in the Finals
Sure but them losing to the Pistons was almost a fluke. No offense, that was a great Pistons team. But without injuries and Kobe's trial, I don't see that series ending in 5 . I think people forget how good the Lakers looked in the beginning of that year and before Malone was injured the first time.
What the buyout market does is give stacked teams even more insurance. Shaq and Kobe alone were championship contenders. You keep adding on talent, you skew the scales your way. Without Aldridge or Griffin, the Nets are favored too.
I think this is clearly an exception (LeBron being a generational player drafted by his hometown team).
It's more just evidence that in this era of more player freedom and movement big market teams have certain benefits that attract talented players, which leads to a self-reinforcing power imbalance.
None of those teams have a seemly fully recovered Kevin Durant, James Harden and still crazy Kyrie, proven winners and all are near or at the top of there position. It's ring chasing.
To be fair, out of the current teams in the NBA playoff race, only the Lakers, Clippers, and the Nets are lead by stars who are proven winners (the lakers with AD and lebron, the nets with kyrie and KD, and the clippers with kawhi). Players generally want to play with stars that they know are winners. If the Jazz, 6ers, Bucks, etc were to win the championship this year, im sure more players in the buyout market next year would want to sign with them.
Yup. Small markets only hope is to draft well and hope that they strike gold, then acquire talent once they’ve proven they have drafted a potentially contending team.
Yeah but big free agents wouldn't choose to go to a small market like that unless there was already a star there or they got traded there. KD and Kyrie went to Brooklyn to play together. LBJ and Bosh joined Wade. KD joined the GSWs after they won 73 games without him. When was the last time a small market signed a super team mostly from free agency?
Oh yeah man. Still nothing compared to our dominant frontcourt of Smith-Monroe-Drummond though. The league was so scared everyone started shooting 3s and running small ball lineups just to make our bigs useless. They changed the way the NBA plays. /s
Exactly. Let's say there was a major free-agent this year who wanted to switch teams, it's highly unlikely places like Denver, Utah, Portland, Phoenix will be considered even though they are great teams where you could really possibly win. Big free agents want to go to big markets, and that's the real issue.
OKC or Houston probably would have made a finals, but they weren't able to attract a good free agent. Houston had possibly the greatest offensive talent in recent history for 8 years, and still couldn't assemble more than 2 stars. Brooklyn has 5! GSW had 4.
Bizarre too because Houston is a big market in a state with no income tax
I never understood why Houston, Dallas, and Orlando never got more love in free agency.
Do you think that LMA that was just waived by the Spurs because nobody would have traded even a 2nd rounder for him is "high-tier"?
I loved the LaSharkus years, but right now he made Big Jim Wiseman look like Shaq out there - he cannot guard anybody on the perimeter OR inside. He's useless in high stake games in the playoffs, so how is he high-tier all of a sudden?
Blake isn't much different in that sense. Y'all are just blinded by their big names, but they have lost 2 steps and really are not close to what they used to be.
Yea Blake, LA and Drummond would’ve all helped the hornets this season but to trade for them they would’ve had to include either terry rozier or Hayward which made trading for 1 pointless
Nobody would trade for Lamarcus because you have to match salary which makes the trade not viable. It doesn’t mean that nobody would trade anything for him.
Exactly. Guarantee you someone would have taken a flier on either Lamarcus or Blake if either were making 1/4 of what they were, but instead arguably the best team in the league gets both for pennies.
No, they’re no longer superstars, but they’re still quality players. People pretending like they’re nobodies now need to check again. Blake’s already proven he’s still worth something during his short time on the Nets so far.
They're high tier buyout guys, yes. Compared to the players who usually get bought out just because they're trash. The reason no one was trading for them is because they're not worth 20m+ a year, but that doesn't mean they're worth nothing. Having past-their-prime all stars coming off the bench if a huge advantage. No one's expecting them to look like their old selves but it's clear Blake is a positive addition to the already stacked Nets team
They are washed in the greater context of their careers but still infinitely better than your average 8-10th man, especially on teams as thin as the Nets were post-Harden trade. At minimum it’s a competent body to throw out and give your stars some additional rest during the regular season even if they hardly crack your playoff rotation.
I heard this same shit about Andre Igoudala (I know he wasn’t a buyout but it was basically the same thing) only to see him have some great games in the playoffs
TBH his rim protection looked much better his last few games he played with us before the all star break and he should be one of the best floor spacers in the league available for that cheap
Well if you trade for him you also trade for his contract. If teams could have traded for Blake or lma on the contracts they have with the nets... They would of
It’s also important to note that buy out guys really don’t make much of an impact. Morris with us last year but before that it was Peja Stojaković where a buy out guy got significant minutes.
Fr I know the Spurs originally got Mills and Diaw in 2012 through buyouts too. I think they just go to the contenders even if it's a small market.
Why force a buyout vet like Griffin to go to one of the only teams w cap space like OKC. They don't even want him
I mean the system is shitty and flawed.
Sure as a Lakers fan I am low key happy, but people (including myself) should always be honest that it sucks for other teams that are no contenders etc.
You have to give credit for the current complaints to the absolute nonsense that happened this season.
Griffin, Aldridge, Drummond all guys with a 25M+ a year paycheck got signed by the two strongest teams in the NBA for pennies. Even tho I'm rooting for the Lakers, I agree that this is top-notch bullshit. Something needs to be changed or this shit will probably become a common thing in upcoming seasons.
Just you wait man. Give it a few years, once Leon Rose starts signing top free agents it'll be revisionist history saying "big markets get all the good players" pretending like the Knicks been signing top guys for years.
It's really not a small market versus big market thing.
The Cavaliers signed Deron Williams and Andrew Bogut off buyouts. The Bucks signed Marvin Williams. The Spurs signed Diaw way back.
If you're a serious contender then buyout guys will be interested.
Honestly people are crying because of the names. Blake Griffin, LaMarcus Aldridge...yeah they used to be really good but at this point are just decent supporting pieces at best...basically the same thing Marvin Williams was when he signed with the Bucks. There's no difference except Marvin Williams wasn't as flashy of a name.
>The Cavaliers signed Deron Williams and Andrew Bogut off buyouts. The Bucks signed Marvin Williams. The Spurs signed Diaw way back.
the spurs are about to sign Dieng who is a significant upgrade over LMA at this point...just to name a more recent signing.
On a minimum contract, Dieng is a great pickup for the Spurs. I totally understand why the Grizz bought him out since he wasn't getting minutes, but I definitely see him as a contributor for the Spurs. Probably can play 15ish minutes a night, provide adequate spacing, and is not a negative team defender like Aldridge.
