PDA

View Full Version : Restricted Free Agency is Broken



bleedprple&gold
07-05-2018, 02:14 AM
Of the top FAs left unsigned, most of them including the likes of Clint Capela, Marcus Smart, Jabari Parker, Zach Lavine, and Jusuf Nurkic are all restricted free agents. I know the main goal of restricted free agency is to allow teams to keep their players and it technically is working on that front, but it has gotten to a point where the players are paying by not getting paid as a result. It doesn't work early in free agency because opposing teams don't want to tie up their cap space giving an offer that will most likely be matched, which means they look elsewhere, resulting in it not working later in free agency either because then teams have used up all their cap space and are unable to make an offer even if they want to. The result seems to be this holding pattern where the incumbent team keeps waiting for another team to make an offer to set the market value, but the offer never comes. The incumbent team then just holds out knowing that the player will most likely eventually cave because he can't get any other offers, and gets low-balled and screwed out of the payday he deserves.

So how do we fix this? Simple. Make a deadline that if the player doesn't get a deal done by (with the incumbent team or otherwise), then he automatically becomes an unrestricted free agent. This will force the incumbent team to make an offer or risk losing that player for nothing. Sure, it could result in some teams being unable to keep players they want to keep if the guy really wants to leave, but it will prevent the players from being stuck essentially in this game of chicken where the incumbent has total control over them and they basically must take whatever they offer, or the only other way out is to take the qualifying offer and risk playing another year without the insurance of a long-term deal. Players will likely take the deal the incumbent team offers rather than face the uncertainty of unrestricted free agency, but they just need to get that offer in the first place, and this change can force that to happen.

Dade County
07-05-2018, 02:48 AM
So how do we fix this? Simple. Make a deadline that if the player doesn't get a deal done by (with the incumbent team or otherwise), then he automatically becomes an unrestricted free agent.

Where they do that at?

Hell no man. That high demand young player, will always say no to the deal, and go sign to a team that he wants to play for. Most likely created another stack team.

I like Super teams, don't get be wrong. But what you suggested is not going to fly.



This will force the incumbent team to make an offer or risk losing that player for nothing. Sure, it could result in some teams being unable to keep players they want to keep if the guy really wants to leave, but it will prevent the players from being stuck essentially in this game of chicken where the incumbent has total control over them and they basically must take whatever they offer, or the only other way out is to take the qualifying offer and risk playing another year without the insurance of a long-term deal.

I believe more players should take the qualifying offer. I would like Booker to at least think about it.

Lbj was talking 1&1. KD still doing it. Naw man, there is nothing wrong with them playing for 1yr then being free agents.



Players will likely take the deal the incumbent team offers rather than face the uncertainty of unrestricted free agency, but they just need to get that offer in the first place, and this change can force that to happen.

Just rethink this a little.

LOb0
07-05-2018, 04:53 AM
Your idea would lead to mass overpaying for lesser players and be far more broken than you think the current system is. I don't feel there's any problem right now. Zach Lavine and M. Smart shouldn't be getting outrageous offers. By your logic they should just be given huge deals right out of the gate.

Oakmont_4
07-05-2018, 06:24 AM
I see nothing wrong with it. M Smart, J Parker and Z LaVine have huge question marks. They're not top tier players - if they were, they'd be getting MAX offers even as RFA's. But they're not so they're not getting offers. If teams felt the player was worth the money, they'd pony it up without issue. Capela played great last season but he has 1 year of play under his belt, still a risk there. He's still a very 1 dimensional player at this time. Even is he was a UFA, IDK if he'd be signed somewhere already or not.

I honestly think the RFA period should be opposite of what you suggest. The Qualifying offer should be their salary no matter what...However a team should be able to match it w/ an extension in hand but if the player accepts you owe a 1st round pick to the team.

So it would go like this - Smart is a RFA and has a QO of $5M.
1. Celtics can offer it or not. If they offer it, he's contractually bound. If they don't, he's a UFA
2. QO is given. Any team has 20 days to offer a contract to Smart - year 1 of that contract would be the QO but they team can structure the years following however they want (minimum of 3 years).
3. If Smart accepts the other teams offer - they must give a 1st round pick to the Celtics.

