|
|
Post by sniper on Dec 6, 2009 0:05:31 GMT -5
I for one like the idea of adding buyouts, but I do think that there has to be guidelines so that people don't buyout players over and over again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Denver Nuggets on Dec 6, 2009 0:34:29 GMT -5
I`m on the fence for a buy out, i know it will help my team out a lot but then it changes the economics of the league. Which can give bad teams a chance at good players some times. But then again you guys have to find a way for bad teams to get good. Like some players are just untradeable and for a bad team to trade them they`ll have to give up an asset. Which leaves a small margin for improvement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Dec 6, 2009 0:43:49 GMT -5
Which can give bad teams a chance at good players some times. You say this almost like it could be a bad thing! lol. This is what myself and other in favor of the buyout are saying as it is good for the league. Good for the parity of the league, which should be what we strive for in leagues like this one. Now, I'll give you credit, I think as you typed that you kind of realized that, it is a good thing. So, I'm not attacking you, but I think the people against this just need to think about it a little differently. Anyway, glad to see some more people getting active and posting thoughts. More please! |
|
|
|
Post by Denver Nuggets on Dec 6, 2009 0:50:25 GMT -5
Which can give bad teams a chance at good players some times. You say this almost like it could be a bad thing! lol. This is what myself and other in favor of the buyout are saying as it is good for the league. Good for the parity of the league, which should be what we strive for in leagues like this one. Now, I'll give you credit, I think as you typed that you kind of realized that, it is a good thing. So, I'm not attacking you, but I think the people against this just need to think about it a little differently. Anyway, glad to see some more people getting active and posting thoughts. More please! my question is tho since i`ve been here no team with a crazy amount of cap were able to sign a big name player cause the good teams can resign them. Would aint a buyout just make it nearly impossible for the bad teams to sign a good player, since teams would be able to buyout there bad contracts to sign their big stars |
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Dec 6, 2009 1:16:10 GMT -5
You say this almost like it could be a bad thing! lol. This is what myself and other in favor of the buyout are saying as it is good for the league. Good for the parity of the league, which should be what we strive for in leagues like this one. Now, I'll give you credit, I think as you typed that you kind of realized that, it is a good thing. So, I'm not attacking you, but I think the people against this just need to think about it a little differently. Anyway, glad to see some more people getting active and posting thoughts. More please! my question is tho since i`ve been here no team with a crazy amount of cap were able to sign a big name player cause the good teams can resign them. Would aint a buyout just make it nearly impossible for the bad teams to sign a good player, since teams would be able to buyout there bad contracts to sign their big stars Not at all, the good teams don't have cap to buy out the players. Us bad teams do. |
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Dec 17, 2009 17:00:51 GMT -5
I looked through the thread and I think right now, the votes would be...
6 in favor
4 against
1 undecided, though this person seemed ok with it assuming rules were in place to keep it as something that couldn't happen often.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Dec 17, 2009 17:04:04 GMT -5
I really think OKC needs to make the decision on this. People could vote based on their team needs and wants, and not the leagues best interest. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Dec 17, 2009 17:56:18 GMT -5
Just somethings to consider if there is an upcoming poll. Teams for buyouts keep saying that the real life NBA has buyouts, so why shouldn't we? The answer to that is, we don't have a lot of the same circumstances that lead to buyouts in the NBA. Every year you see a few players that get traded around the trade deadline who are immediately bought out and enter free-agency. In this league that doesn't nor should happen. You also see disgruntled players who have become distractions get told to go home while we work on a buyout, this also doesn't happen, as we don't deal with real people. Very rarely do you see buyouts for bad contracts. The reason for this is, players don't want to give money back and organizations don't want to pay money to get rid of player, unless he has become a distraction. So basically, we would be instituting a rule for the least used real life scenario. For our league and the reasons it would be used, buyouts, should be called bail outs, because that is exactly what they are. People for buyouts say that we are not real life GM's, so why should we have their expectations. Well, we are not the real NBA, so why should we have real NBA rules. You can't have it both ways. Real GM's get stuck with bad contracts and so should we.
|
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Dec 17, 2009 22:44:50 GMT -5
Real GM's do not get stuck with bad contracts. They can buy the player out. If we structure our rules in the right way, people will probably only be able to do one a year, so let's just limit it to one a year. And, if you have to pay 100% year 1, plus let's just say 50% all remaining years, it's going to add up to a lot of money that is needed, so only the SMART managers who budgeted well can even have a chance at a buyout.
