Sandbagging and Superteams: What Can Be Done?

[Van Everyman]

The Athletic just sent out a push notification for an article called “Inside the end of Stan Van Gundy with the Pelicans and the ongoing battle to keep Zion Williamson happy.” It leads with comments about family members pushing to get him traded to another team.

Putting aside what people think of SVG’s style, NOLA’s front office and how this will play out, the league has a really big problem emerging on its hands with players not honoring their contracts to force their way into other situations: Harden, Davis, Kyrie, Griffin, to name just a few. Williamson isn’t there yet but it’s probably only a matter of time. Same probably with Lillard.

No this problem isn’t entirely new – but playing the “I’m injured all the time until I’m happy” card is. And unfortunately for management coincides with a larger conversation happening about power dynamics between management and employees, as well as the racial reckoning.

Notable exceptions to the sandbagging part of this trend include Lebron, Durant and Paul, who have moved teams and, at least in Lebron’s case, used their star power to have say over personnel and coaching hires – but never failed to fulfill or honor their commitments to their current teams to do so. The Decision may have been distasteful in some ways but at the end of the day, it was just two free agents legally colluding with another player.

What’s happening now is … different. The minute someone is drafted or signs with a team, the discussion shifts to “how they can keep him happy” – and how long it will be before he wants out.

I’m under no illusions about management and not suggesting the league return to Reserve Clause-style practices. But having players call all of the most important shots doesn't seem tenable or in the best interests of the game, long term (or maybe even short term). And if the Nets end up winning, it is only going to make things worse.

What does the NBA do? What can they do?

 

[ManicCompression]

I don't really understand why people view this as a problem. In any other business or industry, we put workers first and want them to succeed in places where they are happy.

Players have finite careers. As we've seen in these playoffs, health and success is fleeting. If you're a Zion WIlliamson, why would you want to rot on a team that thinks signing Steven Adams to an extension is a good idea? We often conflate the idea that market matters - and it obviously does in certain scenarios, like going to LA - but most often it seems like it's incompetence that drives players to want to go to a new situation. New Orleans is hiring the third coach in ZIon's three year career - what about that would make you confident, as one of the best young talents in the game, that you're going to be surrounded by a decent team before your knees explode?

I've always thought it a tragedy that certain guys - for example, KG in Minnesota - are wasting their talent with subpar teammates because of unstable ownership that either commits to the wrong GM or puts the GM in a situation where they're grasping at straws to save their job. And when these players go, it's in the best interest of the team to know that as far ahead as possible in advance to get the largest return for them. How much better would it have been for the Celtics if Kyrie demanded a trade before his last season rather than having him walk in FA a year later?

Edit: Spelling

 

[nighthob]

I mean I see the tampering as a bigger issue, the Nets were recruiting Kyrie (they hired his agent’s brother), while he was playing for Boston. LA was pretty openly talking to James while he was still with Cleveland. Not sure how you police backchannel negotiations though.

 

[DJnVa]

I don't really understand why people view this as a problem.

Because most people are fans of teams that aren't ever going to be a superteam.

 

[nighthob]

Well, it is a problem to the extent that you have some players actively trying to destroy their current team to advantage the team they’ve been talking to on the side. Like I had zero problems with Miami’s Superfriends team because neither James nor Bosh took steps to wreck the Cavs (Danny Ferry did that all on his own) or Raptors.

 

[ManicCompression]

Because most people are fans of teams that aren't ever going to be a superteam.

Like fans in Milwaukee? Or Golden State (do we not remember when Golden State was considered a shit-team in a small market pre 2013)? Or San Antonio?

 

[johnmd20]

I don't really understand why people view this as a problem. In any other business or industry, we put workers first and want them to succeed in places where they are happy.

Competitive balance is extremely important.

 

[DJnVa]

Like fans in Milwaukee? Or Golden State (do we not remember when Golden State was considered a shit-team in a small market pre 2013)? Or San Antonio?

2013 is ages ago in NBA time. Milwaukee has a super team?

 

[johnmd20]

Like fans in Milwaukee? Or Golden State (do we not remember when Golden State was considered a shit-team in a small market pre 2013)? Or San Antonio?

Milwaukee is your example? How many times have they made the Conference Finals in the last 20 years?

note - the answer to my rhetorical question is 1. 1 time in the last 20 years this super team has made the conference finals. They have made 0 finals.

 

[ManicCompression]

Well, it is a problem to the extent that you have some players actively trying to destroy their current team to advantage the team they’ve been talking to on the side. Like I had zero problems with Miami’s Superfriends team because neither James nor Bosh took steps to wreck the Cavs (Danny Ferry did that all on his own) or Raptors.

How often does this really happen? I'll give you Harden, but that seems more like a James Harden problem than an NBA player-movement problem. Same with Kyrie. Maybe I'm missing other examples. Generally these guys are already on shitty teams - how much can they really destroy their current team? Did Blake Griffin giving 80% on the Pistons change much for them this year?

 

[the moops]

How often does this really happen? I'll give you Harden, but that seems more like a James Harden problem than an NBA player-movement problem. Same with Kyrie. Maybe I'm missing other examples. Generally these guys are already on shitty teams - how much can they really destroy their current team? Did Blake Griffin giving 80% on the Pistons change much for them this year?

AD and Kawhi belong on the list

 

[Van Everyman]

Because most people are fans of teams that aren't ever going to be a superteam.

The 2008 Celtics were absolutely a superteam. It’s just that Ray Allen and KG didn’t quit on their teams to get to Boston.

Well, it is a problem to the extent that you have some players actively trying to destroy their current team to advantage the team they’ve been talking to on the side. Like I had zero problems with Miami’s Superfriends team because neither James nor Bosh took steps to wreck the Cavs (Danny Ferry did that all on his own) or Raptors.

Exactly. These guys are faking—or exaggerating—injuries (Davis), showing up out of shape (Harden) or being cancers in the locker room (Kyrie) to force management’s hand. Durant took a lot of shit for leaving OKC for GS—the “If you can’t beat ‘em” strategy—but he played his ass off for the Thunder. I have no issues there.

But at the end of the day, we root for teams and players. And this is making rooting for both a little harder IMO. And while that bothers me a little personally, it seems like a problem for the league if you can’t build team loyalty or expose the players in the media as being even more entitled millionaires than they already are.

Edit: and yes, Kawhi is absolutely on that list for his act in SA – which had zip all to do with team incompetence.

 

[ManicCompression]

2013 is ages ago in NBA time. Milwaukee has a super team?

Milwaukee is your example? How many times have they made the Conference Finals in the last 20 years?

They could conceivably win the NBA championship this year. If that happens, does it matter that their three all-star max-contract players aren't on the level of the three all-star max contract players on certain other teams?

 

[bsj]

It starts with the salary system. The NBA is a mess there and it is way too easy to game the system.

