Steve Kerr: AD's trade request "bad for the league"

[ederson]

Perhaps it's time for teams to have reverse trade kickers. Here's a max deal. Get traded? Your salary drops by $10M.

I haven't given this a good thought but it sounds good

[Moranis]

So the man who adds the 2nd best player in the league after finishing a season 73-9 is complaining about things that are bad for the league and that wasn't it.  Give me a break.  What a hypocrite. 

And here's the thing, Kerr is just wrong.  AD honored his contract.  He didn't sit out.  He never refused to play.  Apparently Kerr thinks it would have been better if Davis just played out his contract and left the Pelicans with nothing.  How is that better for the league.  At least now, the Lakers gave up real assets and the Pelicans got a real chance at starting over. 

So to recap, Kerr thinks it is better for the league for a small market to be left with nothing all while being cool with adding a MVP to the best regular season team in history for basically nothing.  What a piece of work.

I totally agree that Kerr signing Durant was a cheap move, but I don't see how it's in any way relevant to the issue that he raised here?

From what I can see the issue Kerr has is that he feels once a player signs a contract, he is bound by that contract, and he should commit to it.  If you aren't willing to commit to a place for four long years, then don't sign on the dotted line and agree to take their money. 

It's a business contract, and at the end of the day this type of thing wouldn't fly in any other industry. In no other industry can you sign a 3 year contract for a set amount of money and then after two years say "nope, I changed my mind, I want out of this contract now".  Unless you can argue that the other party has breached their side of the agreement, or are willing to pay some form of agreed exit fee, that just doesn't happen. 

So why is it allowed for an NBA player to decide before their contract ends, that they don't want to be there anymore, and are going to DEMAND their team to trade them elsewhere?

His argument is that the KD scenario (regardless of what you think of it) is entirely different because KD was a free agent (and hence had no contractual obligations) and Golden State had the available cap space to sign him - and hence there were no contracts breached or rules broken, even if the deal was (in the eyes of many) distasteful.

I think it's kind of hard to argue against that.

And while it's technically true that players who demand trades aren't breaking any rules and can't actually FORCE a team to trade them - in a sense they kind of can, because coming out with public trade demands (especially when you are trying to demand WHERE you want to go) can utterly destroy a team's locker room and can also completely destroy any ability that team might have to get fair market value for the player demanding the trade. 

And while it's true that teams have the ability to trade players, players (under certain circumstances) have the ability to avoid that possibility by requesting a no-trade clause to ensure that can't happen.  A team as far as I am aware cannot add a "no trade demand" clause to afford themselves the same type of protection .

That isn't true at all.  Business contracts are renegotiated every single day across all types of business.  You out perform, you ask for more.  You underperform, they ask for less.  That is how the world works.  Sports are only different in that they can trade you. 

[Moranis]

Perhaps it's time for teams to have reverse trade kickers. Here's a max deal. Get traded? Your salary drops by $10M.

I can see that, when a player asks for a trade in the middle of his contract, that is a breach of contract. What you do is put a liquidated damages clause into the contract so that when the player engages in this breach he has to pay the liquidated damages provided for in the contract.

Again, asking for a trade is not a breach of contract. 

[dannyboy35]

I love it.  I think players should do whatever they think is in their best interest.  Teams do the same thing.  Fans are just along for the ride and always have been.  The way things were before where players were mostly stuck playing wherever they got drafted sucked.

Funny you think the old days sucked when almost every casual fan thinks the NBA is arguably the worst it’s ever been.

The notion that a contract is a one-way street (that a player deserves every cent he signs for, regardless of production, yet has the right to say he no longer wants to play for said team) is also laughable.

Simple solution is make contracts non-guaranteed. Players union is all for players dictating where they want to go. That’s great. But let owners get out from underneath terrible contracts or guys with bad injuries. Bradley Beal can demand a trade, but that same owner can’t void John Wall’s contract.

The NBA has become a joke ever since LeBron went to the Heat.

   The problem is only the super teams hook the vast amount of people that would usually watch some heinous sitcom like “ Friends”  with a laugh track telling them what’s funny or CSI North Da
Kota.

[Muzzy66]

So the man who adds the 2nd best player in the league after finishing a season 73-9 is complaining about things that are bad for the league and that wasn't it.  Give me a break.  What a hypocrite. 

