PDA

View Full Version : Will the "Walk for Nothing" credo change FA and player movement in the NBA?



Bornknick73
01-16-2011, 12:26 PM
It seems in this day and age as soon as a player is in the last year of a deal the team is looking to trade them. If the team feels he wont resign with them they come with the we cant let him "Walk for Nothing" credo. They then trade the player to try to recoup the talent which would be lost in FA for nothing in return.

Is this the way Star players will be moved from now on? With this current trend will any star player ever hit the FA market again? The "Walk for Nothing" trades, which has always been a sign and trade, have become more prevelant in player movement in recent years.

Even if you sign a player as a FA these days it becomes a sign and trade. With most teams following a stronger we cant let him "Walk for Nothing" philosophy in the post-James era how do you think it will effect FA in the future?

I wonder though. Why do teams feel they have a right to "Walk for Nothing" trades to begin with. In the past it was a luxury to get something for a player who was leaving in FA. Now it seems like its the only way to do it. If a player gave you everything and fulfilled their contracts why do teams feel they are owed more even when the players want to leave? You signed him, he played for you to the best of his ability, he represented your franchise correctly, and a year from FA you feel you are owed something when/before he leaves? A reverse severance package from player to owner?

Will CP3, Deron or D12 ever see FA? Or will their respective teams follow the latest trend of cant let him "Walk for Nothing" trades in the year before they hit FA? Will any top FA ever hit the market again?

Has the loss of Lebron and the failure of the Cavs impacted the whole league and how they operate? It seems teams (and fans alike) now feel it is their right to these moves and they are becoming the status quo.

Will FA change in the Post-Decision era and are teams entitled to the latest trend of "Walk for Nothing" trades?

TO to the CHI
01-16-2011, 12:44 PM
It seems in this day and age as soon as a player is in the last year of a deal the team is looking to trade them. If the team feels he wont resign with them they come with the we cant let him "Walk for Nothing" credo. They then trade the player to try to recoup the talent which would be lost in FA for nothing in return.

Is this the way Star players will be moved from now on? With this current trend will any star player ever hit the FA market again? The "Walk for Nothing" trades, which has always been a sign and trade, have become more prevelant in player movement in recent years.

Even if you sign a player as a FA these days it becomes a sign and trade. With most teams following a stronger we cant let him "Walk for Nothing" philosophy in the post-James era how do you think it will effect FA in the future?

I wonder though. Why do teams feel they have a right to "Walk for Nothing" trades to begin with. In the past it was a luxury to get something for a player who was leaving in FA. Now it seems like its the only way to do it. If a player gave you everything and fulfilled their contracts why do teams feel they are owed more even when the players want to leave? You signed him, he played for you to the best of his ability, he represented your franchise correctly, and a year from FA you feel you are owed something when/before he leaves? A reverse severance package from player to owner?

Will CP3, Deron or D12 ever see FA? Or will their respective teams follow the latest trend of cant let him "Walk for Nothing" trades in the year before they hit FA? Will any top FA ever hit the market again?

Has the loss of Lebron and the failure of the Cavs impacted the whole league and how they operate? It seems teams (and fans alike) now feel it is their right to these moves and they are becoming the status quo.

Will FA change in the Post-Decision era and are teams entitled to the latest trend of "Walk for Nothing" trades?

There is so much that is wrong with this post that it is fairly hard to know where to begin.

As an initial matter, despite the purported trend that you are referencing last summer was probably the most significant summer for player movement in the NBA's history. LeBron (widely viewed as the best player in the world), Boozer, Bosh, Amare and others all switched teams with either no compensation going the other way or compensation that could best be described as de minimis. Thus, there is very little reason for concern or to suggest a trend.

You also make it seem like the owners are doing something wrong here. They have an asset that is about to leave. No one is suggesting that the player owes them anything (other than the courtesy of not having a press conference to rip out their fans' hearts), but why shouldn't the team/owner make a deal to get something rather than losing an asset for nothing. If you know a player is going to leave it just makes good sense to deal them. If James or Bosh had unequivocally told their teams they were leaving, those teams would certainly have acted differently. Not criticizing the players for that but it is reality.