Btw, I am always in favor of what is best for the league. This will increase competitiveness for other Free Agents, as the teams with more cap that could afford to do a buyout can enter into free agency more aggressively. Realistic contracts should always be stressed though, by the Player Agents.
Anyway, I really don't even care if I am stuck with Stromile, his contract isn't THAT bad, but I do think the best thing for the league is buyouts.
It almost seems like you (boston) have a bias AGAINST the buyouts for some hidden agenda/reason. You don't want the teams with bad contracts to be able to free up their money and be able to get better? It just seems fishy how against this you are. I admit though, it's hard to try and infer these types of things from computer typing, so I'm not accusing you of this, it just seems like you are so adamant against it that there is something up!
lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Dec 17, 2009 23:46:17 GMT -5
Give me a break. I am as against it as you are for it. So if I have a hidden agenda then you do as well. I just believe in people being accountable. If you want to take risk in trades and signings, fine, but when they don't work, don't cry for an easy way out. To your first point, yes, Gm's can buy contracts out. However, the player has to agree, and why would a player willingly give money up. I want some examples of players who took buyouts. I am not talking about players who were traded or disgruntled. I am talking about how it would be used here, a GM signed someone and then bought him out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Bulls on Dec 18, 2009 0:57:38 GMT -5
I'm 50/50 0n this, it's something I would like to use but I could see it having potential for it's problems
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Bulls on Dec 18, 2009 1:00:11 GMT -5
If this was to go through there should be a limit to how many players a team can buy out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Dec 18, 2009 15:04:52 GMT -5
If this was to go through there should be a limit to how many players a team can buy out. Pretty much everyone that is in favor of the buyout has already asked for this as well, so that is no problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Dec 18, 2009 15:15:10 GMT -5
Give me a break. I am as against it as you are for it. So if I have a hidden agenda then you do as well. I just believe in people being accountable. If you want to take risk in trades and signings, fine, but when they don't work, don't cry for an easy way out. To your first point, yes, Gm's can buy contracts out. However, the player has to agree, and why would a player willingly give money up. I want some examples of players who took buyouts. I am not talking about players who were traded or disgruntled. I am talking about how it would be used here, a GM signed someone and then bought him out. Again, I was not accusing, I just honestly, 100% do not understand those of you saying this could be, in any way, bad for the league. Truly do not see the logic. Anyway, I already countered your argument. If I was a GM that had signed Stromile Swift IRL, I would be playing him. I will play him in this league also, but he'll now be my backup C. maybe even 3rd string depending how things work out. The problem is, his Real Life value, which is what we base the ratings in this league on, has plummeted because of something that is up to GMs and Coaches for the real life teams. If I had giving Stromile this contract, he would be playing. But since I'm not a real life GM, and he isn't playing, it's not really fair to ask to see examples where this exact thing has happened. It's impossible to happen, since those real life GM's have control over how much a player is playing in real life, while I have zero control over how much a player is playing in real life. I also have zero control over his personal issues and work ethic, while a real life GM can sit him and get him disgruntled and then he'll be ok with a buyout. So, how about this. I now announce that I will not play Stromile Swift ever again, unless extreme injuries hurt my team. Stromile feels he is worth playing, and is now disgruntled. He doesn't want to sit on the bench for the next 4 years. He would like to be traded or to get out of the contract somehow, so he can go be a FA and get signed, even for cheaply somewhere, just so that he can play basketball again. I guess he's going to want to work out a buyout now, don't you think? |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Dec 18, 2009 15:47:45 GMT -5
Where have you countered anything I said. I asked you simple question that you didn't even answer. Give a situation where an under performing player was bought out. Not because he was a locker room distraction or had a bad attitude, off the court problems, or was an experienced player who was bought out by a non contender, but simply a player who under performed. Your response to this question was Stromile Swift? I understand that you don't have ultimate control over his real life play or minutes. However, you could look at his history and how often he has changed teams over the past few seasons and come to the reasonable conclusion that he isn't worth big money, and certainly not a long term deal. That is what I mean when I say you have control over the situation, you could have been more reasonable in your contract offer to Swift. Just because other teams were bidding with you and the agent wanted a player option doesn't mean you had to offer it. You took the gamble, as all Gm's will do, unfortunately, it back fired. Considering Swifts career path though that isn't a shocking revelation. To your final point about Swift wanting a buyout if you told him he wouldn't play. He would want a trade, not a buyout. A buyout would be a bad for both sides. The team pays a player to go away, gets no return for their money, and gets no return for the player, and the player loses money. So why would either side want to do this. Both sides would want to get a trade done first. I have never heard a player IRL complain about wanting a buyout, a trade, yes, a buyout, no. Also, if you say so many teams were after Swift and the agent wanted a player option so he could get MORE money if he outplayed the current contract, shouldn't it be easy to trade him. I understand that he didn't live up to expectations, but teams were willing to gamble on him then, I would think with maybe a little incentive added that you could find somebody willing to gamble on him now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Dec 18, 2009 16:10:24 GMT -5