 

[ManicCompression]

Kawhi was injured and his recent seasons since that injury have, to me, only added to the evidence that maybe San Antonio's medical staff was optimistic about his hip. It's not often in other situations that we would pretend to know more about how someone physically feels, but we're confident that Kawhi was 100% and sandbagged his way out of SA?

And Davis was on a garbage NoLa team that had been horrifically mishandled by management ever since he arrived. How did he ruin their prospects that year? Would it have been better for them to win more games and not win the Zion lottery?

 

[Dduncan6er]

Easiest solution is to get rid of max contracts but the players union would never allow it. It'd make decisions for these guys a lot more difficult if they had to give up more money to go play with their buddies.

 

[Devizier]

Honestly, this feels like the wrong year to complain about superteams. The Lakers are out and the Nets are far from guaranteed a title.

The killer this season has been fucking injuries, and there's not a whole lot to be done there.

 

[OurF'ingCity]

Artificial "super teams" like the Nets annoy me too, but I don't really think there is anything the league can or should do to prevent it. Ultimately what it comes down to is that stars don't want to play on bad teams. So far a team that drafts a star, the answer is to make your team good - which they should be trying to do anyway. As MC points out above, Zion's (and his families') frustrations with the Pelicans seem warranted - they are a bit of a tire fire, and SVG clearly was not the right coach for that team.

The Harden situation to me is a bit of an outlier insofar as that is one of the relatively rare situations where a star demanded to be traded from a team that was pretty good. For the most part, stars on good teams don't ask to be traded - Tatum hasn't asked for a trade, nor Embiid, nor Luka, etc. And Giannis went further and actually re-signed with his small market team that has done pretty well, albeit never reaching the Finals.

In any event, if the league ever found this to be an issue (and was able to convince the players' union) the simple fix is keeping the cap system roughly in place but eliminating the concept of a max salary. Maybe some players would still join up for superteams, but if Anthony Davis had to choose between playing for the Lakers for $30m a year or playing for the Pelicans (or some other team) for, like, $55m a year, that's a much harder choice than being paid effectively (I know, not quite with Bird rules, etc.) the same no matter where you play.

Because most people are fans of teams that aren't ever going to be a superteam.

Depends what you define as a "superteam," but arguably the following cities have had "superteams" since the Celtics Big 3 era began: Boston, Brooklyn, Miami, OKC (this one was assembled through drafting, but it clearly fits the definition), both LA teams, Golden State, and Cleveland. Plus, arguably, Houston during the Harden/Paul peak, although there was never a clear "third star" there, and arguably the Kawhi-led Raptors team. That's about a third of the league over a decade or so. Then you add in teams like San Antonio, Philly, Milwaukee, Utah, Denver, Phoenix, etc. that haven't had what perhaps would be defined as a "superteam" but have had legitimate Finals contenders and it starts to be the case that the vast majority of NBA fans have seen their team be a legitimate contender for a title over the last decade or so. Do Lakers fans get to see that more often than, say, Suns fans? Sure, but that's more or less unavoidable.

 

[johnmd20]

Easiest solution is to get rid of max contracts but the players union would never allow it. It'd make decisions for these guys a lot more difficult if they had to give up more money to go play with their buddies.

That's a fact. The best players in the NBA are underpaid because of the max. Which allows them to pick and choose with a lot more ease, because it's not a 40 million a year difference. If Lebron could get paid 85 million to play in Minnesota, he might consider it.

 

[luckiestman]

Hard Cap/No Max contracts

 

[NickEsasky]

The league decided years ago to focus on superstars and promoting superstars over teams and this is really just the product of that. Superstars now have all the leverage and they will now use that leverage to the fullest to put themselves in the best situation. For many younger fans, they follow the stars not the teams now and that certainly works for national tv ratings, jersey sales, sneaker sales and social media engagement. That said, it doesn't really work as well in local markets when these teams struggle to even get a superstar then when they luck into one in the draft the clock is already ticking on him leaving for greener pastures with some buddies he met at the all-star game or team USA.

I realize the teams share some responsibility in this as well as they need to focus on surrounding talent with talent, but the teams that often get superstars in the draft usually have more work to do hence why they are drafting in the top 3, to begin with, or maybe in markets that are tougher draws to find guys who want to play there when they can just wait five years and both join up in LA or Miami.

Maybe the NBA doesn't view this as a problem. But as a fan of the Celtics, it worries me that Tatum might up and decide to bolt in a few years or shoot his way out of town prior to that. And honestly at age 42 with two kids and limited time to actually spend on sports these days that might be the straw that breaks the camel's back for me with really investing time in this team as a fan.

 

[bakahump]

Why not allow teams to Resign DRAFTED players at a even higher premium.
Say extra 3 or 10 million more per year. (I know the Drafting team currently has an advantage.....but make it even more.)
On top of that For each year a players stays with their drafting the can get a 2 million dollar loyalty bonus bump. With a cap of 8 or 10 million
Make both of the above "Bonus Moneys" not subject to the Cap.

So if Baka Hump gets drafted by the Celtics......its in his best interest monetarily to stay with the Celtics after his rookie contract (because they can offer the most money). Additionally because they can give him a "loyalty Bonus" he wants to stay there. This keeps him from Getting the Big money from a home team.....then immediately demanding a trade and taking that compensation with him.
If after his rookie contract he decides the franchise is trash he can leave via free agency....for less money. (Pretty much like it is now....but more so.)

If after that first extension and a couple of "Loyalty Bonus" years Baka decides "The Celts are trash I want out!" and he demands a trade then He loses the 4 million per year he was making as loyalty Bonus and starts making 34 instead of 38 million with his new team. I would further envision that you cant get a loyalty bonus with your second team. So basically that money (or the chance to make that much) is gone forever.

In simpler math.
Make it so....
Bakahump is drafted by the Cs.
After his first contract he gets a "Max Contact" because he is a star. (For easy math say a Max for a drafted player is 35 Million per year).
After year 1 of his second contract he gets a 2 Million dollar "kicker". (So his yearly is now 37) (35 against the cap)
After year 2 of his second contract he gets a 2 Million dollar kicker (So his yearly is now 39 million) (35 against the cap)
After year 3 of his second contract he gets a 2 million dollar kicker (Now 41) (35 against the cap)
After year 4 of his second contact he gets a 2 million dollar kicker (Now 43) (35 against the cap)
After year 5 of his second contract he gets a 2 million dollar kicker (now 45) (35 against the cap)
He is now MAX'd and can resign with the Cs for 45 million (35 against the cap) (this situation would have to be an ultimate Star LBJ type to spend that much on a 31 ish yo but you could do it if you wanted to retain them).

Lets say instead that after year 3 instead of staying with the Cs Baka is Pissed....or wants to play with @Van Everyman in Detroit. I can demand a trade.
BUT my contract goes from 41 Million back down to 35 million. I had better like Detroit, Van Everyman and the chance to win a Championship......6 million dollars worth.