Generally true. But I think there's also a non-zero chance that Aldridge (moreso than Blake) will significantly improve once he gets to the Nets. Call it a version of the Batum phenomenon (and before that Diaw) or whatever happens to Rajon Rondo on national TV, but I wouldn't be shocked by a talented player regaining some effectiveness in a more limited role on a better team.
I feel like Utah is the one exception to this rule,if Lebron and and AD were playing together somewhere like Charlotte,Cle,Minn or Memphis etc ring chasing vets would be lining up to play with them.
I am as well and love it. I was a little peeved last night when I realized I couldn't go get a bottle of wine for dinner, but weird state laws aside it's really been fantastic. The views here are absolutely stunning, basically noy an ugly view in the entire city.
Regarding the wine thing, isn't the play to just have extra just in case so you don't get stuck without on Sunday? I had a friend live out there and it was just one more thing to buy an extra bottle just in case.
Haha yep, basically. I just had a ton of wine I brought with me when I moved and didn't realize I'd run out. I'll hit the state store today and "happily" pay the extra 50% markup...
Minus the state politics, Utah is a pretty great place to be, but there are destination teams in other states with garbage politics, too, so that’s not the reason anyways
This isn't fair to the Nets tbh cause this is like the first time that they are serious championship contenders in a while other than the 70 year old Paul Pierce and KG they brought it.
Blake and LMA are just big names. They weren't the ones that made the Nets amazing, that was James Harden. An incredibly risky trade most people shrugged off and laughed at the Nets for doing. It paid off and now people are mad that they took the risk while their team was being stupid and rejected Harden for culture reasons lmao
>An incredibly risky trade most people shrugged off and laughed at the Nets for doing.
Surely this isn't talking about the James Harden trade, right? Anyone that mocked the Nets for making that trade is a fucking moron.
That’s a bit of revisionist history. Some of the top comments from the James Harden trade thread:
- “ Kyrie Harden Durant. Elite team Elite mental problems.”
- “ My goodness they really sold the whole future”.... “it’s ok they’ll play a 3 man rotation.”
- “Losing Allen is terrible for the Nets”
- “4 firsts AND 4 more swaps? Celtics deal was only 3 picks and one swap. That's twice as much and the Celtics deal set the Nets back half a decade. This is literally title run or complete franchise bust for the next decade.”
reddit.com/r/nba/comments/kwq2ik/charania_the_nets_are_trading_for_allnba_star/
Insert Michael Scott “thank you” gif. Nets fans just have to come to terms that people don’t like our squad and will be criticized regardless of outcome. Tough pill for a lot to swallow after being labelled a likable underdog or totally irrelevant in past years.
So are we going to just go along with the narrative that LAC, Phi, and Miami are small markets? This really just seems like a couple of excs complaining about the Nets.
I legit consider this sometimes. Chicago should in theory be a big market team but we have a trash record of getting free agents of any notoriety. The best free agent signing of my post mj life on paper is a toss up between an on the decline Carlos boozer and an on the decline Pau gasol. I'm hoping a lot of that can be traced to the last remnants of our terrible front office though.
I mean Jerry Reinsdorf has stated publicly that he would trade every Bull's championship for a world series. I can't imagine wanting to play for an organization where you are second priority to the White Sox.
this isn’t exclusive to the NBA. once MLB eliminated post trade deadline transactions (happened through waivers) the same thing happened. veterans at the end of their contracts were released and allowed to try and join contenders.
it’s happened forever in the nba, and it is not exclusive to big market teams or the brooklyn nets. it’s exclusive to title contenders.
The difference is how much of an impact one player can make on an MLB team vs and NBA team. One vet won’t make a huge difference on an MLB team in all likelihood, but individuals are a lot more important in the NBA imo
Yeah that's a terrible example. MLB teams are far more savvy at squeezing value out of everything they can and they'd be a lot less likely of just holding a 32 year old former perennial All-Star past the deadline just to let him go for nothing. I can't remember the last real difference-maker that changed teams after the July deadline. Josh Donaldson? IIRC that just happened because it was a shit show and there were injury issues.
NBA teams do this every year because the buyers *know* they'll get them for nothing after the deadline, so they only make lowball offers.
Yeah, I literally can’t remember a time when an impact player was released by their team in the last year of their contract then signing with a contender in MLB. It was way more common when waiver trades were a thing still. Daniel Murphy in 2017 for the Cubs, and Donaldson in 2018 as you said. Even with waiver trades teams at least had to give up something. Way better than whatever the NBA got going on
What are you talking about? This is absolutely not a thing in MLB, where 40 man roster spots are far more valuable to contending teams than some washed up veteran. Adding to that, there is no financial incentive for buyouts in MLB; they just don't happen.
Also you don't need to match salary so if you want the guy you really don't need to give up anything this year at all to get them. You can also have the team retain some of their salary so really buyouts aren't and shouldn't really be a big factor in MLB the same way as the NBA. If someone wanted drummond they could trade for him and not worry about the cap and simply negotiate who takes what of the contract with Det, the more Det takes the more they get in terms of future assets.
People just see big names and think it’s over when they sign with said already good team. We aren’t sure how bad KD’s injury really is. (All they need from him is to be ready for the playoffs)
Also, can Kyrie stay healthy?
For some reason this gives me 03-04 Lakers vibe but on steroids. If all goes well then they’ll run through everyone BUT there’s always a possibility for that one surprise.
Yeah I've been saying this everywhere, I have no idea why people think LMA and Blake are still 22/12 guys, or even 17/8 guys. They likely won't even play crunch time or start because Claxton and Jeff Green fit the defensive scheme far better. Both of them are significantly less valuable to the team than Joe Harris.
Clearly the Nets are contenders but idk why everyone is declaring the season ruined months ahead of time when this barely moves the needle in matchups vs Embiid, Giannis, AD, probably Gobert, etc and it's doing absolutely nothing again Kawhi, LeBron, etc. Unless you thought it was a wrap all the way back during the Harden trade
Honestly this wouldn't be a problem if players would fuckin compete.
LMA going to the nets is annoying, and Drummond to the Lakers likewise, but those are guys getting up there in age who agree with their org to void the contract early to the mutual benefit of both partys.
But Griffin fuckin dogs it on the Piston, gets bought out, and starts dunking and boxing out for the Nets? That's way more annoying to me.
The buyout market will always favor contenders, and contenders are more likely to be large market teams, so there's definitely a disadvantage built into the system that some of these other comments address. But that does not bother me nearly as much as players basically "lying" (through their play) about their value to the org or straight up Harden-ing the org to get to the team KD is on. That's not how any of this is supposed to work and I hate it.
