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

[KGs Knee]

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. 

[GreenEnvy]

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.

[Ogaju]

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.

superstar contracts in the NBA have become contracts of illusion. Just a piece of paper that is only good until it isnt. Those are not considered contracts at all.

[Moranis]

I think what I would say is that if the star players feel as though they shouldnt have to play out a multi-year deal with a team they don't want to be on, then the teams should be able to cut players who are hurt or underperforming without taking a cap hit or having to pay the remainder.


Can't have it both ways. You want the security of multiple years guaranteed, you can't expect to have the freedom to insist that the team send you somewhere that you like better when there are multiple years remaining on your deal.

Asking for a trade is not the same thing as not playing out a contract.  Davis absolutely would have played out his contract.  Heck he wanted to play last year it was the Pelicans that shut him down.

The actions of his agent suggest something different.

Also -- "That's all folks!"


This is a player who checked out and made it known that he was not really on the team anymore even if technically he still was.

The actions of the agent don't suggest that Davis wasn't going to play.  In fact he played after the demand and would have played more.  The team shut him down to protect their asset. 

As for the shirt it was the last day of the season and Davis knew he was going to be traded.  I have no doubt that if the Pelicans would have kept him, he would have played out his contract and then left as a free agent.

[GreenlyGreeny]

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 union will never again agree to non-guaranteed contracts.

I propose making a rule that a team cannot ever have more than two players earning more than $25 million/year with the only exceptions being grandfathered contracts and players who were drafted by the team and received extensions in excess. This will encourage smart drafting since there would be no other way to achieve a Big 3.

[PhoSita]

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.

superstar contracts in the NBA have become contracts of illusion. Just a piece of paper that is only good until it isnt. Those are not considered contracts at all.

EXCEPT if the star player suffers a major injury, in which case the team is on the hook and can't get off the deal without major cap penalties.

That's the imbalance.

[Ogaju]

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.

superstar contracts in the NBA have become contracts of illusion. Just a piece of paper that is only good until it isnt. Those are not considered contracts at all.

EXCEPT if the star player suffers a major injury, in which case the team is on the hook and can't get off the deal without major cap penalties.

That's the imbalance.

well my point is teams can actually move to void the contract in that situation by arguing that there was never really a contract because the injured player could have demanded a trade at anytime and refused to honor his bargain hence the argument that the contract was always illusory. 'One party not bound  = both parties not bound'. Teams are too chicken to take that stand.

[Moranis]

I'm still confused as to the notion in this thread that players aren't honoring their contracts.  The only even remotely questionable one is Kawhi Leonard and given he still looked hurt at various times for the Raptors, I'm going to just assume he was actually injured. 

[MaxAMillion]

Oh please...teams can trade players but players can’t ask to be traded? Teams can trade players who give their all and get injured
(like IT) but players have to always stay with the team when they are under contract? What Kerr wants is the same thing as most fans. Organizations have the power and players just go along like rented mules. Sorry, players finally wised up and realized they have power they can use. Should have happened a long time ago.

Kerr should focus on the lack of respect they showed Durant after winning the title when they claimed Durant wasn’t worth the big contract like Curry.

[PhoSita]

Oh please...teams can trade players but players can’t ask to be traded? Teams can trade players who give their all and get injured
(like IT) but players have to always stay with the team when they are under contract?

Yeah, that's kind of how contracts work.  That's how the CBA, which the players agreed to, is designed.

That's how this whole thing has worked for decades.


If the players want to radically change it, they can address that at the next CBA negotiation.  My guess is that if the players want to have the ability to control whether they are traded, or force their way off of teams they don't want to be on, they're going to have to make major concessions elsewhere.

[Moranis]

Oh please...teams can trade players but players can’t ask to be traded? Teams can trade players who give their all and get injured
(like IT) but players have to always stay with the team when they are under contract?

Yeah, that's kind of how contracts work.  That's how the CBA, which the players agreed to, is designed.

That's how this whole thing has worked for decades.


If the players want to radically change it, they can address that at the next CBA negotiation.  My guess is that if the players want to have the ability to control whether they are traded, or force their way off of teams they don't want to be on, they're going to have to make major concessions elsewhere.

that just isn't correct.  Contracts are for services.  They are signed by the team and the player to play on the team.  Trades are permitted, but so is asking for a trade.  A team doesn't have to trade any player.  The team can quite simply let the player play out his contract and leave.  Of course, that is stupid because they end up with nothing. 

And I ask again, which players haven't honored their contracts?

[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 .

[Ogaju]

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 .

The players also have the unfair advantage that most courts will not order specific performance of a personal service contract, and if the team does the alternative and sues for damages it ruins its reputation with the limited pool of free agents by getting blacklisted.

That is why I penned the post that NBA contracts for  the superstars have become contracts of illusion. The players are really not bound.

[byennie]

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

[Ogaju]

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.