Or lets say After his first contract Baka says "I hate boston!" and wants to sign with him hometown Cavaliers He can sign for the max NON Drafted player of 32 Million a year.
As this isnt his drafting team he cant get loyalty bonuses.
So he gets
32 Million year 1
32 Million year 2
32 Million year 3
32 Million year 4
etc etc

As one further Caveat, all this can ONLY be DONE on a Player you "Franchise". So Bakahump in our scenrio. Whereas Marcus Smart....or Fournier....or Brown can all move along as they always have.

I am no cap expert. So my numbers or procedures might be screwy. But the just is that the Drafting team gets an (further) advantage to sign their young stars (as exists now.....but moreso) AND an advantage in KEEPING them......that a team like the Lakers or Miami cannot have. A player truly has to be in a bad situation to give up millions to leave.

A player can move around if they wish......but loses the financial incentive to "Stay and make the situation better".

At the end of the day the League, and thus the owners, and the Players are better off when ALL teams have a chance to compete and be successful. Super teams because of a charismatic player, Tax implications, weather or Cool uniforms jeopardize that success. It gives an unfair bias to some location over other locations. While that will always exist we can do things like the above to make them less attractive.

 

[ManicCompression]

The definition of how cool a market is feels like it changes with the wind. Golden State was very uncool until it was cool. Chicago sucks now and no one would ever go there, but it was a glamor market in the 90s. The Texas teams seems to rotate every 5-10 years from being destination teams to being shit markets - hey, Houston is the third largest city! These guys like playing for Cubes in Dallas! No state taxes! - and you could say the same for Phoenix. Orlando was really cool in the 90s and 2000s - remember when McGrady and Grant Hill signed there? - and now it's a forgotten outpost. Miami was undesirable until Riley showed up. Boston had a superteam, but now we seemingly can't attract any stars. New York is the best market in the country, except if you're the Knicks and you're trying to sign KD and Kyrie. Philly was a laughingstock, but now they're less so.

The Pistons have been ridiculously good within the last 20 years, enough to crush a lakers team for a title. The Bucks could win the title this year if Bud could pull his head out of his ass. OKC had multiple shots last decade and probably could have kept KD had they chosen correctly between Harden-Westbrook-Ibaka. Utah had the best record in the league this year and should be beating the Clippers - they' didn't lose last night to a superteam.

The only common thread here is mismanagement and that's not on the players. NoLa had a football GM running the team during Davis' tenure. The Houston mess is on Fertita. The Timberwolves suck because their owner is legendarily awful. The Kings haven't been to the playoffs in 20 years because Vivek Ranadive decided to hire Vlade Divac, who looked at Luka Doncic and Marvin Bagley and said "Give me the guy who is significantly less skilled." The Hornets, outside of this year, has been one of the worst managed franchises in basketball thanks to Jordan's impatience. Small markets have ample opportunities to win with good management and, as we've seen with NYK and the Nets (early 2010s), you can have the best market and all the money in the world and won't do you any good without competent management.

Players typically stick with winning teams and then suck players from dysfunctional, losing teams into their orbit - see Westbrook and George on OKC, Giannis and Jrue in Milwaukee, Booker and Paul in Phoenix, etc. I'm not sure it's a bad thing to let good players leave 30 win teams, which aren't going to improve whether they're there or not, to join more competitive teams.

 

[cheech13]

The definition of how cool a market is feels like it changes with the wind. Golden State was very uncool until it was cool. Chicago sucks now and no one would ever go there, but it was a glamor market in the 90s. The Texas teams seems to rotate every 5-10 years from being destination teams to being shit markets - hey, Houston is the third largest city! These guys like playing for Cubes in Dallas! No state taxes! - and you could say the same for Phoenix. Orlando was really cool in the 90s and 2000s - remember when McGrady and Grant Hill signed there? - and now it's a forgotten outpost. Miami was undesirable until Riley showed up. Boston had a superteam, but now we seemingly can't attract any stars. New York is the best market in the country, except if you're the Knicks and you're trying to sign KD and Kyrie. Philly was a laughingstock, but now they're less so.

The Pistons have been ridiculously good within the last 20 years, enough to crush a lakers team for a title. The Bucks could win the title this year if Bud could pull his head out of his ass. OKC had multiple shots last decade and probably could have kept KD had they chosen correctly between Harden-Westbrook-Ibaka. Utah had the best record in the league this year and should be beating the Clippers - they' didn't lose last night to a superteam.

The only common thread here is mismanagement and that's not on the players. NoLa had a football GM running the team during Davis' tenure. The Houston mess is on Fertita. The Timberwolves suck because their owner is legendarily awful. The Kings haven't been to the playoffs in 20 years because Vivek Ranadive decided to hire Vlade Divac, who looked at Luka Doncic and Marvin Bagley and said "Give me the guy who is significantly less skilled." The Hornets, outside of this year, has been one of the worst managed franchises in basketball thanks to Jordan's impatience. Small markets have ample opportunities to win with good management and, as we've seen with NYK and the Nets (early 2010s), you can have the best market and all the money in the world and won't do you any good without competent management.

Players typically stick with winning teams and then suck players from dysfunctional, losing teams into their orbit - see Westbrook and George on OKC, Giannis and Jrue in Milwaukee, Booker and Paul in Phoenix, etc. I'm not sure it's a bad thing to let good players leave 30 win teams, which aren't going to improve whether they're there or not, to join more competitive teams.

Great post. A lot of what gets thrown out as big market/small market dynamics isn’t that at all, but rather just organizational momentum. Sometimes franchises feel like they are on the rise because they have good young players or assets and a culture other guys want to be a part of, but it can turn on a dime. Boston had no problem attracting three max guys in the mid-2010s when they had cap space, a hot shot coach and a bazillion draft picks. Now they are a middle of the pack team without cap space and an unclear front office structure and so stars want to look elsewhere. In a few years it may shift back. Brooklyn was a franchise left for dead, but a few years of great management and planning and now they are a model organization. You just never know.

 

[ragnarok725]

Hard Cap/No Max contracts

This is really the only answer. The absurd market distortion caused by max contracts is the root cause of all of this.

If you significantly upped the minimum salary and didn't have it count against the cap, then removed the max maybe the union goes for it. Big markets get a bit of an advantage there, being able to go further "over" with luxury tax etc.

At the end of the day, super teams will continue so long as you're not allowed to pay Kevin Durant more than Kemba Walker.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

I don't really understand why people view this as a problem. In any other business or industry, we put workers first and want them to succeed in places where they are happy.

Players have finite careers. As we've seen in these playoffs, health and success is fleeting. If you're a Zion WIlliamson, why would you want to rot on a team that thinks signing Steven Adams to an extension is a good idea? We often conflate the idea that market matters - and it obviously does in certain scenarios, like going to LA - but most often it seems like it's incompetence that drives players to want to go to a new situation. New Orleans is hiring the third coach in ZIon's three year career - what about that would make you confident, as one of the best young talents in the game, that you're going to be surrounded by a decent team before your knees explode?