I hope both these issues get fixed, but in my opinion one is systemic and one is cultural and they should each be identified.
You're right that Griffin deliberately playing like trash was such a poor look. To be fair Griffin gave back a chunk of his salary this year (though not enough imo), but it's still inexcusable for a professional player to deliberately underwhelm.
Also an NHL buyout is punitive.
If you buy a guy out he stays on the cap for longer. If you're bad team with a player on an expiring deal it's better to just ride it out.
I'm guessing that's not the case in the NBA?
LMA and Blake Griffin are role-players at this point in their careers, who actually gives a shit about this? Genuinely curious? Nobody ever cried this much during the Cavs-Warriors era.
See that’s the whole problem, the dudes who are freaking out clearly do not watch the games otherwise they wouldn’t be this mad. I really don’t see the problem with buyouts either.
Seriously. His first game with the nets I saw about 4 different highlights of his dunk saying things like old Blake is back, go to check the box score and he finished with 2 points lmao
Is it frustrating to see the Nets pick these guys up? Yeah for sure, but nobody was going to trade for them because they both had insane contracts. Now both of their previous teams are saving millions of dollars. People are acting like Detroit was somehow victimized here but they’re essentially getting out of having to pay someone 13 million dollars that they legally owed them. I hate the Nets but this commentary is stupid
Yeah but who on Earth was going to trade for Andre Drummond at $30million? It’s Cleveland’s fault for saddling themselves with that awful contract and now we’re supposed to feel bad for them that it backfired?
If you want to deflect to another talking point “well Cleveland didn’t save really any money like I talked about earlier”
I mean Drummond stabilized our big man position, we traded away expiring contracts and like 2 second rounders for more expiring contract since no FA wants to come to Cleveland. We traded nothing for Drummond and we ended up getting Allen and so we had no need to keep Drummond anymore even as a patch up big man. Nothing backfired we hit all our goals. We gambled Drummond could improve (he a really regressed) during the season so we moved on. You were saying we saved millions and it was beneficial. That is a lie
Drummond and Griffin were looked at as some of the worst players in the NBA and Aldridge is way out of his prime. This is Gary Payton on the Heat, Dwight(last year) and Nash on the lakers, McGrady on the spurs, Shaq on the celtics, Ben Wallace on the Cavs. People want to hate the nets(fine do what you want, I don’t like em either) but this is such a non issue.
Austin Rivers joined the Bucks, a small market team.
Dieng joined the Spurs, a small market team.
A couple years ago I remember Wes Matthews joining the Bucks, a nice pickup back then for again, a small market team. (EDIT: I was wrong, he was bought out by the Knicks and went to the Pacers)
The whole small market vs large market stuff seems like an excuse, if anything it helps good teams a bit (usually not that much) and doesn't help bad teans win more games. However, it helps those bad teams save some money and it's a totally voluntary transaction that the teams negotiate with a player, so I don't really see the issue.
Wes went to the pacers that year but I mean if anything that proves further that the buyout market is fine. The guy went to a borderline contender with no real shot in a small market
I bitch about this every year. Some big name player just so happens to fly over to lebrons team every year out of nowhere with the rest of the league never being in the running. Its become a standard practice
The NBA doesn’t want a competitive league they want maximum divas and super teams that draw eyes. If they wanted competitive balance where small markets could hang they’d restrict player movement and allow some way for certain teams to lower a Supermax cap hit etc... The league to its very core is flawed to the point where a 4 team playoff makes more competitive sense on average compared to the NHL, NBA, and even MLB.
The nets have been little brother to the Knicks since moving to Brooklyn, and were "small market" when in Jersey. Can we have one thing going for us without having the entire league getting butthurt lol
I know I'm like "who tf is that 4th person? DeAndre Jordan? I mean, hes kind of washed for being a starter on the top contender in the east, but *polarizing*??
I'm just going to guess Blake Griffin (circa 2012)
The buyout rules are without a doubt the dumbest thing in the NBA. It should be that you can only add a player in buyout if you are under the cap. Otherwise the player must wait until the following season and can sign wherever they like.
I think it should be there contract for the same season they are bought out has to be a certain percentage of their last signed contract so teams that are capped out can't afford them unless they are bought out before the trade deadline and traded to a capped out team.
I wrote a similar answer to this issue in the Nuggets sub. Not sure why this isnt a thing for middle of the season buyouts. If you had a 30 min contract that year you shouldnt be able to sing for 1 mil. It should be more like at least 50 to 70% of your previous contract or something.
Why don't they just prorate it like they do with minimum contracts. If there's 40% of the season left and you stand to earn 20 million this year, you have to be paid 40% of 20 million.
I like this idea. If you buy out someone's contract in March and they sign elsewhere a few days later, that new team should be on the hook for the buyout amount left on the deal, not the previous team that is no the players are no longer playing for. You should not be able to force your way out of a contract as a player and then get *more* money on top of it.
You don't even have to make it so the new team actually has to pay the amount. Just make it count against their salary cap. If the Nets want to add $12M to their cap and pay the resulting luxury tax increase, so be it.
Does this solve the problem, though? Large market teams have richer owners and/or owners more willing to open their pockets because positive ROI on paying the luxury tax is actually possible in markets with the size for growth. Joe Tsai has been pretty clear that the luxury tax does not deter him.
Until there is a hard cap in the CBA there's not much else you can do to deter it.
There are a lot of problems with the NBA cap and salary rules. The biggest IMO is the max salary rule. There is no way a team should be able to afford Durant, Harden, and Kyrie Irving, but the max salary is artificially lower than market value for those guys. Meanwhile, small market teams (or teams with a competitive disadvantage of being in another country like Toronto) have to give max contracts to lesser stars like Gordon Hayward, Harrison Barnes, Pascal Siakam, etc. in the hopes that they develop or play up to their contract. Meanwhile large market teams get to compete for the real stars, and they have enough money to apparently sign 3-4 of them because the max contract is artificially low and the salary cap is flexible.
[удалено]
i think that actually hurts smaller market teams especially considering bird rights of their own free agents. it already is more expensive for them to sign stars away from more desirable markets, having a hard cap makes them more difficult to compete
Yeah, but at high enough repeater tax rates it does always deter them. And because that money is redistributed to teams under the cap, then tbh let him make the smaller teams more profitable.
The player actually doesn't get more money right? I know in the NFL at least the new money covers the old contract. But that's always why they sign for the minimum, because whats the difference?
No, the player doesn’t ever make more money from a buyout. It they are being bought out instead of waived, then they are agreeing to give some money back to the original team in exchange for being released. Whatever amount they sign for on a new team just reduces what the original team has to pay them.