This allows the player to
A. Stay with current team for 1 more year.
B. Become a UFA if their current team does not offer the QO
C. Leave for another team should they so choose

crewfan13
07-05-2018, 07:10 AM
I see nothing wrong with it. M Smart, J Parker and Z LaVine have huge question marks. They're not top tier players - if they were, they'd be getting MAX offers even as RFA's. But they're not so they're not getting offers. If teams felt the player was worth the money, they'd pony it up without issue. Capela played great last season but he has 1 year of play under his belt, still a risk there. He's still a very 1 dimensional player at this time. Even is he was a UFA, IDK if he'd be signed somewhere already or not.

I honestly think the RFA period should be opposite of what you suggest. The Qualifying offer should be their salary no matter what...However a team should be able to match it w/ an extension in hand but if the player accepts you owe a 1st round pick to the team.

So it would go like this - Smart is a RFA and has a QO of $5M.
1. Celtics can offer it or not. If they offer it, he's contractually bound. If they don't, he's a UFA
2. QO is given. Any team has 20 days to offer a contract to Smart - year 1 of that contract would be the QO but they team can structure the years following however they want (minimum of 3 years).
3. If Smart accepts the other teams offer - they must give a 1st round pick to the Celtics.

This allows the player to
A. Stay with current team for 1 more year.
B. Become a UFA if their current team does not offer the QO
C. Leave for another team should they so choose

Problem with that is the value of draft picks differs way too much. Baseball used to have a system like this and still had a similar one, but not with first round picks. And that sort of worked because first round picks arenít quite as valuable and the difference between say pick 8 and pick 22 isnít a ton. Thatís not true in the nba. If you did what youíre suggesting, it would just make the rich richer.

A team like Atlanta or Sacramento, who are likely to be lottery teams again would not offer RFA, since their pick could be top 3 overall. Teams like Houston or golden state would have no problem offering RFA since their pick is likely to be in the late 20s. You also run into a situation where you restrict the market since teams may not have a first round pick and/or teams could only sign one RFA.

I donít have a major problem with the way RFA functions. If you want to ďsolveĒ the problem that Iím not even sure exists, creating additnal criteria, outside of the starter criteria, that can increase the value of the QO, which would make it a more viable option of players would make sense. Also shortening the matchup window to 24 or 48 hours wouldnít allow teams to almost risk a hostage style situation with someone elseís cap could help too.

warfelg
07-05-2018, 07:36 AM
RFA isnít broken. They are feeling the effects of cap jump over cap smoothing.

The NBPA played themselves.

Scoots
07-05-2018, 09:19 AM
RFA isnít broken. They are feeling the effects of cap jump over cap smoothing.

The NBPA played themselves.

Again and again and again and again. In this case because they had a new union boss who had spent months making waves about how the players had allowed themselves to be pushed around so her reaction to ANY proposition would have been underthought.

Vinylman
07-05-2018, 09:23 AM
what's broke is the players expectations...

There is nothing wrong with RFA as currently constructed

Scoots
07-05-2018, 09:28 AM
RFA used to be a week to match an offer and now it's 3 days right? That fixed the biggest issue RFA had. The issue this year is just that no teams have money.

warfelg
07-05-2018, 09:39 AM
Again and again and again and again. In this case because they had a new union boss who had spent months making waves about how the players had allowed themselves to be pushed around so her reaction to ANY proposition would have been underthought.

Yup.

Only example I need is that cap smoothing. People still think that the NBA was trying to steal money from the players. The NBA provided models where certain players could opt out and join already highly seeded playoff teams.

The NBPA was smart and got out in front of it to make it sound like Owners were trying to steal from them.

There were warnings of this outcome. Players ignored it. Now they are getting what they deserved.

They try to fake having a weak union, when every negotiation they benefit more than most other unions.

warfelg
07-05-2018, 09:40 AM
RFA used to be a week to match an offer and now it's 3 days right? That fixed the biggest issue RFA had. The issue this year is just that no teams have money.

That and it was most likely that teams match. Parsons and Barnes are the only two recent memory time teams have passed on matching. Other teams have started to avoid because it stalled their cap while the other team was deciding.

Scoots
07-05-2018, 10:25 AM
Yup.

Only example I need is that cap smoothing. People still think that the NBA was trying to steal money from the players. The NBA provided models where certain players could opt out and join already highly seeded playoff teams.

The NBPA was smart and got out in front of it to make it sound like Owners were trying to steal from them.

There were warnings of this outcome. Players ignored it. Now they are getting what they deserved.