I've always thought it a tragedy that certain guys - for example, KG in Minnesota - are wasting their talent with subpar teammates because of unstable ownership that either commits to the wrong GM or puts the GM in a situation where they're grasping at straws to save their job. And when these players go, it's in the best interest of the team to know that as far ahead as possible in advance to get the largest return for them. How much better would it have been for the Celtics if Kyrie demanded a trade before his last season rather than having him walk in FA a year later?

Edit: Spelling

Good post.

I would add that its tough to see the model changing when revenue growth (not ratings) has been pretty robust over the past decade plus. The flip side of increased player movement is that franchises appear able to reboot far more quickly than in the past. So while it sucks that a four or five year contract is effectively only a two or maybe three year one in actuality, the nature of the market does have benefits for the teams as well as the talent.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

This is really the only answer. The absurd market distortion caused by max contracts is the root cause of all of this.

If you significantly upped the minimum salary and didn't have it count against the cap, then removed the max maybe the union goes for it. Big markets get a bit of an advantage there, being able to go further "over" with luxury tax etc.

At the end of the day, super teams will continue so long as you're not allowed to pay Kevin Durant more than Kemba Walker.

I suspect you could get the same result with no max contracts / no cap, since there will be a limit to how much owners are willing to spend to assemble a super team without bankrupting themselves. But obviously no owner would go for that.

 

[reggiecleveland]

I don't really understand why people view this as a problem. In any other business or industry, we put workers first and want them to succeed in places where they are happy.

Wait where are you from? Where do you work? Are you in management?

I took a lot of history classes, and "workers put first" wasn't in any of them. There were a few places that said "workers come first" but when the workers quit working hard (Like Blake Griffin in Detroit for example) they got train rides to places that were actually worse.

To me due to social media, etc, the media is overly player friendly. That's a problem. For example, not one Kyrie hates Boston story has mentioned how terribly he played in Boston.

I will use Blake Griffin as another example. He did not refuse to cash the checks the Pistons gave him. But, he sure as hell refused to enter the key. That he is dunking on Gianis, after not dunking once all year in Detroit, bring him eternal shame. But, today it's a cure meme about how bad the Pistons are. The Pistons suck, made bad decisions. Yeah one bad decision was agreeing to pay the corpse of Blake Griffin so much. One of the biggest impediments to the Pistons succeeding and being a team Blake Griffin could care about playing for, was how much they were paying him. But, was that an obligation to play harder, play better? No. It means he needs to play worse and get traded. Then start playing hard again.

It's a problem.

 

[RetractableRoof]

Why not allow teams to Resign DRAFTED players at a even higher premium.
Say extra 3 or 10 million more per year. (I know the Drafting team currently has an advantage.....but make it even more.)
On top of that For each year a players stays with their drafting the can get a 2 million dollar loyalty bonus bump. With a cap of 8 or 10 million
Make both of the above "Bonus Moneys" not subject to the Cap.

So if Baka Hump gets drafted by the Celtics......its in his best interest monetarily to stay with the Celtics after his rookie contract (because they can offer the most money). Additionally because they can give him a "loyalty Bonus" he wants to stay there. This keeps him from Getting the Big money from a home team.....then immediately demanding a trade and taking that compensation with him.
If after his rookie contract he decides the franchise is trash he can leave via free agency....for less money. (Pretty much like it is now....but more so.)

If after that first extension and a couple of "Loyalty Bonus" years Baka decides "The Celts are trash I want out!" and he demands a trade then He loses the 4 million per year he was making as loyalty Bonus and starts making 34 instead of 38 million with his new team. I would further envision that you cant get a loyalty bonus with your second team. So basically that money (or the chance to make that much) is gone forever.

In simpler math.
Make it so....
Bakahump is drafted by the Cs.
After his first contract he gets a "Max Contact" because he is a star. (For easy math say a Max for a drafted player is 35 Million per year).
After year 1 of his second contract he gets a 2 Million dollar "kicker". (So his yearly is now 37) (35 against the cap)
After year 2 of his second contract he gets a 2 Million dollar kicker (So his yearly is now 39 million) (35 against the cap)
After year 3 of his second contract he gets a 2 million dollar kicker (Now 41) (35 against the cap)
After year 4 of his second contact he gets a 2 million dollar kicker (Now 43) (35 against the cap)
After year 5 of his second contract he gets a 2 million dollar kicker (now 45) (35 against the cap)
He is now MAX'd and can resign with the Cs for 45 million (35 against the cap) (this situation would have to be an ultimate Star LBJ type to spend that much on a 31 ish yo but you could do it if you wanted to retain them).

Lets say instead that after year 3 instead of staying with the Cs Baka is Pissed....or wants to play with @Van Everyman in Detroit. I can demand a trade.
BUT my contract goes from 41 Million back down to 35 million. I had better like Detroit, Van Everyman and the chance to win a Championship......6 million dollars worth.


Or lets say After his first contract Baka says "I hate boston!" and wants to sign with him hometown Cavaliers He can sign for the max NON Drafted player of 32 Million a year.
As this isnt his drafting team he cant get loyalty bonuses.
So he gets
32 Million year 1
32 Million year 2
32 Million year 3
32 Million year 4
etc etc

As one further Caveat, all this can ONLY be DONE on a Player you "Franchise". So Bakahump in our scenrio. Whereas Marcus Smart....or Fournier....or Brown can all move along as they always have.

I am no cap expert. So my numbers or procedures might be screwy. But the just is that the Drafting team gets an (further) advantage to sign their young stars (as exists now.....but moreso) AND an advantage in KEEPING them......that a team like the Lakers or Miami cannot have. A player truly has to be in a bad situation to give up millions to leave.

A player can move around if they wish......but loses the financial incentive to "Stay and make the situation better".

At the end of the day the League, and thus the owners, and the Players are better off when ALL teams have a chance to compete and be successful. Super teams because of a charismatic player, Tax implications, weather or Cool uniforms jeopardize that success. It gives an unfair bias to some location over other locations. While that will always exist we can do things like the above to make them less attractive.

Conceptually, there's merit in this thinking. But advertising dollars/opportunities gained as a result of being in a Super team scenario (and winning) make even the kinds of numbers you are talking about relatively small. Take Giannis for example. You think he couldn't make an extra $10M (beyond team salary) relatively easily moving from Milwaukee to most any larger media market? Your example wouldn't keep Giannis at home in Milwaukee (though in reality something did, perhaps even loyalty).

 

[ManicCompression]

Wait where are you from? Where do you work? Are you in management?

I took a lot of history classes, and "workers put first" wasn't in any of them. There were a few places that said "workers come first" but when the workers quit working hard (Like Blake Griffin in Detroit for example) they got train rides to places that were actually worse.

I'm speaking generally of the board. I don't see a lot of posters saying that workers should get paid less money or get less benefits or have less access to new opportunities in other industries. And I would guess that if someone on this board signed a contract with a company because that company told them "We're committed to you and we see you staying here until you retire" (much as the Clippers did with Blake when he had a chance to sign anywhere else in the league) and then a year later the company relocated them to Detroit without warning, we would sympathize with that poster understand why they'd be looking for a new gig elsewhere (and accept less money in a buyout).