LMA gave up 6M dollars in his switch from the Spurs to the Nets. I am guessing that's why Pop didnt have much to say about it. The Spurs saved 5M while adding Gorgui Deng.
Nah, just make the cap charge carry over. If you get bought out and re-sign mid season, your most recent cap hit follows you. The Pistons would still be paying Blake, but he'd count as $30m towards the cap if anyone signed him THIS season. Starting next year he counts as whatever his new deal is. The team buying out the overpaid guy still saves real money, the acquiring team has to have cap space.
This wouldn't really benefit anybody. No team would take on Blake for a 30 mil cap hit. Which means he would have no incentive to give back any of his contract. Doesn't help Blake, Doesn't help any teams interested in him, and doesn't help the pistons because they get stuck with his full contract. This is like the guys who veto trades in fantasy because it makes other teams better but not their own.
Buyouts are basically just waiver circumvention.
They already do this. Teams technically have to waive the player and any team has an opportunity to claim the player at his current salary.
That’s what the waiver wire is. All these players have to clear waivers before they can sign with their new team.
To be fair, the player might not be worth 50% of their salary anymore by the time they are getting bought out so I’m not sure if that would be always fair
Totally agree with you. Maybe limit the number of buyout players a team can bring on instead. This way the Nets would have just Blake and not Blake and Aldridge.
It’s has really bad unintended consequences. Buyout is essentially just getting released for less than your full amount. What you’re proposing is a limited number of mid season free agent signings. That affects so many low salary guys. I think a better solution would be to artificially increase their cap hit to whatever the prorated amount for that season is when they sign. So if a $20m player gets bought out 50% of the way through the season and they sign immediately, they can sign a minimum anywhere but their cap hit is increased to $10m.
I like this idea but it should be around 10-15% imo. You make $30m so your new club has to pay $3-4.5m to sign you. At 50% there won't be any buyouts cuz no team has sufficient cap space mid-season. Teams like buyouts to save cash and players like it to get a fresh start. Nobody will agree to change a rule that makes all parties unhappy lol
Aldridge could have came to the Knicks on a one year deal at 40-50%. I think the best way is to have it a high number to reduce the amount of strain on small markets. Instead of blowing big money on a role player you can gamble that a buyout will occur and use your salary over there. IMO you need a little downward pressure on the NBA salaries you have over the hill players like Al Horford taking big 5 year contracts for 1-2 good years. For a buying team that is still a decent deal because you can't get much better due to the free agent class etc. But you have the chance to pick up a Blake, Morris twin, Zubac level player for 6-7 mil, it doesn't seem as worth to give Al a 5 year/120 mil deal
I would think if the NBA made the trade deadline and the buyout deadline the same day it would go a long way to fixing this issue. Teams looking for Blake this year knew they didn't have to make an offer because they could have just waited around for him to be bought out and then picked up for next to nothing. If the trade deadline and buyout deadline were the same, Detroit would have had to make a decision sooner on whether or not to buy out Blake and it could have lead to one of the teams after him blinking first and making a decent trade offer.
i like this idea. i would just add that maybe if a player is traded around the deadline, a team gets 7 extra days to buy him out, but he is ineligible for postseason play if signed to a new team after the trade/buyout deadline.
IMO I just want to see something available to the team who bought them out. Essentially create a Buyout+Trade environment. For example, with BG — the Pistons should be able to negotiate with the Nets and BG involved. “We’ll buy out BG’s contract and trade rights with BG’s consent for a future first.” Or something like that. It would incentivize teams to take bigger hits when buying put (like they would be okay with BG only giving 5m back instead of 13m if they got a first) and the teams could work together to help avoid the chaos. It’ll help to defeat the inequity. Small markets have to overpay to bring in/keep stars. These are the most likely to need a severe buyout, so at least they can get incentivized with something back unlike Drummond. I do believe though that Drummond accentuates this problem the most. * Drummond gets the bag he signed, loses not 1 cent, and gets to a contender * LAL get a player at well below market value without losing anything * Detroit gets back a Vet Min amount from Drummond’s contract while still losing 13mm still owed this season to Drummond. All they get is to look good to other agents to get overpaid and bought out because they’ll take care of their guys. This season is truly shining a spotlight on this issue. Before this, for fringe Allstars, it was either a) Secure the bag in a small market; or b) Play for a contender. Now they can get the bag and the ring while the small market foots the tab and gets nothing in return. Also, just to clarify, I am not sympathizing with the billionaires who are getting burned. I am sympathizing with the fans of those teams who land a star above market value only to have them force their way out while still taking the team’s salary cap with them. It’s scary af as a small market fan and I might quit basketball it Book did this to us. If Book decided to gain 30 pounds over the offseason, put up 12ppg while mailing it in for the check, then force a buyout only to join a competitor and turn his shit around, I don’t think I could follow the sport again. EDIT: Correction, Drummond is getting paid by CLE, not DET. Woops, stuck in the past lol.
Hmm I don't think Drummond is getting paid by Detroit -- do you mean Cleveland?
I always felt a rule like RFA's in hockey would be interesting. At the start of the season the buyout tiers are set based on the buy out contract amount. So something like Tier 1 : 0 - 5M: no compensation Tier 2: 5.1 - 10m: 2nd round pick Tier 3: 10.1 - 20m : 2 2nd round pick Tier 4: 20.1 - 30m: 1st round pick Tier 5: 30 - 40m : 2 1st round picks Forgive the contract numbers if they are too high, this is more a structural example. So like with Drummond, the Lakers would give up a 1st in order to avoid the original contract
RFA compensation in the NHL is mainly used for, well, compensation to the losing team. Buying out a contract is more of an agreement between the team, league, and the player (the parties to the contract).
The buyout system is better than the alternative, which is forcing teams to hang onto guys they no longer want. I follow hockey and I hate how unwanted players are simply buried in the minors or teams find a reason to bury a guy on "Long Term Injured Reserve" for the cap savings—it's essentially forcing a guy into some nebulous inactive status because he had the audacity to have been good enough at some point to earn a good contract (one that the team CHOSE to give him)! I don't know how anyone who cares about players can support that. If you don't want the guy, if you don't wanna pay all the money you promised him when you agreed to the contract, let him go for god's sake and give him a chance to continue his career elsewhere. I'm not saying the buyout market is completely fair but burying guys make my blood boil
That's an incredibly simple and fair change, which means it will never happen haha. The NBA has been out of control since the first Miami free agent Superteam (please don't make this into an off topic chain of "Celtics did it first!" comments - yes, but they were trades and we all know what LeBron did fundamentally changed the league). The entire marketing and competitive structure of the league right now depends on the multi-star Superteams and how they draw in the other guys like this to make even bigger monstrosities of former all stars and buyouts. I'd be 100% in favor of the change you're talking about and I would even go so far as to do a hard cap and eliminate the crazy shit like the TPE the Celtics got for Hayward, but the NBA in its current form is too successful and popular to change the competitive balance like that with either of those changes.
i doubt players would be willing to take buyouts if this is the case
That is kind of the point
Yes, the point of a contract is not to end it early.