They try to fake having a weak union, when every negotiation they benefit more than most other unions.

Michelle Roberts STILL thinks it was the right choice (this is from 2018):


When the salary explosion happened and you rejected the smoothing idea that the NBA proposed, has anything that has happened in the last few years caused you to reconsider that stance?

No, in fact itís completely confirmed the correctness of that position. I delight and the players delight in reading about some of these contracts because they know they absolutely deserve it.

There was going to be no smoothing of the ownersí profits at all. They were going to enjoy real money that reflected where we were financially as a game. Why in the world would players pretend that the game was not making as much money and therefore have smaller contracts?

It was an absurd suggestion, I thought personally. But what we did to make sure it wasnít just Micheleís instinct was hire two separate economists to tell us whether this was something that was going to be of value to our players in the long run.

Independent of each other and not knowing what either of us felt, they both came almost saying, ďAre you kidding? Why would you do this?Ē

I donít have any regrets at all. I donít think a single player does either.

Not a single owner came up to me and suggested that they thought we should do this. The league did. But I didnít see any chorus of support from any of the owners. I thought it was a disgraceful request.

I honestly think she doesn't understand that the "extra" money was going to be distributed to all of the players anyhow. That the money wasn't going to be "held back" just that the negotiating pool was going to be artificially smaller for a few years. I suspect if you ask the players who were already on contracts in 2016 and are now suffering a lack of league money availability because of 2016 they would overwhelmingly prefer those lesser players NOT get so much money and make more available to all the players who negotiated contracts since.

Oakmont_4
07-05-2018, 10:45 AM
Problem with that is the value of draft picks differs way too much. Baseball used to have a system like this and still had a similar one, but not with first round picks. And that sort of worked because first round picks arenít quite as valuable and the difference between say pick 8 and pick 22 isnít a ton. Thatís not true in the nba. If you did what youíre suggesting, it would just make the rich richer.

A team like Atlanta or Sacramento, who are likely to be lottery teams again would not offer RFA, since their pick could be top 3 overall. Teams like Houston or golden state would have no problem offering RFA since their pick is likely to be in the late 20s. You also run into a situation where you restrict the market since teams may not have a first round pick and/or teams could only sign one RFA.

I donít have a major problem with the way RFA functions. If you want to ďsolveĒ the problem that Iím not even sure exists, creating additnal criteria, outside of the starter criteria, that can increase the value of the QO, which would make it a more viable option of players would make sense. Also shortening the matchup window to 24 or 48 hours wouldnít allow teams to almost risk a hostage style situation with someone elseís cap could help too.

Yeah that's kind of the point. Up to the FO to make the right move. SAC shouldn't offer Smart a contract, but a guy like Capela who would cost a top 5 pick might be worth it. Just have to make the right decision.

warfelg
07-05-2018, 12:14 PM
Michelle Roberts STILL thinks it was the right choice (this is from 2018):



I honestly think she doesn't understand that the "extra" money was going to be distributed to all of the players anyhow. That the money wasn't going to be "held back" just that the negotiating pool was going to be artificially smaller for a few years. I suspect if you ask the players who were already on contracts in 2016 and are now suffering a lack of league money availability because of 2016 they would overwhelmingly prefer those lesser players NOT get so much money and make more available to all the players who negotiated contracts since.

Yup yup and yup. Continuing to try to pull the wool over the eyes.

Scoots
07-05-2018, 12:40 PM
Yup yup and yup. Continuing to try to pull the wool over the eyes.

If the NBA sent a poll to the players that said:

"Hey, the NBA wanted to spread that $500M in absolutely terrible contracts given to mediocre players in 2016 to everybody. Literally every player in the NBA would get a check for their portion of that money ... or we could just give it all to those 8 guys. What do you think the union should have done?"

I can guess that the result would not be overwhelmingly in favor of skipping the smoothing.

warfelg
07-05-2018, 01:03 PM
If the NBA sent a poll to the players that said:

"Hey, the NBA wanted to spread that $500M in absolutely terrible contracts given to mediocre players in 2016 to everybody. Literally every player in the NBA would get a check for their portion of that money ... or we could just give it all to those 8 guys. What do you think the union should have done?"

I can guess that the result would not be overwhelmingly in favor of skipping the smoothing.