Last, what you seem to be missing is that none of this takes away a player's right to choose. Any player whose contract is expiring can choose to be a free agent..... and this remains the case regardless of the trade. The only impediment is that the player won't get a max deal if he is not agreeing with his current team or the trading team. As James and Bosh demonstrated, some players are willing to take that chance (the sign and trades were separate from the fact that both took less to join the Heat). Any other player will have the same choice. If D-Will wants out of Utah, he can wait for free agency and leave. And if the Jazz trade him, he can still wait for free agency and leave his new team. He might get less money, but that is his choice.

There is nothing duplicitous going on and no "trend" to speak of. Perhaps you are disgruntled because you worry about Melo being hamstrung here, but again that is not happening. Melo controls his fate. If he wants to go to New York, he will refuse an extension anywhere and sign in NY this summer. It appears that he wants to go to NY the most, but is unwilling to leave money on the table to do so. Why would any team accommodate his request? Moreover, when this happens with other players in the future, why should those teams? The players have choices. They don't have to sign and they don't have to fight for the max. That is their call. They will be wildly rich regardless. But if they want the max dollars (as is also the players' right), then they give some control to the teams.

This is not that complicated.

Sandman
01-16-2011, 12:45 PM
The new CBA I think could change a lot.

We're in an era where most teams are over the salary cap and "free agency" is a small closed market. Terrible players are a valuable commodity in the last year of bad contracts, and players are traded at rapid fire just to make numbers balance.

If the NBA ends up with a hard salary cap, that would all change.

TO to the CHI
01-16-2011, 01:01 PM
The new CBA will definitely have a huge impact. But the reality is that free agency will still be a somewhat closed market as long as there is a cap (which there certainly will be). None of this changes the fact that the players do have control as long as they don't want to insist on every last penny. And if they do insist on top dollar (as they are entitled to do), then that is their choice.

Period.

Sandman
01-16-2011, 01:23 PM
The new CBA will definitely have a huge impact. But the reality is that free agency will still be a somewhat closed market as long as there is a cap (which there certainly will be). None of this changes the fact that the players do have control as long as they don't want to insist on every last penny. And if they do insist on top dollar (as they are entitled to do), then that is their choice.

Period.

Its a way more open market when you have every team with the same amount of money to spend, as opposed to a threshold after which you can only add salary in particular occurrences.

TO to the CHI
01-16-2011, 01:26 PM
Its a way more open market when you have every team with the same amount of money to spend, as opposed to a threshold after which you can only add salary in particular occurrences.

You understand that you are advocating a harder cap with fewer exceptions, which will actually reduce flexibility and the numbers of teams that are able to participate in the free agent market, right?

Sandman
01-16-2011, 01:31 PM
You understand that you are advocating a harder cap with fewer exceptions, which will actually reduce flexibility and the numbers of teams that are able to participate in the free agent market, right?

Any hard cap would be much higher than the current luxury tax.

TO to the CHI
01-16-2011, 01:38 PM
Any hard cap would be much higher than the current luxury tax.

Seriously? Almost everything that is available regarding the position of the league indicates that there are very real financial concerns, that the league is going to try to drive down max salaries and average salaries, and that a hard cap would be reduced. It would almost certainly be less than the luxury tax threshold and at best would be the same (I would bet on less). There is a reason a guy like Melo wants to get the extension before the CBA.

The owners are going to fight hard on this CBA, which is why a lockout is a real possibility.

hotpotato1092
01-16-2011, 01:54 PM
I would guess that free agency is gonna be a huge topic in the new CBA. Regardless of how the other owners feel about Dan Gilbert, none of them want to end up in his situation. The owners control the league, so I'm guessing we're gonna see big changes in the structure of free agency. The last thing Stern and the owners want is three or four super teams while the other teams suffer, it decreases the value of all small market teams (assuming the super teams would be in big markets) and the league as a whole. I think the owners are terrified of the era of the super team, and would absolutely have a lockout to prevent it.