If my employer came to me and said "You're kicking ass and you're a bedrock of this team, but we're making the managerial decision to lay off the rest of your team and replace them with interns to save some cash. Sorry if you're going to have to work extra hours to make up for their mistakes. Keep up the good work - we're counting on you!" I'd probably not bust my ass anymore for an employer that doesn't have an investment in me and I'd look for another employer to buy out my contract, especially if I'm in demand in a shallow labor market. It's not about being lazy, it's about not wanting to waste my life and talents working for a disorganized company that doesn't value good work.

 

[Kliq]

My main concern with player movement and the NBA in general is that we will continue to see an increase in star players shifting around the league at an advanced rate, with players rarely sticking with a team for more than three seasons. That will create a dynamic where team building and long-standing teams growing and developing and eventually winning together will be of less importance, and rivalries between different teams vying for the title year-after-year will be non-existent. In the long run, championships in general will be devalued because no team sticks together for very long and just kind of get passed around to franchises that happen to have the right collection of mercenaries each year. We've already seen players like LeBron, Durant and Kawhi shift the power around in the league when they feel like they can jump to a more advantageous situation. I think more players will conduct themselves like that at an even faster rate, and the landscape of the league will change on a yearly basis, and it being common for great players to play for 6-7 teams throughout their career.

 

[ManicCompression]

I will use Blake Griffin as another example. He did not refuse to cash the checks the Pistons gave him. But, he sure as hell refused to enter the key. That he is dunking on Gianis, after not dunking once all year in Detroit, bring him eternal shame. But, today it's a cure meme about how bad the Pistons are. The Pistons suck, made bad decisions. Yeah one bad decision was agreeing to pay the corpse of Blake Griffin so much. One of the biggest impediments to the Pistons succeeding and being a team Blake Griffin could care about playing for, was how much they were paying him. But, was that an obligation to play harder, play better? No. It means he needs to play worse and get traded. Then start playing hard again.

It's a problem.

You've forgotten more about basketball than I've ever known, but I think it's hard to separate Blake's performance from his team. It's hard to dunk when you're playing next to Drummond and 3 other non-shooters and very easy to dunk when all of the other defenders on the floor are focused on your three excellent teammates. There's also a reason why Bruce Brown was thrown away by the Pistons in a trade but now he's a key part of the Nets. The Pistons suck and the Nets are really good, in part because Detroit doesn't understand how to use a guy like Bruce Brown and Nash does.

They didn't sign Griffin as an FA. Griffin never wanted to go to Detroit. He signed with the Clippers and was then traded to Detroit a year later. He probably wouldn't have signed with the Clippers had he known that they'd trade him to Detroit a year later. Then he was very injured - is that his fault? - Detroit sucked and they agreed to buy him out (he took less money to do so). As you note above, Detroit was bad in part because of the bad Blake contract. Is Detroit better if Blake, a role player at this point in his career, is still on their team? No, so both sides are better off with the buyout and it didn't matter if Blake dunked a few times during 20 point losses this year.

 

[reggiecleveland]

You've forgotten more about basketball than I've ever known, but I think it's hard to separate Blake's performance from his team. It's hard to dunk when you're playing next to Drummond and 3 other non-shooters and very easy to dunk when all of the other defenders on the floor are focused on your three excellent teammates. There's also a reason why Bruce Brown was thrown away by the Pistons in a trade but now he's a key part of the Nets. The Pistons suck and the Nets are really good, in part because Detroit doesn't understand how to use a guy like Bruce Brown and Nash does.

They didn't sign Griffin as an FA. Griffin never wanted to go to Detroit. He signed with the Clippers and was then traded to Detroit a year later. He probably wouldn't have signed with the Clippers had he known that they'd trade him to Detroit a year later. Then he was very injured - is that his fault? - Detroit sucked and they agreed to buy him out (he took less money to do so). As you note above, Detroit was bad in part because of the bad Blake contract. Is Detroit better if Blake, a role player at this point in his career, is still on their team? No, so both sides are better off with the buyout and it didn't matter if Blake dunked a few times during 20 point losses this year.

You've forgotten more about basketball than I've ever known, but I think it's hard to separate Blake's performance from his team. It's hard to dunk when you're playing next to Drummond and 3 other non-shooters and very easy to dunk when all of the other defenders on the floor are focused on your three excellent teammates. There's also a reason why Bruce Brown was thrown away by the Pistons in a trade but now he's a key part of the Nets. The Pistons suck and the Nets are really good, in part because Detroit doesn't understand how to use a guy like Bruce Brown and Nash does.

A lot of what you say is true. But to not dunk once? I thought he was injured and felt sorry for him in Detroit. I thought maybe he couldn't dunk anymore. His instant transformation into a an aggressive player was shocking. As for not wanting to play in Detroit, well they wanted him more than the Clippers. I wanted no part of the Celtics acquiring him. I understand all of the frustrations, but players know just how much promises are worth. They worth just as much as Damon or Kyrie saying they would never leave Boston. That's why the dollars matter.

There needs to be a solution beyond guys whining their way out of town. This is really bad for the league. If nothing else it has to be contained better. the public nature of these moves is really bad for the image of the league.

 

[AMS25]

There are different ways to build a team. I've been watching the rebuild in OKC, and the strategy seems to be:
1) Comb the international market for players who want to make the jump to the NBA;
2) Trade and/or sign young, cheap (and possibly undervalued) talent and play them to see if any of these players look promising;
3) Stock up on draft picks, and hope some of them pay off.
4) Trade away veterans and/or just don't play them (think Horford) so you can really tank.

Will this work? Who knows. So far, the Thunder have signed Dort and Moses Brown to cheap multi-year contracts, and seem to consider Poku and Malendon to be part of the team's future. Of course, the cornerstone is SGA. If lucky, the Thunder could have two picks in the top five. We shall see. As a fan, it has been fun to watch players like Dort emerge. The Thunder could very well be the Rays -- draft, develop, trade, rinse, repeat. I don't mind.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

People keep referring to this as a problem for the league - simply put, a problem comes down to economics.

If its a problem, there needs to be a cost associated with it and an alternative solution that incentivizes all parties to agree to it. Until we get that, this discussion is all about personal preferences.

 

[ManicCompression]

A lot of what you say is true. But to not dunk once? I thought he was injured and felt sorry for him in Detroit. I thought maybe he couldn't dunk anymore. His instant transformation into a an aggressive player was shocking. As for not wanting to play in Detroit, well they wanted him more than the Clippers. I wanted no part of the Celtics acquiring him. I understand all of the frustrations, but players know just how much promises are worth. They worth just as much as Damon or Kyrie saying they would never leave Boston. That's why the dollars matter.

There needs to be a solution beyond guys whining their way out of town. This is really bad for the league. If nothing else it has to be contained better. the public nature of these moves is really bad for the image of the league.