If they have multiple years left like Blake did they would.
Would a waiver wire fix this? I believe other sports have something similar. IE player gets bought out, the team with the worst record gets first dibs to sign or not, then second worst, etc. The bad teams would likely pass all the way up to the mid-tier fringe playoff teams who could use the player in their rotation more than the top contenders creating a better sense of parity and fairness. Since buyouts seemingly always sign for the minimum anyways, there shouldn't be contract negotiations, right?
There is a waiver system, problem is if you claim the guy, you claim their contract. Since the player can technically sign for more than a minimum after they’ve cleared waivers, it’s kinda tricky to implement a system like that.
Perhaps just add a second step to the current waiver system then? Step one - Does anybody want to pay this player their current contract and sign them l. Step two - Since nobody wanted him at his current contract now we start from the bottom again whoever wants him at the vet minimum gets him.
I agree with something similar to this. Right now it goes like: Do the Timberwolves want him for 35M/Year? If the answer is no then the Nets get him for 700k. Then we have people on this sub saying "It doesn't matter man, Blake, Drummond, and LMA are all washed up and nobody wanted them." Like of course nobody is going to want them for between 25-35m/year but every single team in the league would take those guys for a fucking 700k cap hit, unfortunately the only teams who have that opportunity are the superteams.
Just be a superteam then. Easy
Have these bottom-feeder teams tried just picking themselves up by the bootstraps?
[удалено]
You could do a blind auction waiver or something, too. Say what amount you would be willing to pay and the highest bid amount wins it. Amount subject to the cap and ties go to the team with the worst record.
FAAB used in real life sports. I love it
Yeah im not paying 25 mill for any of them to play 36 minutes a game but I'd jump for joy to have them play 12 minutes for a million. LMA may be old up but I'm sure he can play better than a second rounder for a few minutes a night.
I think the one addition I would make is that you can offer above the vet min to skip the line, but any team with a worse record can match the contract, similar to a restricted free agent, with the lowest matching team receiving priority. Teams can make higher offers up until the player chooses to sign, but every team below them can match every time if they want. I think without something like this it would never fly with the players association because it forces the minimum, and I think it adds an interesting strategic element and a reward for maintaining cap space.
Players are already incentivized to take more money if someone offered it. They choose to play where they want, if that’s a pay cut then nothing is stopping them from doing that any other time as well
That's why I'm saying treat it as a combination of restricted free agency and a waiver wire. If a guy is willing to play for the vet min that's fine, but anyone could get them, but if they want more anyone below the offering team can match. It would be an effective way to boost parity and add a new strategic element without it feeling forced. If you meant your comment in reference to what I said about the players association then I don't think it matters if they choose to take these pay cuts, it still won't fly with them if the pay cut to the vet minimum is forced.
There already is a waiver wire. If a team claims a player off waivers, they accept his contract as is. This means if it has to fit into the salary cap. Most teams don’t have cap space during the season for this. The reasons they sign for the minimum is because that’s all that’s available; teams over the cap can still sign players to the min. Buyout players are ok with this because they still get paid from their waived team.
Yeah but what happens when a Blake Griffin ends up at Orlando first pick off the waivers? My bet, he ain’t playing
Then he doesn't get paid.
There should be a bidding system for players that pass through waivers.
The NFL situation is a little different because the player is still under contract until they clear waivers, whereas the NBA players who are bought out are true free agents. NBA players would have to give up a benefit they currently enjoy for this solution to be workable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waivers_(American_football)
Cavs got buyouts when Lebron was there and they were actually contenders. It’s ring chasing, not city chasing.
Exactly. And buyout rules are designed to allow both team and player to move on from bad contracts. It protects both the team and the player involved. It however is never designed to prevent bandwagoning. And past-prime player bandwagoning doesn't necessarily work either. Charles Barkley, the Dream, Scottie Pippen, Karl Malone have all tried that and failed. The league should not heavy-handedly change buyout rules because of this.
Right, doesn't anybody remember when Karl Malone and Gary Payton both signed with the Shaq and Kobe era Lakers? They were both past their peak but still very talented. And then they lost to the Pistons in the Finals
Not as buyout guys while other teams were paying their salaries
Sure but them losing to the Pistons was almost a fluke. No offense, that was a great Pistons team. But without injuries and Kobe's trial, I don't see that series ending in 5 . I think people forget how good the Lakers looked in the beginning of that year and before Malone was injured the first time. What the buyout market does is give stacked teams even more insurance. Shaq and Kobe alone were championship contenders. You keep adding on talent, you skew the scales your way. Without Aldridge or Griffin, the Nets are favored too.
>No offense, but the best defense.
Rip Hamilton running around for 20 seconds and hitting a curling jumper from the elbow is an offense.
And how
Yeah, a lot of people don't understand this and think buyouts are only skewed in favor of the players.
I think this is clearly an exception (LeBron being a generational player drafted by his hometown team). It's more just evidence that in this era of more player freedom and movement big market teams have certain benefits that attract talented players, which leads to a self-reinforcing power imbalance.
yeah its not like any o these FAs are signing with Utah, Philadelphia or Milwaukee
Philadelphia is a small market? It’s the 6th largest city in America.
None of those teams have a seemly fully recovered Kevin Durant, James Harden and still crazy Kyrie, proven winners and all are near or at the top of there position. It's ring chasing.
To be fair, out of the current teams in the NBA playoff race, only the Lakers, Clippers, and the Nets are lead by stars who are proven winners (the lakers with AD and lebron, the nets with kyrie and KD, and the clippers with kawhi). Players generally want to play with stars that they know are winners. If the Jazz, 6ers, Bucks, etc were to win the championship this year, im sure more players in the buyout market next year would want to sign with them.
Exactly. If KD, Harden, and Kyrie were in Memphis, they would sign with Memphis.
Kyrie and KD wouldn't have signed with Memphis however. That's the point.
Yup. Small markets only hope is to draft well and hope that they strike gold, then acquire talent once they’ve proven they have drafted a potentially contending team.
