After a frenzied “pre-agency” period this summer which saw a number of high-profile free agents reportedly reach contract agreements with teams even before free agency officially opened on the evening of June 30, commissioner Adam Silver told reporters on Tuesday night that the NBA has some “work to do” on the rules surrounding free agency and tampering.
“It’s still the same principles of fair balance of power and a sense that it’s a level playing field,” Silver said, per Tim Bontemps of ESPN. “I think that’s what teams want to know. I think they’re put in difficult situations because when they’re sitting across from a player and – whether it’s conversations that are happening earlier than they should or frankly things are being discussed that don’t fall squarely within the Collective Bargaining Agreement – it puts teams in a very difficult position because they are reading or hearing that other teams are doing other things to compete.”
As Bontemps details, Silver acknowledged that the NBA’s current tampering rules can be difficult to enforce, and that the league should be focused on establishing rules that can be enforced — otherwise, there’s little point in having them in place.
“I think the sense in the room was we should revisit those rules, think about what does make sense for our teams so that ultimately we can create a level playing field among the teams and that the partner teams have confidence that their competitors are adhering to the same set of rules they are,” Silver said.
Silver weighed in on several other topics during his Las Vegas press conference on Tuesday, so we’ll round up a few of the highlights, via Bontemps, Tim Reynolds of The Associated Press, and Brian Lewis of The New York Post.
On star players asking to be traded:
“It concerns all of us. I mean, it falls in the same category of issues of the so-called rule of law within a sports league. You have a contract and it needs to be meaningful on both sides. On one hand, there’s an expectation if you have a contract and it’s guaranteed that the team is going to meet the terms of the contract, and the expectation on the other side is the player is going to meet the terms of the contract.
“I will say, without getting into any specific circumstances, trade demands are disheartening. They’re disheartening to the team. They’re disheartening to the community and don’t serve the player well. The players care about their reputations just as much. And so that’s an issue that needs to be addressed.”
On many of 2019’s very best free agents choosing to go to big markets (Kawhi Leonard to the Clippers; Kevin Durant and Kyrie Irving to the Nets):
“I think you have unique circumstances with those players and those teams. But I think it speaks to the fact that the significance of these brands, the fact that the Nets and Clippers have put themselves in position over the last few years to be attractive to top free agents. So I think at the end of the day, it’s positive for the league.
“… I’m mindful of this notion of balance of power, and I think it applies in many different ways. An appropriate balance of power between the teams and the players, an appropriate balance of power I’d say among all our 30 teams, big markets, small markets, some markets that are perceived as being more attractive than others, tax issues, climate issues. At the end of the day, you want to make sure you have a league where every team is in a position to compete.”
On draft-night trades that aren’t yet official, resulting in draftees wearing the wrong team’s hat and – in some cases – not being on the right team by the start of Summer League:
“We’ve got to fix that. We talk about being fan-friendly, and that isn’t fan-friendly.”
You can’t say players asking for trades have a contract they have to honor when a team can trade a player at any time. This is the players taking back control of their careers and not giving all the power to front offices. I have no issue with a player that wants to be moved to a better situation
Ok then maybe players should start signing on a team for a per game basis since apparently they’re not happy with the structure and want to move before ink even dries
The front office/ownership should have all the power, because without them, there is no league. If you take away any player in the league, even a superstar, there is another player ready to step up and take his place. Even if you take away a Lebron, everyone just moves up one notch. However, if you took away the owners, then LeBron would probably be playing on some playground in Akron on his days off from the factory. Let’s not pretend that the owners/FOs are unnecessary in the league. Without them, there is no league.
Yeah because it’s a guarantee that he’d be working in a factory…
By that logic, if you took away an owner, another would replace (and at a handsome entry fee to the other owners!).
By now the only point of “ownership” is to prevent a structure of socialism and monopoly, which would be eaten alive in courts and legislatures.
They don’t do anything except add whatever personality and style and reactions they have to the NBA mix. They are another level of human interest to what is a multibillion dollar corporate machine.
One has nothing to do with the other. You don’t understand the basis of an employment contract. The duties owed by employer to employee, and by employee to employer, are different in kind. By definition, the employee loses control of his (workplace) destiny for the length of an employment contract. If the a player wants control of his destiny, it’s easy, sign 1 year contracts.
@DXC Correct. Think about. Most of us can quit our jobs and seek employment as we wish. However, we can’t take the money with us.
Also, how unfair is it to make the team forced to reluctantly trade their star player take back equal salary of players they may not want or need just to make the trade work due to NBA rules? Does anyone really think OKC wanted to take back Gallinari’s 1 year/$23 mil contract now that they are facing a rebuild starting immediately?
I’m familiar with employment contracts. The CBA could address this effectively, if the owners had the will. The league already has escrows, it could create another one holding back a significant part of a players compensation until the end of his contract, and getting it would be contingent on him having fulfilled the contract. A trade “request” may or may not be a breach, but when it morphs into a trade “demand” or is tied up with a contract decision or another team, it certainly is. AD certainly (and PG13 probably) violated their contracts and were rewarded for it. The owners have to decided if this is OK. OKC may not have wanted Gallo (although he has value off of last year), but they extorted a King’s ransom for doing what they didn’t want to. 99% of teams in a trade demand situation don’t have the kind of leverage OKC did (because it’s tied up with the acquiring team also getting, or losing, a top 5 player).