TO to the CHI
01-16-2011, 02:07 PM
I would guess that free agency is gonna be a huge topic in the new CBA. Regardless of how the other owners feel about Dan Gilbert, none of them want to end up in his situation. The owners control the league, so I'm guessing we're gonna see big changes in the structure of free agency. The last thing Stern and the owners want is three or four super teams while the other teams suffer, it decreases the value of all small market teams (assuming the super teams would be in big markets) and the league as a whole. I think the owners are terrified of the era of the super team, and would absolutely have a lockout to prevent it.

I don't have much to add to that. Well stated.

jimm120
01-16-2011, 02:36 PM
It seems in this day and age as soon as a player is in the last year of a deal the team is looking to trade them. If the team feels he wont resign with them they come with the we cant let him "Walk for Nothing" credo. They then trade the player to try to recoup the talent which would be lost in FA for nothing in return.

Is this the way Star players will be moved from now on? With this current trend will any star player ever hit the FA market again? The "Walk for Nothing" trades, which has always been a sign and trade, have become more prevelant in player movement in recent years.

Even if you sign a player as a FA these days it becomes a sign and trade. With most teams following a stronger we cant let him "Walk for Nothing" philosophy in the post-James era how do you think it will effect FA in the future?

I wonder though. Why do teams feel they have a right to "Walk for Nothing" trades to begin with. In the past it was a luxury to get something for a player who was leaving in FA. Now it seems like its the only way to do it. If a player gave you everything and fulfilled their contracts why do teams feel they are owed more even when the players want to leave? You signed him, he played for you to the best of his ability, he represented your franchise correctly, and a year from FA you feel you are owed something when/before he leaves? A reverse severance package from player to owner?

Will CP3, Deron or D12 ever see FA? Or will their respective teams follow the latest trend of cant let him "Walk for Nothing" trades in the year before they hit FA? Will any top FA ever hit the market again?

Has the loss of Lebron and the failure of the Cavs impacted the whole league and how they operate? It seems teams (and fans alike) now feel it is their right to these moves and they are becoming the status quo.

Will FA change in the Post-Decision era and are teams entitled to the latest trend of "Walk for Nothing" trades?

Well, I've always thought of it as if DO YOU want to RISK not making a playoffs/playoff run by trading away a player or do you want to get some future stock back.


To me, losing teams could definitely do it. That is their incentive. They are losing, so might as well trade away our star player for future stock.

Now, for winning teams it becomes more difficult. Why? Well, if they keep the player, they SHOULD get a short term boost in revenue and continue to the playoffs or maybe even make a run for the championship.

The other side of that coin is that yes, it was short term but now you got nothing to build on from that player for future seasons.

To me, if you're a high caliber team, then you roll the dice, keep hte player to make a run and hope they reconsider in the offseason to re-sign.

Just look at Pheonix last year. They put on quite a good run and made it quite far. They opted to keep Amare. He, unfortunately for them, opted to leave the team in the offseason but hey, that is the purpose of free agency. Plus, they wouldn't have gotten to the conference finals without Amare and would DEFINITELY not have a shot at the finals last season.

To me, it is up to each and every team. But if you think you can make a run in the playoffs, I wouldn't blow up the team.

In my fantasy league last year, I decided to trade away a keeper player of mine (Youkilis) for spare parts (4 closers). Yes, I regret it now because I didn't win the league but its a risk. If you're a losing team, you trade away your your 1 big star for many little stars. If you're a winning team, you have to decide if you're gonna trade away your big star for more little stars to make a run.

Denver, in this situation, should NOT trade Melo. I think they can be near elite. They've shown so in the past 2 - 3 seasons. They are a team that can get hot enough to make a big run past some of the elite teams (spurs, Mavs, and Lakers) to make it to the finals. But trading away Melo would make the team not able to do so.

But its their choice:
-Keep the player and hope for a run (which is possible)
-trade him away, which will not allow you to make the playoffs/playoff run but get back pieces for the following 2 years.


And like you've said, it seems many teams are opting to trade away now-a-days, even if they're winning teams.

Losing teams I understand. But winning teams?

Bornknick73
01-16-2011, 09:36 PM
There is so much that is wrong with this post that it is fairly hard to know where to begin.