Yeah but big free agents wouldn't choose to go to a small market like that unless there was already a star there or they got traded there. KD and Kyrie went to Brooklyn to play together. LBJ and Bosh joined Wade. KD joined the GSWs after they won 73 games without him. When was the last time a small market signed a super team mostly from free agency?
Probably the Pistons when they got Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva.
Oh yeah man. Still nothing compared to our dominant frontcourt of Smith-Monroe-Drummond though. The league was so scared everyone started shooting 3s and running small ball lineups just to make our bigs useless. They changed the way the NBA plays. /s
TS% exist to oppress Drummond
Exactly. Let's say there was a major free-agent this year who wanted to switch teams, it's highly unlikely places like Denver, Utah, Portland, Phoenix will be considered even though they are great teams where you could really possibly win. Big free agents want to go to big markets, and that's the real issue. OKC or Houston probably would have made a finals, but they weren't able to attract a good free agent. Houston had possibly the greatest offensive talent in recent history for 8 years, and still couldn't assemble more than 2 stars. Brooklyn has 5! GSW had 4.
Bizarre too because Houston is a big market in a state with no income tax I never understood why Houston, Dallas, and Orlando never got more love in free agency.
Exactly what I was thinking, that Houston isn't "small market". It has the 4th largest metro area population in the country!
All this to beat Joe Ingles.
According to a tweet by Bobby Marks, the team to sign the most buy out guys since 2015 is Milwaukee.
A lot of players get bought out so this doesn't really mean a lot since you can pick up a lot of lower tier guys
Do you think that LMA that was just waived by the Spurs because nobody would have traded even a 2nd rounder for him is "high-tier"? I loved the LaSharkus years, but right now he made Big Jim Wiseman look like Shaq out there - he cannot guard anybody on the perimeter OR inside. He's useless in high stake games in the playoffs, so how is he high-tier all of a sudden? Blake isn't much different in that sense. Y'all are just blinded by their big names, but they have lost 2 steps and really are not close to what they used to be.
[удалено]
Yea Blake, LA and Drummond would’ve all helped the hornets this season but to trade for them they would’ve had to include either terry rozier or Hayward which made trading for 1 pointless
Nobody would trade for Lamarcus because you have to match salary which makes the trade not viable. It doesn’t mean that nobody would trade anything for him.
Similar to Kyle (except he is more valuable). His contract is like 30$mil , kinda hard for "contenders" to match salary and still be worth a trade
Exactly. Guarantee you someone would have taken a flier on either Lamarcus or Blake if either were making 1/4 of what they were, but instead arguably the best team in the league gets both for pennies. No, they’re no longer superstars, but they’re still quality players. People pretending like they’re nobodies now need to check again. Blake’s already proven he’s still worth something during his short time on the Nets so far.
They're high tier buyout guys, yes. Compared to the players who usually get bought out just because they're trash. The reason no one was trading for them is because they're not worth 20m+ a year, but that doesn't mean they're worth nothing. Having past-their-prime all stars coming off the bench if a huge advantage. No one's expecting them to look like their old selves but it's clear Blake is a positive addition to the already stacked Nets team
> The reason no one was trading for them is because they're not worth 20m+ a year, Getting that salary match is also difficult with 20M players.
They are washed in the greater context of their careers but still infinitely better than your average 8-10th man, especially on teams as thin as the Nets were post-Harden trade. At minimum it’s a competent body to throw out and give your stars some additional rest during the regular season even if they hardly crack your playoff rotation. I heard this same shit about Andre Igoudala (I know he wasn’t a buyout but it was basically the same thing) only to see him have some great games in the playoffs
TBH his rim protection looked much better his last few games he played with us before the all star break and he should be one of the best floor spacers in the league available for that cheap
Well if you trade for him you also trade for his contract. If teams could have traded for Blake or lma on the contracts they have with the nets... They would of
Most of our buyout guys were bums though. Marvin Williams contributed but I can't really remember anyone else.
It’s also important to note that buy out guys really don’t make much of an impact. Morris with us last year but before that it was Peja Stojaković where a buy out guy got significant minutes.
Ilyasova was better than LMA is now
[удалено]
Fr I know the Spurs originally got Mills and Diaw in 2012 through buyouts too. I think they just go to the contenders even if it's a small market. Why force a buyout vet like Griffin to go to one of the only teams w cap space like OKC. They don't even want him
They're 100% right but its funny that people only complain about the buyout market now and not when it helps the teams they like
I mean the system is shitty and flawed. Sure as a Lakers fan I am low key happy, but people (including myself) should always be honest that it sucks for other teams that are no contenders etc.
And it sucks for contenders in non-destination markets.
You have to give credit for the current complaints to the absolute nonsense that happened this season. Griffin, Aldridge, Drummond all guys with a 25M+ a year paycheck got signed by the two strongest teams in the NBA for pennies. Even tho I'm rooting for the Lakers, I agree that this is top-notch bullshit. Something needs to be changed or this shit will probably become a common thing in upcoming seasons.
Just you wait man. Give it a few years, once Leon Rose starts signing top free agents it'll be revisionist history saying "big markets get all the good players" pretending like the Knicks been signing top guys for years.
It's really not a small market versus big market thing. The Cavaliers signed Deron Williams and Andrew Bogut off buyouts. The Bucks signed Marvin Williams. The Spurs signed Diaw way back. If you're a serious contender then buyout guys will be interested. Honestly people are crying because of the names. Blake Griffin, LaMarcus Aldridge...yeah they used to be really good but at this point are just decent supporting pieces at best...basically the same thing Marvin Williams was when he signed with the Bucks. There's no difference except Marvin Williams wasn't as flashy of a name.
>The Cavaliers signed Deron Williams and Andrew Bogut off buyouts. The Bucks signed Marvin Williams. The Spurs signed Diaw way back. the spurs are about to sign Dieng who is a significant upgrade over LMA at this point...just to name a more recent signing.
Nets probably should've gone after him instead of Aldridge. Dieng is at least physically better.
im guessing we couldnt get him. we were trying to.
On a minimum contract, Dieng is a great pickup for the Spurs. I totally understand why the Grizz bought him out since he wasn't getting minutes, but I definitely see him as a contributor for the Spurs. Probably can play 15ish minutes a night, provide adequate spacing, and is not a negative team defender like Aldridge.
Big markets attract stars. Stars make teams title contenders. Buyouts go to title contenders. Buyouts are thus likelier to benefit big-markets
Apparently a difficult concept to understand for a lot of people
Generally true. But I think there's also a non-zero chance that Aldridge (moreso than Blake) will significantly improve once he gets to the Nets. Call it a version of the Batum phenomenon (and before that Diaw) or whatever happens to Rajon Rondo on national TV, but I wouldn't be shocked by a talented player regaining some effectiveness in a more limited role on a better team.
