Anthony Davis traded to Lakers(page 272)

[Neurotic Guy]

As when Elway manipulated his way out of being taken by the Colts, or Kobe manipulated his way to being selected by the Lakers, or people like Shaq (AD, Kyrie, Leonard...) dump their teams to seek greener pastures, these things happen in a pro sports world that no longer treats players as indentured servants playing at the service of whoever "owns their rights". 

The cost for this freedom is (IMO) that their are unfair advantages for teams in better locations or for teams that can spend more money (baseball: NYY, Red Sox). Obviously, through good fortune and wise decisions, teams can overcome location or $$ disadvantages (Patriots, GSW, Toronto, San Antonio).   But the usual suspects (Lakers) will rise quicker and in some cases will rise even in the midst of dysfunctional management (Lakers).   

That AD can drive the train -- essentially determine where he'll play -- is (and should be) his right, but that definitely influences fairness which seems pretty important in a competitive league.  There ABSOLUTELY should be team compensation when a player blatantly manipulates his way to the team of his choice or when a player like Kyrie decides to leave  team high and dry.   If the C's knew there would be some compensation on the other end if AD were to leave after a year, they very well may have made a deal with the Pels.  Pels would also have been in a better position to drive ther price up (as they should be able to do) for their franchise player.   And the Lakers wouldn't have once again gotten the top 5 player to go along with their existing top 5 player -- who they stole from Cleveland with no compensation a year ago.  Free agency is a player's right and in the NBA the hope was that being able to pay them more would reduce team abandonment, but it's not enough.  Nets should have some mandatory compensation for the C's when they sign KI, just as the C's should have compensated Utah and Atlanta for GH and AH signings.   

[gpap]

My theory is that in addition to wanting Tatum and the MEM pick, New Orleans wanted Danny to agree to the devil's bargain that the Lakers made: giving up control of the next 4-5 years of Celtics picks.


That demand would make an AD deal untenable, regardless of whatever AD's camp is saying.  If you KNOW AD is going to re-sign, then fine.  If there's a decent chance he may leave, let alone a GOOD chance, you can't let the Pelicans have control of your draft picks for several years following next season.  That is how you cripple your franchise for a decade.

My theory: The Pelicans would've preferred to trade AD to ANY team OTHER than the Lakers and would've loved to deal him to Boston. However, if the Lakers are the only team that AD wants to get dealt to, the Pelicans were left with no choice. Thus, they bled the Lakers dry and because the Lakers are so desperate and because they didn't want to give up Kuzma, the Pelicans ended up plucking multiple picks in addition to 3...okay, 2 1/2 good young players in Ingram, Hart.......and Lonzo.

The Pelicans wanted Tatum and thus, the Celts wouldn't have had to give up as many picks. Probably Smart, Tatum, Williams and Memphis pick.

The Celts could've easily lived with that, if there was even a remote chance that unibrow piece of cow dung would re-sign in Boston.

[Roy H.]

As when Elway manipulated his way out of being taken by the Colts, or Kobe manipulated his way to being selected by the Lakers, or people like Shaq (AD, Kyrie, Leonard...) dump their teams to seek greener pastures, these things happen in a pro sports world that no longer treats players as indentured servants playing at the service of whoever "owns their rights". 

The cost for this freedom is (IMO) that their are unfair advantages for teams in better locations or for teams that can spend more money (baseball: NYY, Red Sox). Obviously, through good fortune and wise decisions, teams can overcome location or $$ disadvantages (Patriots, GSW, Toronto, San Antonio).   But the usual suspects (Lakers) will rise quicker and in some cases will rise even in the midst of dysfunctional management (Lakers).   