As an initial matter, despite the purported trend that you are referencing last summer was probably the most significant summer for player movement in the NBA's history. LeBron (widely viewed as the best player in the world), Boozer, Bosh, Amare and others all switched teams with either no compensation going the other way or compensation that could best be described as de minimis. Thus, there is very little reason for concern or to suggest a trend.

You also make it seem like the owners are doing something wrong here. They have an asset that is about to leave. No one is suggesting that the player owes them anything (other than the courtesy of not having a press conference to rip out their fans' hearts), but why shouldn't the team/owner make a deal to get something rather than losing an asset for nothing. If you know a player is going to leave it just makes good sense to deal them. If James or Bosh had unequivocally told their teams they were leaving, those teams would certainly have acted differently. Not criticizing the players for that but it is reality.

Last, what you seem to be missing is that none of this takes away a player's right to choose. Any player whose contract is expiring can choose to be a free agent..... and this remains the case regardless of the trade. The only impediment is that the player won't get a max deal if he is not agreeing with his current team or the trading team. As James and Bosh demonstrated, some players are willing to take that chance (the sign and trades were separate from the fact that both took less to join the Heat). Any other player will have the same choice. If D-Will wants out of Utah, he can wait for free agency and leave. And if the Jazz trade him, he can still wait for free agency and leave his new team. He might get less money, but that is his choice.

There is nothing duplicitous going on and no "trend" to speak of. Perhaps you are disgruntled because you worry about Melo being hamstrung here, but again that is not happening. Melo controls his fate. If he wants to go to New York, he will refuse an extension anywhere and sign in NY this summer. It appears that he wants to go to NY the most, but is unwilling to leave money on the table to do so. Why would any team accommodate his request? Moreover, when this happens with other players in the future, why should those teams? The players have choices. They don't have to sign and they don't have to fight for the max. That is their call. They will be wildly rich regardless. But if they want the max dollars (as is also the players' right), then they give some control to the teams.

This is not that complicated.


Sigh....disgruntled? I know every thread here is a Melo thread but im asking about the Post-Decision NBA. I referenced D12 CP3 and Deron. They are the next big players to hit the market. And drop the condescending tone..Im sure you can come across with your view without the "im smarter then you so ill tell you how smart i am" tone.

TopsyTurvy
01-17-2011, 04:09 AM
The CBA negotiation will empower owners by restricting the amount of money they will pay for players coming in from free agency. The owners are voting to reign in their own outlandish spending on 'subpar' players and will likely institute some more cap control to keep it that way.

In the end, the players lose but not in terms of their ability to control their fate - they simply lose the earning potential and the owners further reign in wage spending.

jetsfan28
01-17-2011, 04:12 AM
How many players have actually been traded in this situation. The Heatles weren't. Melo hasn't been yet, and while they want a Nets deal, they seem willing to let him walk over taking almost nothing from the Knicks. Amare wasn't. I can't think of anybody who has actually been traded in this situation, despite a ton of rumors.

JasonJohnHorn
01-17-2011, 10:56 AM
Fear of losing a player to free agency for nothing has always been a fear.

The Clippers and Hawks swapped expiring contracts with the hopes of re-signing new talent (The human Highlight film for Danny Manning). What happened? Both teams lost their star players for nothing, and both would have likely had a better chance as re-signing the players they had, but they took a gamble.

Joe D. takes over a Pistons head only to see Grant Hill sign to Orlando, but he is crafty enough to work a sign and trade and pick up Ben Wallace and Chucky Atkins, who were both very productive for the Pistons.

Toronto waits for free agency to see what will happen with Bosh: no tact sees the Raps lose Bosh for nothing, and the T-Wolves pick up Beasley for pocket change. Had they been as crafty as Joe D., the Raps could have gotten Beasley out of the deal, since the Heat were looking to dump him, but instead end up with nothing.

Its always risky, but FA have always left for nothing. Waiting it out is a gamble. Trades are a gamble. The only teams that can swing something out of the deal are playoff teams. The Pistons pick up Sheed mid-season, and a title convinces him to re-sign with them. Had he been traded to a lottery team, he likely wouldnt have re-sign.