And here's the thing, Kerr is just wrong.  AD honored his contract.  He didn't sit out.  He never refused to play.  Apparently Kerr thinks it would have been better if Davis just played out his contract and left the Pelicans with nothing.  How is that better for the league.  At least now, the Lakers gave up real assets and the Pelicans got a real chance at starting over. 

So to recap, Kerr thinks it is better for the league for a small market to be left with nothing all while being cool with adding a MVP to the best regular season team in history for basically nothing.  What a piece of work.

I totally agree that Kerr signing Durant was a cheap move, but I don't see how it's in any way relevant to the issue that he raised here?

From what I can see the issue Kerr has is that he feels once a player signs a contract, he is bound by that contract, and he should commit to it.  If you aren't willing to commit to a place for four long years, then don't sign on the dotted line and agree to take their money. 

It's a business contract, and at the end of the day this type of thing wouldn't fly in any other industry. In no other industry can you sign a 3 year contract for a set amount of money and then after two years say "nope, I changed my mind, I want out of this contract now".  Unless you can argue that the other party has breached their side of the agreement, or are willing to pay some form of agreed exit fee, that just doesn't happen. 

So why is it allowed for an NBA player to decide before their contract ends, that they don't want to be there anymore, and are going to DEMAND their team to trade them elsewhere?

His argument is that the KD scenario (regardless of what you think of it) is entirely different because KD was a free agent (and hence had no contractual obligations) and Golden State had the available cap space to sign him - and hence there were no contracts breached or rules broken, even if the deal was (in the eyes of many) distasteful.

I think it's kind of hard to argue against that.

And while it's technically true that players who demand trades aren't breaking any rules and can't actually FORCE a team to trade them - in a sense they kind of can, because coming out with public trade demands (especially when you are trying to demand WHERE you want to go) can utterly destroy a team's locker room and can also completely destroy any ability that team might have to get fair market value for the player demanding the trade. 

And while it's true that teams have the ability to trade players, players (under certain circumstances) have the ability to avoid that possibility by requesting a no-trade clause to ensure that can't happen.  A team as far as I am aware cannot add a "no trade demand" clause to afford themselves the same type of protection .

That isn't true at all.  Business contracts are renegotiated every single day across all types of business.  You out perform, you ask for more.  You underperform, they ask for less.  That is how the world works.  Sports are only different in that they can trade you.

This is not a contract renegotiation though. This is a person telling his employer:

"I dont want work for you anymore, I want to go off and work for one of your competitors so I can work with my friend.  I don't care what my contract says, I want to you set me free.  And if you don't let me go then I will go out and publically leak a whole bunch of information that is going to put you in an extremely bad position to negotiate moving forward, so you really have no choice but to let me go."

It's dangerously close to extortion. 

I don't know - everybody has the right to their own opinions of course, and I respect your opinion on it, but personally I don't like it.  I don't think it's good for the sport at all. 

If you have 30 teams in the league and the top 12 players all decided to team up in groups of three, then you end up with the top 12 players in the league spread across 4 teams, while the next 26 teams are left scrambling desperately for scraps.

Of course it's still possible for scenarios like this to happen WITHOUT players making trade demands, but when you give players that ability and that level of control it only opens up more avenues for moves like this to be made.  Before you'd need to think about when you are coming off your contract, think about what teams out there will have cap space, hope they are able to find a bunch of deals in order to clear enough space to sign you up, then do a bunch or wheeling and dealing (and oftren compromise and sacrifice) if you wanted to go around forging dynasties.   Now you simply look for a team that has one or two superstars already in place, demand a trade there, and BAM - instant gravy, and there's nothing anybody else can do about it.  I don't much like that. 

For some time now I have been hoping for something to have a rule put in place that limits teams from being able to have more then maybe 2 superstars on a roster.  Somebody suggested only allow two or three contracts over $25M on a team at one time, with the only exception bring guys that the team has drafted themselves -  I think something like that would work well. 

[Moranis]

So the man who adds the 2nd best player in the league after finishing a season 73-9 is complaining about things that are bad for the league and that wasn't it.  Give me a break.  What a hypocrite. 

And here's the thing, Kerr is just wrong.  AD honored his contract.  He didn't sit out.  He never refused to play.  Apparently Kerr thinks it would have been better if Davis just played out his contract and left the Pelicans with nothing.  How is that better for the league.  At least now, the Lakers gave up real assets and the Pelicans got a real chance at starting over. 