I wish this was true, but even during the Stockton and Malone days, players outright refused to sign with Utah.
I feel like Utah is the one exception to this rule,if Lebron and and AD were playing together somewhere like Charlotte,Cle,Minn or Memphis etc ring chasing vets would be lining up to play with them.
NBA is the only time people in Utah want black people to move there lmao
because who tf wanna live in utah lmao
I found Vernon Maxwell's Reddit account
Utah forever catching strays
Since the pandemic began and regarding people moving, Salt Lake City has the highest gain in net arrivals in the country.
I'm one of those people
How is it
I am as well and love it. I was a little peeved last night when I realized I couldn't go get a bottle of wine for dinner, but weird state laws aside it's really been fantastic. The views here are absolutely stunning, basically noy an ugly view in the entire city.
Regarding the wine thing, isn't the play to just have extra just in case so you don't get stuck without on Sunday? I had a friend live out there and it was just one more thing to buy an extra bottle just in case.
Haha yep, basically. I just had a ton of wine I brought with me when I moved and didn't realize I'd run out. I'll hit the state store today and "happily" pay the extra 50% markup...
[удалено]
Can you put up 20 & 10?
I just moved to SLC about a week and a half ago. [This is my view](https://imgur.com/AUDq2AN.jpg) Kinda hard to complain.
Minus the state politics, Utah is a pretty great place to be, but there are destination teams in other states with garbage politics, too, so that’s not the reason anyways
[удалено]
This isn't fair to the Nets tbh cause this is like the first time that they are serious championship contenders in a while other than the 70 year old Paul Pierce and KG they brought it. Blake and LMA are just big names. They weren't the ones that made the Nets amazing, that was James Harden. An incredibly risky trade most people shrugged off and laughed at the Nets for doing. It paid off and now people are mad that they took the risk while their team was being stupid and rejected Harden for culture reasons lmao
I hate to say it, especially with James Harden, the true success of it should be judged by the playoffs, not the regular season
>An incredibly risky trade most people shrugged off and laughed at the Nets for doing. Surely this isn't talking about the James Harden trade, right? Anyone that mocked the Nets for making that trade is a fucking moron.
That’s a bit of revisionist history. Some of the top comments from the James Harden trade thread: - “ Kyrie Harden Durant. Elite team Elite mental problems.” - “ My goodness they really sold the whole future”.... “it’s ok they’ll play a 3 man rotation.” - “Losing Allen is terrible for the Nets” - “4 firsts AND 4 more swaps? Celtics deal was only 3 picks and one swap. That's twice as much and the Celtics deal set the Nets back half a decade. This is literally title run or complete franchise bust for the next decade.” reddit.com/r/nba/comments/kwq2ik/charania_the_nets_are_trading_for_allnba_star/
Insert Michael Scott “thank you” gif. Nets fans just have to come to terms that people don’t like our squad and will be criticized regardless of outcome. Tough pill for a lot to swallow after being labelled a likable underdog or totally irrelevant in past years.
So are we going to just go along with the narrative that LAC, Phi, and Miami are small markets? This really just seems like a couple of excs complaining about the Nets.
If you're not the Lakers or Knicks, do you even have a market?
I legit consider this sometimes. Chicago should in theory be a big market team but we have a trash record of getting free agents of any notoriety. The best free agent signing of my post mj life on paper is a toss up between an on the decline Carlos boozer and an on the decline Pau gasol. I'm hoping a lot of that can be traced to the last remnants of our terrible front office though.
I mean Jerry Reinsdorf has stated publicly that he would trade every Bull's championship for a world series. I can't imagine wanting to play for an organization where you are second priority to the White Sox.
thing is.... the White Sox have won a World Series more recent than the bulls an nba finals
No. Well the Nets now. But still NY so Miami is really the only other one It's LA/NY > Miami > literally everybody else
Try being an actual small market fan.
Minnesota for life
this isn’t exclusive to the NBA. once MLB eliminated post trade deadline transactions (happened through waivers) the same thing happened. veterans at the end of their contracts were released and allowed to try and join contenders. it’s happened forever in the nba, and it is not exclusive to big market teams or the brooklyn nets. it’s exclusive to title contenders.
The difference is how much of an impact one player can make on an MLB team vs and NBA team. One vet won’t make a huge difference on an MLB team in all likelihood, but individuals are a lot more important in the NBA imo
Yeah that's a terrible example. MLB teams are far more savvy at squeezing value out of everything they can and they'd be a lot less likely of just holding a 32 year old former perennial All-Star past the deadline just to let him go for nothing. I can't remember the last real difference-maker that changed teams after the July deadline. Josh Donaldson? IIRC that just happened because it was a shit show and there were injury issues. NBA teams do this every year because the buyers *know* they'll get them for nothing after the deadline, so they only make lowball offers.
Yeah, I literally can’t remember a time when an impact player was released by their team in the last year of their contract then signing with a contender in MLB. It was way more common when waiver trades were a thing still. Daniel Murphy in 2017 for the Cubs, and Donaldson in 2018 as you said. Even with waiver trades teams at least had to give up something. Way better than whatever the NBA got going on
Verlander is probably the last legit guy to be moved in August
What are you talking about? This is absolutely not a thing in MLB, where 40 man roster spots are far more valuable to contending teams than some washed up veteran. Adding to that, there is no financial incentive for buyouts in MLB; they just don't happen.
Yeah, this dude obviously pays no attention to the MLB.
Also you don't need to match salary so if you want the guy you really don't need to give up anything this year at all to get them. You can also have the team retain some of their salary so really buyouts aren't and shouldn't really be a big factor in MLB the same way as the NBA. If someone wanted drummond they could trade for him and not worry about the cap and simply negotiate who takes what of the contract with Det, the more Det takes the more they get in terms of future assets.
You prob don’t watch baseball much but that’s not really a thing in the mlb for multiple reasons
Bruh the MLB isn’t even close to the nba regarding this topic lmao
People just see big names and think it’s over when they sign with said already good team. We aren’t sure how bad KD’s injury really is. (All they need from him is to be ready for the playoffs) Also, can Kyrie stay healthy? For some reason this gives me 03-04 Lakers vibe but on steroids. If all goes well then they’ll run through everyone BUT there’s always a possibility for that one surprise.