I vote yes on escrows. The fits they would cause players would be classic… Show me the money type stuff. Judges would be perusing MPGs and PERs to verify if they have been trying… More of the off-season season that is more dramatic than the RS.
But so far teams have been able to recover value, so the complications of a new thing enacted won’t be thought worth it.
That doesn’t make any sense. The risk to be traded is in the contract the player is signing. Players specifically sign off on that with every CBA also. And players could negotiate no-trade clauses ahead of time, if they really wanted them.
@Zac The owners are the boss. Period. If I sign a guy to a $200 max deal that’s 100% guaranteed then I run the risk that if injured or extreme performance fall off I’m on the hook for that money. I might be able to get some of it back via insurance etc but that player will get 100% of their contract. That player is under contract and the team owner controls where he plays unless there’s a no-trade clause.
I truly feel that AD and other sign max deals with their original teams just so they can get the most money their team can offer vs other teams, with the intent to demand a trade as soon as it’s convenient.
Change the rules in the next CBA owners. If you sign a player to an extension and they demand/request a trade then they can do so ONLY in the last year of their deal and get 100% of the total value of his deal OR their request can be accommodated but they lose a % of their guaranteed money (maybe the difference between a home team max and what the other teams could offer?).
Another idea is to give each player a list of 5 teams they can block trades to. If a team wants to trade them to one of those they have to ask player’s permission and reward them a 10% kicker (to be paid by the original team) in-order to waive the no-trade. If the player makes a request in writing then if team wishes to accommodate them then the player loses 25% of the total value of their deal. Also, the original team should NOT have to take back equal salary in the trade. However, make the team receiving the player subject to taxes if they are over the cap. Maybe even make the team forfeit a #1 draft pick. But no way should a team like the Thunder be forced to take back contracts they don’t want. Think about it. If I’m a team owner then I have no problem regarding my superstar with a $35 mil a year contract. However, if a disgruntled player wants to be traded, especially an orchestrated team specific request, then why should I be forced to take bad what might be a bad contract or a collection of players that earn $35 mil in the aggregate? So now I need to take back players/contracts I don’t want because my star player wants to bail? No.
I’ve almost always been a player-first guy but these trade demands shortly after signing an extension/FA signing are crazy and it seems they all want to play for the same 10 teams.
The CBA is the boss. The owners are sub-bosses in their own little worlds, restricted in action by the CBA.
Federal judges recognize the CBA, not comissioners or “owners”.
Owners are franchisees, nothing more, and they will argue so in court to maximize their own rights… If they were true owners they would have greater liability.
Write but owners don’y have to placate every request and when the new CBA is up for renegotiation they should fight for something that allows player mobility but at a price for those under contract.
Can anyone truthfully say that every team is in a fair and equal position to compete? You can try and spin any way you want, but when it comes down to it the teams are not n an equal playing field. Some teams have to get really lucky and draft a superstar, while others don’t even have to draft anyone to get superstars.
Just look at the examples of Portland and Brooklyn. Portland just maxed out Lillard which is great, but would anyone have really been surprised if they had been forced to trade him to the Lakers or the Knicks simply because of the location? Conversely, you have the Nets who went the better part of a decade without even having a first round pick and yet they now have one of the strongest teams in the league on paper simply because of their location. I’m not really complaining, because the league really is as balanced as it ever has been after this offseason. However, don’t try and claim that certain franchises don’t have an unfair advantage simply because of where they play their home games.
Silver’s comment about the draft and wrong hats was good to read. The draft is a mess to watch, with viewers and sometimes even players unsure of where they’re going. The NBA Draft should easily be the best of the big three sports, but the moratorium and league year timing undercuts it.
I see nothing wrong with the draft. These guys are usually made aware of trades right in the moment.
They are likely aware of possible moves, or that negotiations are going on, but there is too much vagueness.
Not too long ago the league had a guy practically forcing the hats on player’s heads but that got moderated because the hat logo was often a lie.
Protections on second rounders should be banned as unnecessary complexities. If a team trades for a pick, they should only get a few minutes to make it, not a full restart. They know who they want or else they would not have made the trade.
Something does have to be done so that Milwaukee, Oklahoma City, New Orleans, etc… can compete equally.
Not sure if the solution is a balance tax, or maybe just give small market teams a higher salary cap or a higher allowed max offer. That way a team like Charlotte can compensate for being Charlotte.
I think we should limit how many “All-NBA” (or some sort of player ranking) a team can have UNLESS those players are home grown. So in the example of GSW and Durant. Let’s say the rule is no team can have more than 2 NBA All-star player (unless homegrown). The GSW would have had 3 All-NBA guys in Durant, Klay and Curry but that’s fine. However. they couldn’t add Durant because they have 3 already.
Not a Warriors fan but,the Warriors drafted their players and it took years before their players developed to a star or superstar. The Warriors only added KD. It’s not like the past Heat who formed a superteam by signing the famous BIG3 of Lebron,Bosh and Wade. Then they sign veterans for minimum. Now that’s a different story for me.
I will never understand how fans always ask for loyalty to players but are happy with their teams been very disloyal to players… Can’t stand it, people have to recognize it is a business, players should have the freedom to go wherever they want as long as teams are allowed to trade them.
The only other solution is players ain’t allowed to ask for trades, neither teams can trade a player unless he is happy with the trade & new team.
So either is a free for all like now or no one is free.