I thought about it over lunch:
The issue I think with that is 2017 and 2018 didn't have enough studs in FA to put up a fight through the cap smoothing. There was more guys hitting in 2016 that could put up a fight. And the size of the FA was huge too.

Scoots
07-05-2018, 01:29 PM
I thought about it over lunch:
The issue I think with that is 2017 and 2018 didn't have enough studs in FA to put up a fight through the cap smoothing. There was more guys hitting in 2016 that could put up a fight. And the size of the FA was huge too.

I think it was probably more Michelle telling the players at every opportunity that the owners were evil and trying to steal from them that set up an automatic no on almost any proposal by the league.

IIRC the league actually sent a presentation to the union that laid out exactly what is now happening, including predicting relatively tepid cap growth in the ensuing years. The Warriors and Cavs racing to and through the finals in 2017 took, supposedly, as much as $6M out of the cap too and that didn't help matters I'm sure.

mngopher35
07-05-2018, 01:59 PM
(null)

Yup, much of where the league and fa is at in a general sense stems from this

crewfan13
07-05-2018, 09:20 PM
Yeah that's kind of the point. Up to the FO to make the right move. SAC shouldn't offer Smart a contract, but a guy like Capela who would cost a top 5 pick might be worth it. Just have to make the right decision.

But how is that good? If we both agree that smart is a nice role player but not a franchise changer, why should the penalty for signing a role player be significantly more for a bad team than a good team?

Even if their valuation of the player is the same, Sacramento giving up pick 5ish for smart and Houston giving up pick 28ish for identical contracts is absurd, especially in the nba, where the value drops much more significantly for each pick than any other sport.

You punish the bad teams for being bad and reward the good teams for being good. It would make parity in the league much worse. Plus it kills the players value. Now for a guy like Marcus smart, thereís probably less than half the league that would be interested in him regardless of cost, since most teams who legitimately might be picking in the lottery wouldnít risk a lotto pick for him.

If you want that system, youíre better off just making year 5 another team option unless a player hits a certain criteria, like an all star or all nba team appearance. If they meet that criteria, then they get RFA. Because thatís badically what youíre doing with that system.

Oakmont_4
07-06-2018, 06:32 AM
But how is that good? If we both agree that smart is a nice role player but not a franchise changer, why should the penalty for signing a role player be significantly more for a bad team than a good team?

The team that draft and developed the player should have an advantage in keeping them. If another team wants to blow the player away with an offer, good for the player, good for his original team because they get a pick. We need some deterrence to player movement, this will help small market teams more than larger market teams.


Even if their valuation of the player is the same, Sacramento giving up pick 5ish for smart and Houston giving up pick 28ish for identical contracts is absurd, especially in the nba, where the value drops much more significantly for each pick than any other sport.

It's only absurd if a team like SAC makes a bad decision for a player like that. Which if they're going to make a bad decision like that, they're likely going to make it in other areas so that teams in trouble regardless. You're also not taking cap space into consideration...HOU likely can't even make the move because they won't have the cap space to do it.


You punish the bad teams for being bad and reward the good teams for being good. It would make parity in the league much worse. Plus it kills the players value. Now for a guy like Marcus smart, thereís probably less than half the league that would be interested in him regardless of cost, since most teams who legitimately might be picking in the lottery wouldnít risk a lotto pick for him.

It's actually helping the bad teams. Bad teams are bad because they make bad decisions. When it's just money, NBA GM's make bad decisions all the time. But now that there's a pick attached, it adds an extra layer of precaution and likely deters that GM from make a bad decision. Giving Smart $18M would be a bad decision. Giving Smart $15M and the C's a first would be an even worse decision. You're only looking at this on the face and not digging deeper into the actual scenarios.


If you want that system, youíre better off just making year 5 another team option unless a player hits a certain criteria, like an all star or all nba team appearance. If they meet that criteria, then they get RFA. Because thatís badically what youíre doing with that system.

That's essentially my same scenario except it doesn't have random criteria attached to player performance. Let the other teams decide what the players are worth. It's a good system. It makes GM's be more cautious in the contracts they hand out. If an RFA truly does outplay his contract, like Capela, they will still get signed and paid big. And it prevents guys like Smart from getting overpaid just because a team has cap space rather than paying him for what he's actually worse. I don't mind players getting slightly overpaid, but when a guy like Smart or LaVine could potentially get $18M...That's not good for the NBA. It'll set their new franchise back years.