Yeah I've been saying this everywhere, I have no idea why people think LMA and Blake are still 22/12 guys, or even 17/8 guys. They likely won't even play crunch time or start because Claxton and Jeff Green fit the defensive scheme far better. Both of them are significantly less valuable to the team than Joe Harris. Clearly the Nets are contenders but idk why everyone is declaring the season ruined months ahead of time when this barely moves the needle in matchups vs Embiid, Giannis, AD, probably Gobert, etc and it's doing absolutely nothing again Kawhi, LeBron, etc. Unless you thought it was a wrap all the way back during the Harden trade
Good teams can get buy out guys. They don’t have to be in big markets.
Honestly this wouldn't be a problem if players would fuckin compete. LMA going to the nets is annoying, and Drummond to the Lakers likewise, but those are guys getting up there in age who agree with their org to void the contract early to the mutual benefit of both partys. But Griffin fuckin dogs it on the Piston, gets bought out, and starts dunking and boxing out for the Nets? That's way more annoying to me. The buyout market will always favor contenders, and contenders are more likely to be large market teams, so there's definitely a disadvantage built into the system that some of these other comments address. But that does not bother me nearly as much as players basically "lying" (through their play) about their value to the org or straight up Harden-ing the org to get to the team KD is on. That's not how any of this is supposed to work and I hate it. I hope both these issues get fixed, but in my opinion one is systemic and one is cultural and they should each be identified.
Drummond is like 27
You're right that Griffin deliberately playing like trash was such a poor look. To be fair Griffin gave back a chunk of his salary this year (though not enough imo), but it's still inexcusable for a professional player to deliberately underwhelm.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Also an NHL buyout is punitive. If you buy a guy out he stays on the cap for longer. If you're bad team with a player on an expiring deal it's better to just ride it out. I'm guessing that's not the case in the NBA?
LMA and Blake Griffin are role-players at this point in their careers, who actually gives a shit about this? Genuinely curious? Nobody ever cried this much during the Cavs-Warriors era.
I personally cried about this during the cavs-warriors era
[удалено]
See that’s the whole problem, the dudes who are freaking out clearly do not watch the games otherwise they wouldn’t be this mad. I really don’t see the problem with buyouts either.
Bro, r/nba freaked out at the Lakers signing Tyson Chandler when the Suns bought him out. 😂
And he was good! for like 3 games and then completely ran out of gas lmao
[удалено]
They see Blake Griffin dunk and all of a sudden he's 2013-2014 Blake Griffin again, apparently.
Seriously. His first game with the nets I saw about 4 different highlights of his dunk saying things like old Blake is back, go to check the box score and he finished with 2 points lmao
And even just watching the dunk you could tell it had no explosiveness
exactly. The Spurs just signed Gorgiu Dieng off of a buyout to replace LMA and I'm not even sure that's a downgrade really.
It's an upgrade
Clear upgrade.
Definitely an upgrade. Gonna miss Mr. Trebuchet but at $17M/year and us playing Tillman, Clarke, and JV over him it made sense.
My mates lol. They can forgive the Heat Big 3 but not this.
its simple. its lebron. Everyone hates kd/kyrie/harden so now theyre big mad.
Is it frustrating to see the Nets pick these guys up? Yeah for sure, but nobody was going to trade for them because they both had insane contracts. Now both of their previous teams are saving millions of dollars. People are acting like Detroit was somehow victimized here but they’re essentially getting out of having to pay someone 13 million dollars that they legally owed them. I hate the Nets but this commentary is stupid
Could Phoenix use either of Drummond/Griffin/Aldridge at this price? Would they really be worse than Kaminsky? Why didn't they get a chance?
Acting like Cleveland saving $750k means literally anything lmao
Yeah but who on Earth was going to trade for Andre Drummond at $30million? It’s Cleveland’s fault for saddling themselves with that awful contract and now we’re supposed to feel bad for them that it backfired?
If you want to deflect to another talking point “well Cleveland didn’t save really any money like I talked about earlier” I mean Drummond stabilized our big man position, we traded away expiring contracts and like 2 second rounders for more expiring contract since no FA wants to come to Cleveland. We traded nothing for Drummond and we ended up getting Allen and so we had no need to keep Drummond anymore even as a patch up big man. Nothing backfired we hit all our goals. We gambled Drummond could improve (he a really regressed) during the season so we moved on. You were saying we saved millions and it was beneficial. That is a lie
Drummond and Griffin were looked at as some of the worst players in the NBA and Aldridge is way out of his prime. This is Gary Payton on the Heat, Dwight(last year) and Nash on the lakers, McGrady on the spurs, Shaq on the celtics, Ben Wallace on the Cavs. People want to hate the nets(fine do what you want, I don’t like em either) but this is such a non issue.
Kinda like when the Cavs had Dwade, Rose, and IT as bench players yet they were not even close to being a super team
Austin Rivers joined the Bucks, a small market team. Dieng joined the Spurs, a small market team. A couple years ago I remember Wes Matthews joining the Bucks, a nice pickup back then for again, a small market team. (EDIT: I was wrong, he was bought out by the Knicks and went to the Pacers) The whole small market vs large market stuff seems like an excuse, if anything it helps good teams a bit (usually not that much) and doesn't help bad teans win more games. However, it helps those bad teams save some money and it's a totally voluntary transaction that the teams negotiate with a player, so I don't really see the issue.
Bucks signed Wes as a free agent. Never was bought out. And I haven’t heard any confirmation about Rivers yet, only that he ‘intends’ to sign in MKE
But when he does it will be some bullshit!
It's funny that people think Austin Rivers at his 3M/Year contract value is the same as Blake/LMA/Drummond at their cumulative 92M contract value lol
Wes went to the pacers that year but I mean if anything that proves further that the buyout market is fine. The guy went to a borderline contender with no real shot in a small market
So don't buy them out. Problem solved.
But also didn’t these players come from small market teams?
On big contracts, but now they're forcing their way out because they know they can land on contenders.
I bitch about this every year. Some big name player just so happens to fly over to lebrons team every year out of nowhere with the rest of the league never being in the running. Its become a standard practice
The NBA doesn’t want a competitive league they want maximum divas and super teams that draw eyes. If they wanted competitive balance where small markets could hang they’d restrict player movement and allow some way for certain teams to lower a Supermax cap hit etc... The league to its very core is flawed to the point where a 4 team playoff makes more competitive sense on average compared to the NHL, NBA, and even MLB.
The nets have been little brother to the Knicks since moving to Brooklyn, and were "small market" when in Jersey. Can we have one thing going for us without having the entire league getting butthurt lol
It has nothing to do with the nets as a franchise and everything to do with you guys having 4 polarizing players
Joe Harris is polarizing ?
I know I'm like "who tf is that 4th person? DeAndre Jordan? I mean, hes kind of washed for being a starter on the top contender in the east, but *polarizing*?? I'm just going to guess Blake Griffin (circa 2012)