What's new
By:
Filters

DM on AD

I'm more than fine with guys going wherever they want to go, but damn have recent CBA negotiation been so in favor of the leagues superstars at the expense of the average guy. Need better union representation.
 
The issue here is no longer being able to count on the cornerstone of your franchise.

They are the ones that put butts in seats.

Lots of players do wait for free agency and even give a heads up in private sometimes getting out a bit early. Seems like the right way to do it. Kawhi, AD et al are not acting in good faith in my opinion.

This is not unique to the nba. It's really rare for me to find an applicant that consistently stays at jobs longer than a year.

Sent from my SM-G930P using JazzFanz mobile app
 
One Brow said:
Since I'm employed at-will, there is no contract for me to be stopped by. If I feel WashU has not lived up to their promises to me, I will leave. I'm not nearly important enough for the press to report on me.

However, I'm sure you will say there is little comparison between my career and Davis's, which makes your whole post rather foolish.
Click to expand...
Well, with the NBA being one business, it’d be like requesting transfer to a different department. Sure, you can, but going public would be odd (you surely could and have the right to, unless that’s part of the contract [which maybe it appears it is as he was fined]).

If your university offered you a five year, $20+M/yr deal that came with the catch that you were no longer on at-will employment, would you do it?

Also, as we’re superimposing societal issues onto the relationships between players and owners, are we ever going to throw in income inequality? A lot of guys only making $2M/yr are working just as hard, if not harder, than the guys making $30+M. Where’s the fairness? Where’s the equality? Where’s the equity?
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Hard cap and no max salaries would stop the "teaming up" because they'd have to take paycuts... good luck getting the player's union to go for that.
Click to expand...
About the taking paycuts. Would they have to take paycuts if the hard cap was extremely high?
What if the hard cap was double what the current cap is. Would the players still take paycuts?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
fishonjazz said:
About the taking paycuts. Would they have to take paycuts if the hard cap was extremely high?
What if the hard cap was double what the current cap is. Would the players still take paycuts?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
Right away, they should do the following for teams who go over the luxury for more than one year in a row:

- team loses first round pick that year or the next year that isn't traded away

- no player exceptions except for vet minimums. It's absolute stupidity that GS had some stupid $5+ exception to add Cousins. Small markets will be okay if the stacked can't get more stacked except through minimum salaries

- if you sign a buyout player (like Houston signing Rivers) the buying team loses their 2nd rounder to the team who had to buyout the player (Phoenix).

These are very easy adaptations to the current system. If a team continues to spend over the luxury, there has to be a bigger penalty than just monetary.

I doubt a hard cap will ever exist.

Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
infection said:
If your university offered you a five year, $20+M/yr deal that came with the catch that you were no longer on at-will employment, would you do it?
Click to expand...

There are no skills or services I could offer the university that would be worth that amount of money. By contrast, Davis probably brings in far more than that for the Pelicans.

infection said:
Also, as we’re superimposing societal issues onto the relationships between players and owners, are we ever going to throw in income inequality? A lot of guys only making $2M/yr are working just as hard, if not harder, than the guys making $30+M. Where’s the fairness? Where’s the equality? Where’s the equity?
Click to expand...

In the same place as the doctors who earn more than the janitors. No one goes to the hospital to get the services of the janitor, and they are easier to replace.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I mean they are getting 2.4B per year from the TV rights... so that is a thing... the advertising dollars flow through ESPN and others and are the reason the paid for the TV rights. ESPN has been bleeding money to cord cutters supposedly... so you think they pony up the same or more in the next round of negotiations?
Click to expand...
I think the next deal will be different. It will be more about streaming rights, not cable television.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Hard cap and no max salaries would stop the "teaming up" because they'd have to take paycuts... good luck getting the player's union to go for that.
Click to expand...
Why on earth would the NBA want that? lmao. They like guys teaming up. It's good for the NBA. Sorry cry babies who want everything to revolve and be fair for their favorite team.
 
I've read up until page 6 so I don't know if this was addressed already by the end of the thread but @Saint Cy of JFC is right about there being a rumor Haywood asked for a trade. It was the summer before his free agency. The problem is that the rumor came from a 'reporter' who has been known for very shady reporting. Both Haywood's agent and the Jazz refuted the rumor at the time.

Now this doesn't mean that it didn't happen, but if it did IMO that's a malpractice by DL for trying to keep him despite him requesting a trade, even if privately and not publicly. That's a fireable offense in my books. You cannot lose an all-star for nothing if he told you he wants out and you decided to stick your head in the sand and pretend it didn't happen and then act shocked when he left the very next year. I would have much rather preferred Haywood did what AD did than what he supposedly did (kept quiet and left for nothing).

I think it's not much of an argument about which is better - if a player wants out (and excluding some fringe circumstances, like the team being on the precipice of a title run), I would much rather know that he wants out and trade him, than not know and lose him for nothing in one years' time.
 
Last edited:
stitches said:
I've read up until page 6 so I don't know if this was addressed already by the end of the thread but @Saint Cy of JFC is right about there being a rumor Haywood asked for a trade. It was the summer before his free agency. The problem is that the rumor came from a 'reporter' who has been known for very shady reporting. Both Haywood's agent and the Jazz refuted the rumor at the time.

Now this doesn't mean that it didn't happen, but if it did IMO that's a malpractice by DL for trying to keep him despite him requesting a trade, even if privately and not publicly. That's a fireable offense in my books. You cannot lose an all-star for nothing if he told you he wants out and you decided to stick your head in the sand and pretend it didn't happen and then act shocked when he left the very next year. I would have much rather preferred Haywood did what AD did than what he supposedly did (kept quiet and left for nothing).

I think it's not much of an argument about which is better - if a player wants out (and excluding some fringe circumstances, like the team being on the precipice of a title run), I would much rather know that he wants out and trade him, than not know and lose him for nothing in one years' time.
Click to expand...

I agree but I’d rather he do it privately. It’s best for the team (we have more leverage in gaining better assets) and better for the player’s image.
 
In the hypothetical case that Davis wanted to come to Utah, what do you think the Pelicans would ask for in return? Just curious
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top