Vinylman
07-06-2018, 10:27 AM
RFA used to be a week to match an offer and now it's 3 days right? That fixed the biggest issue RFA had. The issue this year is just that no teams have money.

that and the players aren't exceptional... seriously... most are turds

Vinylman
07-06-2018, 10:30 AM
Michelle Roberts STILL thinks it was the right choice (this is from 2018):



I honestly think she doesn't understand that the "extra" money was going to be distributed to all of the players anyhow. That the money wasn't going to be "held back" just that the negotiating pool was going to be artificially smaller for a few years. I suspect if you ask the players who were already on contracts in 2016 and are now suffering a lack of league money availability because of 2016 they would overwhelmingly prefer those lesser players NOT get so much money and make more available to all the players who negotiated contracts since.

she is a moron and the negotiation was more about her ego than what was best for the NBAPA in the long run...

She basically opted to enrich one FA class over the whole of players in the league... by definition that is a failed union

JOSKOMANG4
07-06-2018, 10:45 AM
Blockbuster: trade J.Noah & K.Porzingis to Celtics for Kyrie Irving.

Then Celtics resign smart; 4yr 54mill.

BOS: Horford/Tatum/Hayward/Brown/Rozier
B: Baynes, KP, Morris, Smart
O; Noah, B.Williams, Semi, Nader

Knicks then trade Tim Hardaway Jr, R.Baker, L.Thomas(partial guarantee in 2019: 1m buyout) and 2019 top- 3 protected 1st to wolves for G.Diung & Jimmy Butler.

MIN: Towns/Gibson/Wiggins/Hardaway/Teague
B: Patton, Tolliver, Bates-Diop, Okogie, Rose, T.Jones.

NYK: Kanter/Knox/Butler/Lee/Kyrie
B: Robinson, Diung, Frank, Mudaiy, Burke

warfelg
07-06-2018, 10:51 AM
she is a moron and the negotiation was more about her ego than what was best for the NBAPA in the long run...

She basically opted to enrich one FA class over the whole of players in the league... by definition that is a failed union

It's not a failed union. It's a union that only star players are at the upper levels, and benefits only star players, and works in the interest of it's stars.

Look at football leadership. Not many star players. Ditto with baseball.

The sad reason it's this way is the players that really should be at the forefront are the types that could randomly be out of the league with no warning.

crewfan13
07-06-2018, 10:52 AM
The team that draft and developed the player should have an advantage in keeping them. If another team wants to blow the player away with an offer, good for the player, good for his original team because they get a pick. We need some deterrence to player movement, this will help small market teams more than larger market teams.



It's only absurd if a team like SAC makes a bad decision for a player like that. Which if they're going to make a bad decision like that, they're likely going to make it in other areas so that teams in trouble regardless. You're also not taking cap space into consideration...HOU likely can't even make the move because they won't have the cap space to do it.



It's actually helping the bad teams. Bad teams are bad because they make bad decisions. When it's just money, NBA GM's make bad decisions all the time. But now that there's a pick attached, it adds an extra layer of precaution and likely deters that GM from make a bad decision. Giving Smart $18M would be a bad decision. Giving Smart $15M and the C's a first would be an even worse decision. You're only looking at this on the face and not digging deeper into the actual scenarios.



That's essentially my same scenario except it doesn't have random criteria attached to player performance. Let the other teams decide what the players are worth. It's a good system. It makes GM's be more cautious in the contracts they hand out. If an RFA truly does outplay his contract, like Capela, they will still get signed and paid big. And it prevents guys like Smart from getting overpaid just because a team has cap space rather than paying him for what he's actually worse. I don't mind players getting slightly overpaid, but when a guy like Smart or LaVine could potentially get $18M...That's not good for the NBA. It'll set their new franchise back years.

But itís not helping the small markets. Giving Marcus smart a fair deal doesnít hurt Sacramento or whoever signs him. I am digging deeper. Youíre the one looking at it only at a high level. Youíre assuming ever free agent decision will be a bad one. It doesnít have to be a bad decision. You can offer a player a fair market value deal or maybe slightly over. You cannot do that under your system.