That AD can drive the train -- essentially determine where he'll play -- is (and should be) his right, but that definitely influences fairness which seems pretty important in a competitive league.  There ABSOLUTELY should be team compensation when a player blatantly manipulates his way to the team of his choice or when a player like Kyrie decides to leave  team high and dry.   If the C's knew there would be some compensation on the other end if AD were to leave after a year, they very well may have made a deal with the Pels.  Pels would also have been in a better position to drive ther price up (as they should be able to do) for their franchise player.   And the Lakers wouldn't have once again gotten the top 5 player to go along with their existing top 5 player -- who they stole from Cleveland with no compensation a year ago.  Free agency is a player's right and in the NBA the hope was that being able to pay them more would reduce team abandonment, but it's not enough.  Nets should have some mandatory compensation for the C's when they sign KI, just as the C's should have compensated Utah and Atlanta for GH and AH signings.

I think the idea of draft pick compensation is an interesting one.  I've liked that aspect of baseball free agency, although interestingly MLB has made their compensation less strict over time. 

One thing I disagree with:

That AD can drive the train -- essentially determine where he'll play -- is (and should be) his right

I think that free agents like Kyrie have the right -- and should have the right -- to determine where they will play.  I wouldn't have a huge issue if the NBA adopted a "franchise player" type of designation, where a team can hold on to a player for a year or two, but in general free agency is a right.

But players under contract?  They have no inherent right to force trades.  I'm not sure what a proper penalty would be, but those players are in breach of their contract and something should be done to those players and their agents.

[obnoxiousmime]

As when Elway manipulated his way out of being taken by the Colts, or Kobe manipulated his way to being selected by the Lakers, or people like Shaq (AD, Kyrie, Leonard...) dump their teams to seek greener pastures, these things happen in a pro sports world that no longer treats players as indentured servants playing at the service of whoever "owns their rights". 

The cost for this freedom is (IMO) that their are unfair advantages for teams in better locations or for teams that can spend more money (baseball: NYY, Red Sox). Obviously, through good fortune and wise decisions, teams can overcome location or $$ disadvantages (Patriots, GSW, Toronto, San Antonio).   But the usual suspects (Lakers) will rise quicker and in some cases will rise even in the midst of dysfunctional management (Lakers).   

That AD can drive the train -- essentially determine where he'll play -- is (and should be) his right, but that definitely influences fairness which seems pretty important in a competitive league.  There ABSOLUTELY should be team compensation when a player blatantly manipulates his way to the team of his choice or when a player like Kyrie decides to leave  team high and dry.   If the C's knew there would be some compensation on the other end if AD were to leave after a year, they very well may have made a deal with the Pels.  Pels would also have been in a better position to drive ther price up (as they should be able to do) for their franchise player.   And the Lakers wouldn't have once again gotten the top 5 player to go along with their existing top 5 player -- who they stole from Cleveland with no compensation a year ago.  Free agency is a player's right and in the NBA the hope was that being able to pay them more would reduce team abandonment, but it's not enough.  Nets should have some mandatory compensation for the C's when they sign KI, just as the C's should have compensated Utah and Atlanta for GH and AH signings.

I think the idea of draft pick compensation is an interesting one.  I've liked that aspect of baseball free agency, although interestingly MLB has made their compensation less strict over time. 

One thing I disagree with:

That AD can drive the train -- essentially determine where he'll play -- is (and should be) his right

I think that free agents like Kyrie have the right -- and should have the right -- to determine where they will play.  I wouldn't have a huge issue if the NBA adopted a "franchise player" type of designation, where a team can hold on to a player for a year or two, but in general free agency is a right.

But players under contract?  They have no inherent right to force trades.  I'm not sure what a proper penalty would be, but those players are in breach of their contract and something should be done to those players and their agents.

But why do teams have the right to trade a player whenever and wherever they want? Why is it OK for Blake Griffin, who in good faith signed with the Clippers long-term because he wanted to be there, then get dealt months later somewhere he never would have gone as a FA?

[Fafnir]

But why do teams have the right to trade a player whenever and wherever they want? Why is it OK for Blake Griffin, who in good faith signed with the Clippers long-term because he wanted to be there, then get dealt months later somewhere he never would have gone as a FA?