So to recap, Kerr thinks it is better for the league for a small market to be left with nothing all while being cool with adding a MVP to the best regular season team in history for basically nothing.  What a piece of work.

I totally agree that Kerr signing Durant was a cheap move, but I don't see how it's in any way relevant to the issue that he raised here?

From what I can see the issue Kerr has is that he feels once a player signs a contract, he is bound by that contract, and he should commit to it.  If you aren't willing to commit to a place for four long years, then don't sign on the dotted line and agree to take their money. 

It's a business contract, and at the end of the day this type of thing wouldn't fly in any other industry. In no other industry can you sign a 3 year contract for a set amount of money and then after two years say "nope, I changed my mind, I want out of this contract now".  Unless you can argue that the other party has breached their side of the agreement, or are willing to pay some form of agreed exit fee, that just doesn't happen. 

So why is it allowed for an NBA player to decide before their contract ends, that they don't want to be there anymore, and are going to DEMAND their team to trade them elsewhere?

His argument is that the KD scenario (regardless of what you think of it) is entirely different because KD was a free agent (and hence had no contractual obligations) and Golden State had the available cap space to sign him - and hence there were no contracts breached or rules broken, even if the deal was (in the eyes of many) distasteful.

I think it's kind of hard to argue against that.

And while it's technically true that players who demand trades aren't breaking any rules and can't actually FORCE a team to trade them - in a sense they kind of can, because coming out with public trade demands (especially when you are trying to demand WHERE you want to go) can utterly destroy a team's locker room and can also completely destroy any ability that team might have to get fair market value for the player demanding the trade. 

And while it's true that teams have the ability to trade players, players (under certain circumstances) have the ability to avoid that possibility by requesting a no-trade clause to ensure that can't happen.  A team as far as I am aware cannot add a "no trade demand" clause to afford themselves the same type of protection .

That isn't true at all.  Business contracts are renegotiated every single day across all types of business.  You out perform, you ask for more.  You underperform, they ask for less.  That is how the world works.  Sports are only different in that they can trade you.

This is not a contract renegotiation though. This is a person telling his employer:

"I dont want work for you anymore, I want to go off and work for one of your competitors so I can work with my friend.  I don't care what my contract says, I want to you set me free.  And if you don't let me go then I will go out and publically leak a whole bunch of information that is going to put you in an extremely bad position to negotiate moving forward, so you really have no choice but to let me go."

It's dangerously close to extortion. 

I don't know - everybody has the right to their own opinions of course, and I respect your opinion on it, but personally I don't like it.  I don't think it's good for the sport at all. 

If you have 30 teams in the league and the top 12 players all decided to team up in groups of three, then you end up with the top 12 players in the league spread across 4 teams, while the next 26 teams are left scrambling desperately for scraps.

Of course it's still possible for scenarios like this to happen WITHOUT players making trade demands, but when you give players that ability and that level of control it only opens up more avenues for moves like this to be made.  Before you'd need to think about when you are coming off your contract, think about what teams out there will have cap space, hope they are able to find a bunch of deals in order to clear enough space to sign you up, then do a bunch or wheeling and dealing (and oftren compromise and sacrifice) if you wanted to go around forging dynasties.   Now you simply look for a team that has one or two superstars already in place, demand a trade there, and BAM - instant gravy, and there's nothing anybody else can do about it.  I don't much like that. 

For some time now I have been hoping for something to have a rule put in place that limits teams from being able to have more then maybe 2 superstars on a roster.  Somebody suggested only allow two or three contracts over $25M on a team at one time, with the only exception bring guys that the team has drafted themselves -  I think something like that would work well.

I do contract law for a living, people with contracts ask for renegotiations all of the time.  People with employment contracts ask to be let out of them all of the time also.  Neither of those is a breach of that contract.  Not performing is a breach and the only way a player can not perform is if they don't show up (or if they are intentionally dogging it) and in those situations there are clear damages i.e. fines to account for them.

I have no problem with people thinking it is bad for the league when players ask to be traded, especially publically doing so (which the league has deemed to be against the rules), but it quite simply is not a breach of contract.  And as I said earlier, I think the thing that is far worse for the league is a player knowing he is going to leave, doesn't say anything, and then just leaves his team high and dry.