And your system doesnít deter player movement. It simply makes the fifth year on a rookie deal a team option for any non all star caliber player. There wonít be any player movement for non studs because no one will give up the pick unless itís a top flight team. So you arenít helping the bad teams. Youíre helping the good teams because they are the only ones who realistically can participate in RFA. Youíre also hurting the player by forcing them to take the QO in most cases, since youíve severely limited their market to the good teams. There would be even less player movement under your system and less incentive for teams to lock players up prior to RFA. This proposal is terrible for players and only good for the team that drafted the player.

You think youíre helping the bad teams by taking away their ability to make bad decisions, but youíve also taken away their ability to make what could be a good decision. Zach Lavine still has upside. I donít love him as a player, but he could still develop into smething decent. If a team like Atlanta has cap space and knows they are entering a rebuild of at least 2-3 years, why not let them give money to a young guy with potential as opposed to having them sell cap space for draft picks and bad players or spend on mediocre vets?

Oakmont_4
07-06-2018, 11:03 AM
But itís not helping the small markets. Giving Marcus smart a fair deal doesnít hurt Sacramento or whoever signs him. I am digging deeper. Youíre the one looking at it only at a high level. Youíre assuming ever free agent decision will be a bad one. It doesnít have to be a bad decision. You can offer a player a fair market value deal or maybe slightly over. You cannot do that under your system.

It absolutely is helping the small markets. If their own RFA leaves for a better contract, they get a pick instead of nothing. Or they retain the player for less money. How's that not a win. Bad teams are bad because they make bad decisions. SAC is bad because they make bad decisions. NYK is bad because they make bad decisions. Top level teams like HOU, BOS, GS are not going to be able to pick off a small market teams RFA because they don't have any cap space to make that move...


And your system doesnít deter player movement. It simply makes the fifth year on a rookie deal a team option for any non all star caliber player. There wonít be any player movement for non studs because no one will give up the pick unless itís a top flight team. So you arenít helping the bad teams. Youíre helping the good teams because they are the only ones who realistically can participate in RFA. Youíre also hurting the player by forcing them to take the QO in most cases, since youíve severely limited their market to the good teams. There would be even less player movement under your system and less incentive for teams to lock players up prior to RFA. This proposal is terrible for players and only good for the team that drafted the player.

Wrong. DET could offer a guy like Smart $10M. They were in the lottery last year and guy like Smart could put them into the playoffs. They wouldn't be losing a good pick and they also wouldn't have to overpay for him. A team like SAC should not be throwing big dollars at average guys. Again this is why the bad teams are bad because they make moves like this all the time. This prevents it.


You think youíre helping the bad teams by taking away their ability to make bad decisions, but youíve also taken away their ability to make what could be a good decision. Zach Lavine still has upside. I donít love him as a player, but he could still develop into smething decent. If a team like Atlanta has cap space and knows they are entering a rebuild of at least 2-3 years, why not let them give money to a young guy with potential as opposed to having them sell cap space for draft picks and bad players or spend on mediocre vets?

Overpaying Zach LaVine will never be a good decision. Sure he has some upside. But he's never going to be a stud. And if he takes his QO because a bad team wasn't able to overpay him, they have another shot at him the following year without a draft pick attached. Patience...it's key. This forces teams to not overreact and spend money unreasonably.

Oakmont_4
07-06-2018, 11:04 AM
Blockbuster: trade J.Noah & K.Porzingis to Celtics for Kyrie Irving.

Then Celtics resign smart; 4yr 54mill.

BOS: Horford/Tatum/Hayward/Brown/Rozier
B: Baynes, KP, Morris, Smart
O; Noah, B.Williams, Semi, Nader

Knicks then trade Tim Hardaway Jr, R.Baker, L.Thomas(partial guarantee in 2019: 1m buyout) and 2019 top- 3 protected 1st to wolves for G.Diung & Jimmy Butler.

MIN: Towns/Gibson/Wiggins/Hardaway/Teague
B: Patton, Tolliver, Bates-Diop, Okogie, Rose, T.Jones.

NYK: Kanter/Knox/Butler/Lee/Kyrie
B: Robinson, Diung, Frank, Mudaiy, Burke

Why would BOS who's trying to compete now want KP who's out most of the season.

Why would NYK trade their most valuable player asset for Kyrie when they could just wait 1 year and sign him?

Vinylman
07-06-2018, 07:54 PM
Why would BOS who's trying to compete now want KP who's out most of the season.

Why would NYK trade their most valuable player asset for Kyrie when they could just wait 1 year and sign him?

seriously? its the Knicks... the experts at stupid moves