Why make a trade when you can get the players you want for free?
Neither Cleveland or Golden State was active around last week’s trade deadline, but the Cavaliers wound up with Deron Williams and Andrew Bogut, while the Warriors first landed Jose Calderon, then replaced him with Matt Barnes.
The NBA buyout process has always benefited the most successful teams, but the outcry seems louder than ever this year as the rich get richer and their competitors are shut out of the process. Williams knew where he wanted to go as soon as his buyout was complete. Bogut took a few days to consider his options before coming to the same conclusion. For veteran players who want to chase a championship ring, there are two options that stand far above the others.
But is this system good for the league, or does it further damage an already shaky competitive balance? With the Big Three in Cleveland and four All-Stars in Golden State, should these teams be allowed to add even more depth through buyouts?
A lot of their rivals don’t think so, and they’re airing their complaints to the league. Zach Lowe of ESPN.com reported on Friday that several alternatives have been offered, including a “buyout wire.” Under that system, players who agree to buyouts would go up for bid among all the teams with available cap space. The team that submits the highest bid would get the player, who would have no say in where he winds up. If no bids are submitted, then teams over the cap would be able to make offers, possibly in reverse order of records like the waiver wire.
We want to hear your opinion on this topic. Would this be a good solution to the buyout market? Do you have a better idea, or does it need to be fixed at all?
Please share your thoughts in the comments section below. We look forward to what you have to say.
The buyout wire is a great idea, but the real problem is that teams can just waive players (and save money with it) in the first place. Money should be guaranteed for the year. Then you wouldn’t have so many good players getting released at the deadline. No other sport has that problem because other sports have guaranteed deals (once the season has started).
Most NBA players have guaranteed deals.
I like the idea and I think it would solve a lot of problems, but I just wonder whether it is something the players would ever agree to. Players would not want to give up their right to choose where they play. That could lead to another big problem in the next CBA. The last thing the NBA needs is another work stoppage. But you also shouldn’t let the inmates run the asylum either. It’s a very tricky situation.
I don’t see how this idea would ever work. Basically you would pick an arbitrary date and say after this date free agents have no control over where they sign. How are you going to force a free agent to sign with a team they don’t choose? How would it be fair for Matt Barnes to willingly sign a contract with the kings, get cut, and then not be allowed to choose where he wants to play?
I get that it’s not “fair” for the Warriors and Cavs to be able to add these quality players at the deadline, but that’s how the league works, it will never be completely “fair”. Plus, these teams have the same advantage all year round. The Warriors signed Zaza and David West for way under market value at the beginning of the year because they were the favorites. How is that any better or more fair than signing the same type of player halfway through the season? No one would have been surprised if Bogut or Williams had signed with the cavs for cheap at the start of the year, why is it such a problem now?
Similarly, players such as Tim Duncan and Dirk have taken pay cuts some years in order to give their team more salary cap room. How is it “fair” that the Spurs or Mavs get an All Star for the same price other teams pay role players. The best teams get the best deals.
If anything, adding this buyout waiver would just give players like Barnes and Bogut more of a reason to sign with the best teams at the beginning of the year. If you think there’s a chance you will get cut halfway through the year and then not have any choice about where you sign, you’ll be less likely to risk signing with a team like the Kings.
Exactly. If the players want to take the easy path to contend for a ring, I’m not exactly a huge fan of their makeup anyway. I’d much rather see more guys go to contending teams who are aiming to take out the top teams (Toronto, Boston, Washington, Houston, etc) because it makes the postseason more interesting. A different idea would be to bar #1 seeds from signing FA’s after the trade deadline if they lead the conference by more than 5 games or whatever number you want to pick. Like a mercy rule of sorts.
Horrible idea. Teams get to renege on contracts. So why wouldn’t a player get to choose? Bc if you’re a team that isn’t getting the players, you get pissed. Why all of a sudden is this an issue? Bc look at what crying about having players that can’t shoot free throws did. We now have a rule that doesn’t allow someone to foul a player that can’t shoot free throws. Wait till the finals and they discover you can’t foul LeBron anymore cause his FT skills are diminishing. So now a vet that has his contract broken and is a free agent suddenly can’t make a chose where he wants to live. All bc whining Lowe’s team is crappy. Where were all you fake fans when the lakers and Celtics were getting all the players? It will be soon enough that both the cavs and warriors teams’ winning will come to an abrupt ending and your teams will once again be at the top. But wait. Will you change the rules back again to help your teams get back the FAs?
I dont like the buyout wire idea. The players union would never agree to such a thing.
Instead, if you want competitive balance say the mavericks cut loose williams and bogut. If they do sign elsewhere the mavs get a pick between the 1st and second 2nd in the draft. Kind of like mlb does with its QO system.
The order of the comp balance picks is based on record. And make these picks tradeable but limit it to 2 per team per year.
In essence the worse teams that execute buyouts get more chances in the draft or trade picks to get better while pushing back talent available to the better teams in the 2nd round.
In a deep draft like 2017, those extra picks could reboot a franchise.
They should get a draft pick since they are buying the player out allowing them free agency and not getting anything in return accept salary relief. Should at least get a second rounder
It will never happen players union would go ballistic