It is literally in their contracts and the CBA that their union negotiated.

Griffin could have insisted on a no trade clause.

[RodyTur10]

My theory is that in addition to wanting Tatum and the MEM pick, New Orleans wanted Danny to agree to the devil's bargain that the Lakers made: giving up control of the next 4-5 years of Celtics picks.


That demand would make an AD deal untenable, regardless of whatever AD's camp is saying.  If you KNOW AD is going to re-sign, then fine.  If there's a decent chance he may leave, let alone a GOOD chance, you can't let the Pelicans have control of your draft picks for several years following next season.  That is how you cripple your franchise for a decade.

My theory: The Pelicans would've preferred to trade AD to ANY team OTHER than the Lakers and would've loved to deal him to Boston. However, if the Lakers are the only team that AD wants to get dealt to, the Pelicans were left with no choice. Thus, they bled the Lakers dry and because the Lakers are so desperate and because they didn't want to give up Kuzma, the Pelicans ended up plucking multiple picks in addition to 3...okay, 2 1/2 good young players in Ingram, Hart.......and Lonzo.

The Pelicans wanted Tatum and thus, the Celts wouldn't have had to give up as many picks. Probably Smart, Tatum, Williams and Memphis pick.

The Celts could've easily lived with that, if there was even a remote chance that unibrow piece of cow dung would re-sign in Boston.

I think so too. The Pelicans were very high on Tatum and we're (very) likely hoping that Boston would come back with a good offer around Tatum. An offer of Smart, Tatum, Williams and Memphis pick (+ perhaps 1 pick in this draft) would have been enough.

Tatum is a perfect wingman to Zion. And the Lakers can easily be a high-level playoff team for the next 5 years now that they have Davis and make those picks pretty worthless.

[gouki88]

Seems we dodged a bullet.

[footey]

My theory is that in addition to wanting Tatum and the MEM pick, New Orleans wanted Danny to agree to the devil's bargain that the Lakers made: giving up control of the next 4-5 years of Celtics picks.


That demand would make an AD deal untenable, regardless of whatever AD's camp is saying.  If you KNOW AD is going to re-sign, then fine.  If there's a decent chance he may leave, let alone a GOOD chance, you can't let the Pelicans have control of your draft picks for several years following next season.  That is how you cripple your franchise for a decade.

My theory: The Pelicans would've preferred to trade AD to ANY team OTHER than the Lakers and would've loved to deal him to Boston. However, if the Lakers are the only team that AD wants to get dealt to, the Pelicans were left with no choice. Thus, they bled the Lakers dry and because the Lakers are so desperate and because they didn't want to give up Kuzma, the Pelicans ended up plucking multiple picks in addition to 3...okay, 2 1/2 good young players in Ingram, Hart.......and Lonzo.

The Pelicans wanted Tatum and thus, the Celts wouldn't have had to give up as many picks. Probably Smart, Tatum, Williams and Memphis pick.

The Celts could've easily lived with that, if there was even a remote chance that unibrow piece of cow dung would re-sign in Boston.

I think so too. The Pelicans were very high on Tatum and we're (very) likely hoping that Boston would come back with a good offer around Tatum. An offer of Smart, Tatum, Williams and Memphis pick (+ perhaps 1 pick in this draft) would have been enough.

Tatum is a perfect wingman to Zion. And the Lakers can easily be a high-level playoff team for the next 5 years now that they have Davis and make those picks pretty worthless.

What they said about the Nets after they got Pierce and Garnett. Careful.

[jpotter33]

Such a bummer. I guess he listened to his dad after all, the celtics not being loyal to their players and all (Isaiah Thomas, Kendrick Perkins, now Kyrie Irving).

This is such a BS argument, especially IT and Kyrie.

[mr. dee]

Is there a way to punish these entitled clowns and force them to play under contract? It's okay to pull this during the off season but not when you are still playing and can ruin locker room and team chemistry. Fine seems not to be enough. The league should fine these players 10% of their salary so that would teach them lesson.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

And KG had no interest in playing for Boston.