Why are broken promises only acceptable in one direction? Unless you have an NTC, there's nothing in the contract to prevent a player from being traded. Okay, that's a risk some of these guys have to accept. There's also nothing in the contract that says "You have to give 100% on 100% of plays and have a great attitude." Effort and attitude are the only leverage a player has to ensure the best for their career and when it comes to accolades, sponsorships, HOF, All-NBA teams that result in massive bonuses, players should care about the direction of their career.

You may personally dislike the way Kyrie handled himself or how Davis handled himself - I did too because they were both obnoxious and callous about the fans - but the concept of player empowerment seems, to me, to be a separate issue from individual player behavior (not sure if that makes sense). I think it's kind of cool that Blake could win a ring as a supersub after having some tough luck with injuries in his career and it doesn't really bother me that he didn't dunk on a nowhere team with awful management that he never wanted to play for. No amount of effort from Blake would make them even a 30 win team, so why go through the motions when he could play on a contender while Detroit saves some $$$ in the process?

 

[RetractableRoof]

I'm speaking generally of the board. I don't see a lot of posters saying that workers should get paid less money or get less benefits or have less access to new opportunities in other industries. And I would guess that if someone on this board signed a contract with a company because that company told them "We're committed to you and we see you staying here until you retire" (much as the Clippers did with Blake when he had a chance to sign anywhere else in the league) and then a year later the company relocated them to Detroit without warning, we would sympathize with that poster understand why they'd be looking for a new gig elsewhere (and accept less money in a buyout).

If my employer came to me and said "You're kicking ass and you're a bedrock of this team, but we're making the managerial decision to lay off the rest of your team and replace them with interns to save some cash. Sorry if you're going to have to work extra hours to make up for their mistakes. Keep up the good work - we're counting on you!" I'd probably not bust my ass anymore for an employer that doesn't have an investment in me and I'd look for another employer to buy out my contract, especially if I'm in demand in a shallow labor market. It's not about being lazy, it's about not wanting to waste my life and talents working for a disorganized company that doesn't value good work.

That's all well and good. We probably would, and some here would possibly offer up jobs within their companies if that would help. It's also not relevant.

To your original comment, "why is it viewed as a problem?":
The NBA and most pro leagues are a closed market. There is a reason the arena football league teams aren't paying their players what JJ Watt makes. There is a reason that the G League players aren't making the same money as the NBA players. It is because there is a humungous pool of money loaded into brinks trucks being backed up to the NBA front door by the TV networks, and by the ad companies, and by major corporations who want to be associated with the league. And because of those ridiculous piles of money being accumulated it's fair game for the players to want their share of it. When does that money dry up? When people stop tuning into the Seattle Supersonics games, and the New Orleans Pelicans games because their stars (or whole teams) are going elsewhere - and the fans of teams in those cities start feeling like their teams are just the minor league development teams for the rest of the league. In the end, NBA HQ has an obligation to keep the league healthy - and that isn't just total revenue into the league, it is also the individual health of each of the teams. It might take years for this sort of thing to happen (franchise failure), but look at the kinds of steps the NFL has taken to try to minimize teams being bad forever. The television contracts for the league are split among the teams - the Mara's in NY for example understood they would have an enormous revenue advantage is they simply kept their NY TV money for themselves, Green Bay couldn't compete with that. But they agreed to split that money - because they understood every team in the league needed to be reasonably competitive. The league rebalances the schedule based on the success of teams the previous year in an attempt to create some parity - or have different teams getting a shot at the playoffs and maintain fan interest. Lots of other things, but those pop into mind easily.

So yes, competitive balance and long term health of the league is more important than the individual rights and desires of the labor/workforce. The players only have access to the money they do as long as they contribute to the league health. If their efforts to create super teams damage the NBA long term, or individual franchises short/long term then it should be viewed negatively. Once they choose to work outside the generalized health of the league - then they shouldn't be expecting all the benefits of being that superstar/celebrity - like the money.

How many out of market games do we all watch? I can say for myself I've tuned in (non-Cs) games this year just to see Zion play. That viewership is tracked and in some way shape or form, it benefits his team - and their ability to pay his salary. I've also try to watch a few Atlanta games, a game or two with Milwaukee, a couple of Clippers games, and a few others that had some young stars or just a few because they were compelling games. I can tell you that I didn't watch a single Rockets game. I probably wouldn't have because I can't stand Harden - but with him forcing himself out of Houston there is NO reason for me to be drawn to their games. And if the local fans also no longer are drawn to watch, then what? That can't be good for the league, it just can't.

There is a difference in the NFL, MLB (and to a much less extent NHL) and the NBA. The size of the rosters in those sports allow a percentage of player movement each year while also maintaining a certain amount of fan continuity. Sure your favorite player may be a FA and sign elsewhere, but you've got another 20 or more players to maintain your interest. In the NBA with smaller rosters/rotations the impact of a superstar leaving can be devastating to a team for years to come. It's why tanking is so prevalent in the NBA, that incoming superstar also changes your fortune for years (if you get it right). But the damaged franchise - that isn't good for the league in any way (unless one wants to make an argument that it creates an impetus for better management - but that's not always the problem).

 

[reggiecleveland]

Why are broken promises only acceptable in one direction? Unless you have an NTC, there's nothing in the contract to prevent a player from being traded. Okay, that's a risk some of these guys have to accept. There's also nothing in the contract that says "You have to give 100% on 100% of plays and have a great attitude." Effort and attitude are the only leverage a player has to ensure the best for their career and when it comes to accolades, sponsorships, HOF, All-NBA teams that result in massive bonuses, players should care about the direction of their career.

Do you not think effort is required? There has to a be a point where the level of effort is not enough. At the moment the team can really do nothing with a guy that refuses to play.

I stand by the statement, and stick to my example, that the public conversation about Blake Griffin, and Kyrie Irving not for an instant revisiting just how horribly they played for their previous teams, is wrong. Guys can give up. Guys can loaf. But, at the moment there is almost no price to pay in terms of image or reputation. There was a hall of fame discussion about Rondo on this board today, noting that completely quitting on his team is washed away by a nice three weeks in the bubble. At one time the teams had all the power, the press on their side. Tom Seaver was an ingrate for waning better teammates, Wilt deserved a pay cut because he lost to the Celtics, etc. But, the nba is close to it going too far the other way

 

[nighthob]

Exactly. These guys are faking—or exaggerating—injuries (Davis), showing up out of shape (Harden) or being cancers in the locker room (Kyrie) to force management’s hand. Durant took a lot of shit for leaving OKC for GS—the “If you can’t beat ‘em” strategy—but he played his ass off for the Thunder. I have no issues there.

I was going to object to that characterization of Irving, Boston would have been better off, after all, if he had forced them to trade him. But then I realized that you were discussing Cleveland, and man, you're right. He's demoed two franchises now. God help the Nets when the Lakers become his new favorite childhood team.

 

[moondog80]

Hard Cap/No Max contracts

That would be a fascinating experiment and make NBA GM the most important/impactful non-player position in pro sports.