With Melo, the Knicks need not worry about anything. They wont win it all this year with ot without Melo, so a early first round draft pick and a Melo signing will help them in the offseason. Or a contender could make a move for Melo (Mavs, Spurs, Lakers, Miami, Boston, Orlando- practically none of whom have the pieces to give up), and if they win it all, Melo may be eager to re-sign, but if a team like the Nets only manage to pry away an expiring contract, they will likely not be rewarded for it.

Its like going to Vegas when it comes to handking unrestricted FAs. Always has been.

Hellcrooner
01-17-2011, 01:33 PM
Free Market.
Its the solution.
Believe it or not.
Nba teams that have won the ring since 1980 with the salary Cap
lakers,Celtics,Bulls, Pistons, Spurs, Rockets, Heat-sixers-

Just 8

Since 1980 teams that have won soccers champions league with FREE MARKET.

N Forest, A Villa, Liverpool, Manchester, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Porto, O Marseille, Juventus, Inter, Milan, Bayern, Borussia, Psv, Ajax, Steaua, Red Star.

thats 17


Now factor that the bolded ones are "small markets" and it makes it more obvious.

FREE MARKET

king4day
01-17-2011, 01:39 PM
I would guess that free agency is gonna be a huge topic in the new CBA. Regardless of how the other owners feel about Dan Gilbert, none of them want to end up in his situation. The owners control the league, so I'm guessing we're gonna see big changes in the structure of free agency. The last thing Stern and the owners want is three or four super teams while the other teams suffer, it decreases the value of all small market teams (assuming the super teams would be in big markets) and the league as a whole. I think the owners are terrified of the era of the super team, and would absolutely have a lockout to prevent it.

Very well put.

TopsyTurvy
01-18-2011, 12:39 AM
Free Market.
Its the solution.
Believe it or not.
Nba teams that have won the ring since 1980 with the salary Cap
lakers,Celtics,Bulls, Pistons, Spurs, Rockets, Heat-sixers-

Just 8

Since 1980 teams that have won soccers champions league with FREE MARKET.

N Forest, A Villa, Liverpool, Manchester, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Porto, O Marseille, Juventus, Inter, Milan, Bayern, Borussia, Psv, Ajax, Steaua, Red Star.

thats 17


Now factor that the bolded ones are "small markets" and it makes it more obvious.

FREE MARKET

... and how many of those idyllic 'free market' football clubs are facing serious debt issues?

Hellcrooner
01-18-2011, 12:45 AM
... and how many of those idyllic 'free market' football clubs are facing serious debt issues?

serious problems?

none.

there is always a millionare ready to come to rescue.

HoopsDrive
01-18-2011, 01:05 AM
serious problems?

none.

there is always a millionare ready to come to rescue.

Borussia is coming back! My fav club in Germany :D

Btw, theres no way they lose the Bundesliga now... just no way.

Hellcrooner
01-18-2011, 01:09 AM
Borussia is coming back! My fav club in Germany :D

Btw, theres no way they lose the Bundesliga now... just no way.

lol, you like things yellow :p
i guess you like Villareal too

ThornMo
01-18-2011, 01:10 AM
this is probably just me, but i'd like to see the trade deadline for players entering free agency be moved forward a year. for instance if a player is under contract through 2012 the deadline to trade him should be in feb. 2011. such a rule might allow a club a longer term of urgency to resign a player. this may help a lot with the superstar free agents entering the last years of their contracts, however players with smaller salaries it would make little sense as their development is different than a bona fide all star. although i'm sure the cba could find a better way to make it work.
i didn't put a lot of thought into this so if there is any criticism then i won't be upset

HoopsDrive
01-18-2011, 01:14 AM
lol, you like things yellow :p
i guess you like Villareal too

Hehe, yea the yellow sub is my fav in Spain:D

Good thing they've been doing well too... not that they have a chance with the big boys but w.e...

Plus they have Nilmar and now Cicinho (veteran from SPFC)..

WHODAT8o8
01-18-2011, 01:36 AM
The new CBA I think could change a lot.

We're in an era where most teams are over the salary cap and "free agency" is a small closed market. Terrible players are a valuable commodity in the last year of bad contracts, and players are traded at rapid fire just to make numbers balance.

If the NBA ends up with a hard salary cap, that would all change.

this