[Neurotic Guy]

As when Elway manipulated his way out of being taken by the Colts, or Kobe manipulated his way to being selected by the Lakers, or people like Shaq (AD, Kyrie, Leonard...) dump their teams to seek greener pastures, these things happen in a pro sports world that no longer treats players as indentured servants playing at the service of whoever "owns their rights". 

The cost for this freedom is (IMO) that their are unfair advantages for teams in better locations or for teams that can spend more money (baseball: NYY, Red Sox). Obviously, through good fortune and wise decisions, teams can overcome location or $$ disadvantages (Patriots, GSW, Toronto, San Antonio).   But the usual suspects (Lakers) will rise quicker and in some cases will rise even in the midst of dysfunctional management (Lakers).   

That AD can drive the train -- essentially determine where he'll play -- is (and should be) his right, but that definitely influences fairness which seems pretty important in a competitive league.  There ABSOLUTELY should be team compensation when a player blatantly manipulates his way to the team of his choice or when a player like Kyrie decides to leave  team high and dry.   If the C's knew there would be some compensation on the other end if AD were to leave after a year, they very well may have made a deal with the Pels.  Pels would also have been in a better position to drive ther price up (as they should be able to do) for their franchise player.   And the Lakers wouldn't have once again gotten the top 5 player to go along with their existing top 5 player -- who they stole from Cleveland with no compensation a year ago.  Free agency is a player's right and in the NBA the hope was that being able to pay them more would reduce team abandonment, but it's not enough.  Nets should have some mandatory compensation for the C's when they sign KI, just as the C's should have compensated Utah and Atlanta for GH and AH signings.

I think the idea of draft pick compensation is an interesting one.  I've liked that aspect of baseball free agency, although interestingly MLB has made their compensation less strict over time. 

One thing I disagree with:

That AD can drive the train -- essentially determine where he'll play -- is (and should be) his right

I think that free agents like Kyrie have the right -- and should have the right -- to determine where they will play.  I wouldn't have a huge issue if the NBA adopted a "franchise player" type of designation, where a team can hold on to a player for a year or two, but in general free agency is a right.

But players under contract?  They have no inherent right to force trades.  I'm not sure what a proper penalty would be, but those players are in breach of their contract and something should be done to those players and their agents.

Yeah -- good point.  Being under contract, a player should be obligated to respect the contract and the organization he works for. The only thing that that I can say is that you'd probably rather a player voice a year in advance that they want a change as opposed to springing it on a team when the contract expires -- not giving them a chance to trade.  Trading in a market in which the buying team will have compensatory assurance if the "rented" player bolts would give the seller better leverage.

[jpotter33]

Bullet....dodged.

This organization could've been crippled by that decision.  Especially if Kyrie is walking regardless.

Seems like we dodged more than one bullet. Ever since he’s hooked up with Klutch that dude hasn’t had his head on straight. Just look at his behavior throughout the trade saga. Childish.

Hell of a basketball talent, but dealing with the drama he brings along with him may not be worth it. That goes doubly for Kyrie at this point.

[RodyTur10]

Is there a way to punish these entitled clowns and force them to play under contract? It's okay to pull this during the off season but not when you are still playing and can ruin locker room and team chemistry. Fine seems not to be enough. The league should fine these players 10% of their salary so that would teach them lesson.

How about giving players a 'trade request possibility', which they can only exercise:

• once every contract (total length of contract at least 3 years)
• during the off-season
• obligation to the franchise to fulfil the trade request before the start of the new season
• 50% salary cut for the player, when obstructing a trade deal
• not viable to ask for a request, when recovering from a major injury

[SCeltic34]

Makes sense.  Correlates with Danny's refusal to include Tatum in a deal which would only yield a 1 year rental.

Pretty sure there was an article a couple years back after we traded IT that made AD question the C's organization regarding loyalty.  His dad wanted nothing to do with the C's either.