 

[ManicCompression]

@RetractableRoof The same teams have been bad in the NFL for ages - the Raiders, the Jaguars, WFT, the Bengals, the Lions, the Texans, the Jets, the Bears, etc. That doesn't stop fans of those teams from watching their teams. Not having Tom Brady or Mahomes doesn't mean they don't go into the season hoping for a miracle and them being bad doesn't stop people from tuning into a blowoutThursday night game.

These sports are different because I don't think people like basketball as a sport as much and the 17 game season is much easier to digest as a fan. The NBA is never going to be the NFL but the NFL can survive the same teams being dogshit YoY and I think the NBA can, too. It's not the players fault that these teams suck, it's on the owners. People tuned into Sacramento when they had competent management and they're tuning out because their owner is an imbecile. If Luka was stuck there and put into a system where he couldn't leave, the NBA would be worse off because one of their best players is in a backwater surrounded by shitty teammates. This board didn't mind when the Patriots went to and won all those super bowls (more than any one team has gone to NBA championships) and I doubt anyone had a problem with Moss loafing his way out of a terrible situation in Oakland only to join the greatest offense of all time, so why is it a problem when it happens in the NBA?

The general public likes it when there are villains, when there are great teams, etc. It's better for ratings if LeBron is surrounded with awesome players and making the finals instead of the alternative.

Do you not think effort is required? There has to a be a point where the level of effort is not enough. At the moment the team can really do nothing with a guy that refuses to play.

Of course I think effort is required but you're essentially saying that players should accept any situation and establish no agency over their career. The public as a whole clearly doesn't care about this stuff - they don't give a shit about how Barkley left Philly, but most everyone knows he never won a championship. If I'm a good/great player - or any player! - I'm doing whatever I can to get on good teams and help myself be remembered positively in conversations. No one will remember the three weeks that Harden didn't try for Houston in 10 years, but they will remember him toughing out a hamstring injury if they win the finals.

 

[sezwho]

That would be a fascinating experiment and make NBA GM the most important/impactful non-player position in pro sports.

It certainly would, and would I love to see that game theory play out in reality. Personally, if we’re going this way I would combine it with one-year contracts. That way every year has a complete free-for-all, but that’s just me.

I’m not sure the players union would be the blockers. There’s no way ownership would except this either, just as they negotiated limited max contract length, because they know they are morons on occasion as well.

 

[HowBoutDemSox]

There's also nothing in the contract that says "You have to give 100% on 100% of plays and have a great attitude."

From the Uniform Player Contract in the CBA:

The Player agrees: (i) to give his best services, as well as his loyalty, to the Team, and to play basketball only for the Team and its assignees; (ii) to be neatly and fully attired in public; (iii) to conduct himself on and off the court according to the highest standards of honesty, citizenship, and sportsmanship; and (iv) not to do anything that is materially detrimental or materially prejudicial to the best interests of the Team or the League

We can all agree this is absolutely unenforceable, but there is language the contract that says they have to give their best effort and loyalty to their team, and dogging it in order to force a trade violates that provision.

 

[ManicCompression]

We can all agree this is absolutely unenforceable, but there is language the contract that says they have to give their best effort and loyalty to their team, and dogging it in order to force a trade violates that provision.

Okay - it's incredibly vague and impossible to enforce, but it's in there. Does that mean teams can cancel contracts if a player comes to camp out of shape? Or if they don't work on their shot enough in the offseason? Or if they need to sit out games because of load management? If this were a real thing that anyone gave credence to, every single bad contract in the NBA could be voided. The Mavs could cut Porzingis at any time.

 

[HowBoutDemSox]

Okay - it's incredibly vague and impossible to enforce, but it's in there. Does that mean teams can cancel contracts if a player comes to camp out of shape? Or if they don't work on their shot enough in the offseason? Or if they need to sit out games because of load management? If this were a real thing that anyone gave credence to, every single bad contract in the NBA could be voided. The Mavs could cut Porzingis at any time.

Re: coming in out of shape and such, there is a whole separate section on being in shape and dealing with injuries, etc.:

(a) The Player agrees to report at the time and place fixed by the Team in good physical condition and to keep himself throughout each NBA Season in good physical condition.

(b) If the Player, in the judgment of the Team’s physician, is not in good physical condition at the date of his first scheduled game for the Team, or if, at the beginning of or during any Season, he fails to remain in good physical condition (unless such condition results directly from an injury sustained by the Player as a direct result of participating in any basketball practice or game played for the Team during such Season), so as to render the Player, in the judgment of the Team’s physician, unfit to play skilled basketball, the Team shall have the right to suspend such Player until such time as, in the judgment of the Team’s physician, the Player is in sufficiently good physical condition to play skilled basketball. In the event of such suspension, the Base Compensation payable to the Player for any Season during such suspension shall be reduced in the same proportion as the length of the period during which, in the judgment of the Team’s physician, the Player is unfit to play skilled basketball, bears to the length of such Season. Nothing in this subparagraph shall authorize the Team to suspend the Player solely because the Player is injured or ill.

(c) If, during the term of this Contract, the Player is injured as a direct result of participating in any basketball practice or game played for the Team, the Team will pay the Player’s reasonable hospitalization and medical expenses (including doctor’s bills), provided that the hospital and doctor are selected by the Team, that the Team shall be obligated to pay only those expenses incurred as a direct result of medical treatment caused solely by and relating directly to the injury sustained by the Player. The Team will also pay costs associated with a second opinion in accordance with Article XXII, Section 10 of the CBA. Subject to the provisions set forth in Exhibit 3, if in the judgment of the Team’s physician, the Player’s injuries resulted directly from playing for the Team and render him unfit to play skilled basketball, then, so long as such unfitness continues, but in no event after the Player has received his full Base Compensation for the Season in which the injury was sustained, the Team shall pay to the Player the Base Compensation prescribed in Exhibit 1 to this Contract for such Season (or in the case of a Two-Way Contract, so long as such unfitness continues but in no event after the Two-Way Player has received his TwoWay Annual NBADL Salary for such NBADL Regular Season (prorated as necessary if the Two-Way Contract was entered into after the start of the NBADL Regular Season) plus (i) any Two-Way NBA Salary earned by such Two-Way Player during such NBA Regular Season prior to the date of such unfitness, less (ii) such Two-Way Player’s Two-Way NBADL Salary covering the number of NBA Days of Service accrued by such TwoWay Player during such NBA Regular Season prior to the date of such unfitness). The Team’s obligations hereunder shall be reduced by (x) any workers’ compensation benefits, which, to the extent permitted by law, the Player hereby assigns to the Team, and (y) any insurance provided for by the Team whether paid or payable to the Player.

(d) The Player agrees to provide to the Team’s coach, trainer, or physician prompt notice of any injury, illness, or medical condition suffered by him that is likely to affect adversely the Player’s ability to render the services required under this Contract, including the time, place, cause, and nature of such injury, illness, or condition.