I will give you a real life example of what I am trying to say. Brian Cardinal signed a huge contract with Memphis I believe, somewhere in the area of 6 years and 30 something million dollars. Do you really think Memphis was happy with his production for that contract? Does he play big minutes? Did you ever hear him ask for a buyout? I highly doubt Memphis got what they feel to be full value for that contract, and after his 1st season in Memphis his minutes dropped down to around 11 mpg. So essentially he spent a lot of time on the bench. But according to you, he would want a buyout. More realistically, a player like Cardinal knows he will never see big money like that again. So why would Cardinal in my example or Swift in yours give back the last big payday they will ever get, it doesn't make any sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Dec 18, 2009 19:02:47 GMT -5
If they would offer Cardinal a lump sum of about 18 million at the start of his 2nd year, I bet he would take it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Bulls on Dec 19, 2009 0:14:51 GMT -5
I will give you a real life example of what I am trying to say. Brian Cardinal signed a huge contract with Memphis I believe, somewhere in the area of 6 years and 30 something million dollars. Do you really think Memphis was happy with his production for that contract? Does he play big minutes? Did you ever hear him ask for a buyout? I highly doubt Memphis got what they feel to be full value for that contract, and after his 1st season in Memphis his minutes dropped down to around 11 mpg. So essentially he spent a lot of time on the bench. But according to you, he would want a buyout. More realistically, a player like Cardinal knows he will never see big money like that again. So why would Cardinal in my example or Swift in yours give back the last big payday they will ever get, it doesn't make any sense. OK so I think we can come to a conclusion that Stormile Swift and Brian Cardinal are horrible examples for this as both would have a slim of getting ANY new contract in the NBA now. I think two better examples are Troy Murphy and Eric Dampier, now both of these guys are far from being anything special but I'd say if they were to be benched and get close to no playing time I bet they would accept a buyout |
|
|
|
Post by Denver Nuggets on Dec 19, 2009 0:33:14 GMT -5
My question is how exactly would a buyout help a struggling team. It aint like they can sign that superstar cause the good teams would use it to clear space to resign. Like has any team with cap been able to sign a superstar? Like for example as bad as the spurs are with contracts(no disrespect) he still has 24 mill in cap space with a contract like Dan Gadzuric $6,250,195 | $6,749,260 | $7,248,325. Pretty sure he had a lot of cap last year and did offer Jamison the... Year 88.5 Million Dollar Deal. Even though it was the most money Jamison went to the better situation. How exactly does a buyout help a team like the spurs?
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Dec 19, 2009 2:10:21 GMT -5
I will give you a real life example of what I am trying to say. Brian Cardinal signed a huge contract with Memphis I believe, somewhere in the area of 6 years and 30 something million dollars. Do you really think Memphis was happy with his production for that contract? Does he play big minutes? Did you ever hear him ask for a buyout? I highly doubt Memphis got what they feel to be full value for that contract, and after his 1st season in Memphis his minutes dropped down to around 11 mpg. So essentially he spent a lot of time on the bench. But according to you, he would want a buyout. More realistically, a player like Cardinal knows he will never see big money like that again. So why would Cardinal in my example or Swift in yours give back the last big payday they will ever get, it doesn't make any sense. OK so I think we can come to a conclusion that Stormile Swift and Brian Cardinal are horrible examples for this as both would have a slim of getting ANY new contract in the NBA now. I think two better examples are Troy Murphy and Eric Dampier, now both of these guys are far from being anything special but I'd say if they were to be benched and get close to no playing time I bet they would accept a buyout Even Murphy and Dampier are bad examples. Why would a team want to buyout a player who could play a role for them. Murphy is a good rebounder and shooter for a big. Dampier is 7 footer who can play some defense and block some shots. So why would either team want to pay these guys millions just to go away. You either have players in the category of a Swift/Cardinal who don't take buyouts because they know they will never see that type of money again. Or you have Murphy/Dampier type players who are over paid, yes, but good enough to play a role. If a team buys out a player like that, they lose the money, they lose the player for nothing, and they lose the role he played for their team, so it would hurt them more than it helps. This is why you don't see these type of buy outs in the NBA. |
|