(e) Should the Player suffer an injury, illness, or medical condition, he will submit himself to a medical examination, appropriate medical treatment by a physician designated by the Team, and such rehabilitation activities as such physician may specify. Such examination when made at the request of the Team shall be at its expense, unless made necessary by some act or conduct of the Player contrary to the terms of this Contract.

(f) The Player agrees (i) to submit to a physical examination at the commencement and conclusion of each contract year hereunder, and at such other times as reasonably determined by the Team to be medically necessary, and (ii) at the commencement of this Contract, and upon the request of the Team, to provide a complete prior medical history.

(g) The Player agrees to supply complete and truthful information in connection with any medical examinations or requests for medical information authorized by this Contract.

(h) (i) A Player who consults or is treated by a physician (including a psychiatrist) or a professional providing non-mental health related medical services (e.g., chiropractor, physical therapist) other than a physician or other professional designated by the Team shall give notice of such consultation or treatment to the Team and shall provide the Team with all information it may request concerning any condition that in the judgment of the Team’s physician may affect the Player’s ability to play skilled basketball. (ii) A Player who engages in five (5) or more training or workout sessions with a trainer, performance coach, strength and conditioning coach, or any other similar coach or trainer other than at the direction of the Team (each a “Third-Party Trainer”), shall give notice of such training or workout to the Team prior to the first such training or work out session, provided that if the player does not initially plan to continue working with any such Third-Party Trainer for five (5) or more sessions, such notice must be provided no later than prior to the fifth such session. This notice requirement shall not apply to workouts or training that exclusively involve jogging, road bicycling, swimming, yoga, Pilates and/or dance; and the Player’s failure to comply with such notice requirement shall not itself constitute a material breach of this Contract. For clarity with respect to counting multi-day training or workout sessions under this paragraph, any such session(s) shall be counted to equal the number of days on which such training or workouts occurred. Subject to the Team’s other rights, and the player’s other obligations, under the CBA and this Contract, including, for example, the player’s obligations under this Paragraph 7 to report in good physical condition and to submit to treatment and rehabilitation specified by a physician designated by the Team, a player will have the right in the off-season to work out with one or more Third-Party Trainers of his choosing and may not be disciplined for exercising that right.

(i) If and to the extent necessary to enable or facilitate the disclosure of medical information as provided for by this Contract or Article XXII or XXXIII of the CBA, the Player shall execute such individual authorization(s) as may be requested by the Team or the Medical Director of the Anti-Drug Program or as may be required by health care providers who examine or treat the Player.

Overall your point is of course correct, that the player's motivation is part of their leverage, but let's just be clear they do have obligations they are violating if they push things too far, albeit obligations that will never be enforced.

 

[RetractableRoof]

@RetractableRoof The same teams have been bad in the NFL for ages - the Raiders, the Jaguars, WFT, the Bengals, the Lions, the Texans, the Jets, the Bears, etc. That doesn't stop fans of those teams from watching their teams. Not having Tom Brady or Mahomes doesn't mean they don't go into the season hoping for a miracle and them being bad doesn't stop people from tuning into a blowoutThursday night game.

These sports are different because I don't think people like basketball as a sport as much and the 17 game season is much easier to digest as a fan. The NBA is never going to be the NFL but the NFL can survive the same teams being dogshit YoY and I think the NBA can, too. It's not the players fault that these teams suck, it's on the owners. People tuned into Sacramento when they had competent management and they're tuning out because their owner is an imbecile. If Luka was stuck there and put into a system where he couldn't leave, the NBA would be worse off because one of their best players is in a backwater surrounded by shitty teammates. This board didn't mind when the Patriots went to and won all those super bowls (more than any one team has gone to NBA championships) and I doubt anyone had a problem with Moss loafing his way out of a terrible situation in Oakland only to join the greatest offense of all time, so why is it a problem when it happens in the NBA?

The general public likes it when there are villains, when there are great teams, etc. It's better for ratings if LeBron is surrounded with awesome players and making the finals instead of the alternative.



Of course I think effort is required but you're essentially saying that players should accept any situation and establish no agency over their career. The public as a whole clearly doesn't care about this stuff - they don't give a shit about how Barkley left Philly, but most everyone knows he never won a championship. If I'm a good/great player - or any player! - I'm doing whatever I can to get on good teams and help myself be remembered positively in conversations. No one will remember the three weeks that Harden didn't try for Houston in 10 years, but they will remember him toughing out a hamstring injury if they win the finals.

You can position it any way you want. When teams suck, attendance suffers. More accurately I think, when teams lack "hope" (which is the word a couple of ex-players used not too long ago), the attendance sucks and the revenue the team is capable of spending decreases. So to the extent that players want the paychecks, they are part of an eco-system that values the teams being healthy as well as the league. If they choose to operate in a way that goes against that, then the league should care in their place - and if necessary legislate movement to protect their long term success. The players have free will, they can do what they want. But I have no issue if the league sees the super team trend as a negative for the teams in the long run versus the marketing/hype in the short run. I certainly view it that way.

 

[Devizier]

Many owners in the league are probably fine with super teams, specifically those that push in enormous luxury tax payments, since they directly benefit in the form of payouts.

 

[johnmd20]

@RetractableRoof The same teams have been bad in the NFL for ages - the Raiders, the Jaguars, WFT, the Bengals, the Lions, the Texans, the Jets, the Bears, etc.

None of the above is accurate.

Eidt - I mean, the Bears and the WFT made the playoffs this year, five months ago.

 

[slamminsammya]

I prefer the NBA when you have a few really strong teams versus spread out talent and a wide open playoffs. That is just my personal taste.

Are there many examples of players giving subpar effort besides Blake Griffin? Zion is trying to get out, ok, but he also just had an awesome season.

 

[JakeRae]

The Harden situation to me is a bit of an outlier insofar as that is one of the relatively rare situations where a star demanded to be traded from a team that was pretty good. For the most part, stars on good teams don't ask to be traded - Tatum hasn't asked for a trade, nor Embiid, nor Luka, etc. And Giannis went further and actually re-signed with his small market team that has done pretty well, albeit never reaching the Finals.

Houston wasn’t good, Harden was. This shouldn’t be controversial given that Houston finished with the worst record in the league this year. Not only that, but Houston was in decay and had no real prospect of righting the ship without a full rebuild. Harden forcing his way off a sinking ship is one of the least objectionable versions of a star forcing his way off a team. The example I think that fits your frame is Kawhi forcing his way out of San Antonio, which actually was a true contender before he decided to sit out a season then demand a trade.

Zion and NO is too bad because a year ago they seemed to be pointed in the right direction, but then they hired a bad coach, made a trade that sold their best non-Zion player for a mediocre vet and a bevy of future picks (a great trade in value but not if you are a player on the team now who wants to compete now) and wasted a bunch of money. Nothing about that organization inspires confidence that they know how to do anything besides do a decent job of trading their stars for future assets to reset the same cycle of perpetual rebuilding. Hard to blame Zion for wanting out.