Miami quietly fills holes and becomes very deep.

[barefacedmonk]

14 million should cover his moving expenses (and compensate for the "broken promise")...he can move to any part of US he wishes to. Order league pass, drink some beer..enjoy your retirement in peace instead of issuing threats to any team that wants to bid for him.

[LooseCannon]

I should point out a few things here.

The Knicks picked up the option on Billups in April.  Now, they would have had to pay a buyout, so picking up the option and amnestying Billups gave them more cap room, but still....

The only time Billups could have had a no-trade clause was when he re-signed with Detroit in 2007 because you have to have eight years in the league and four years (not necessarily consecutively) with your team to have a no-trade clause.  I think that the players should have asked for a greater ability to negotiate no-trade clauses like in baseball, with the opportunity to waive the clause to permit a trade.

[Moreover]

I don't understand why Chauncey should have to play for a crappy team (or retire).

I just don't get it. It makes no sense to me.

League rules?

Why should Louis Scola have to go to New Orleans or retire?

to me the difference is that louis scola is not at the end of his career, nor is he at the end of his contract.  he likely would not be willing to give up all of the money he'd get on his contract and play on a good team instead.  billups likely would.


i think a vet like billups, on the last year of his deal, should be able to play where he wants assuming he's willing to give up all the money on the last year of his deal and sign for no more than the veteran minimum anywhere else.

Billups decided to not do that. That's what makes his attitude so bizarre.

It's not bizarre.  Chauncey didnt want to leave Denver.  He wanted to move into a front office position there and keep his family in Denver.  The only reason why he went to NY, was that he was promised a chance to end his career on a contender.  Now that he moved (due to that promise), he's likely to be sent to a junk team (the teams who have 1st pick of amnesty players).  Basically, the exact opposite of the promise he was given.


The situation with big al, rubio, scola, etc, isnt the same, because they probably didnt move their family because they were promised theyd be playing for a contender.  Thats the whole issue.

Why the heck didn't he want to move from Denver? Was he also promised by Denver that they wouldn't move him? If the only reason he moved to NY was that he was promised this or that, what would he have done if he wasn't promised anything? Refused to go to New York and opt for retirement instead? In that case, do that now.

[Moreover]

I have no problem with Scola refusing to play in New Orleans and demanding a trade.

So, taking this to its logical conclusion, when does the league contract to the 10 franchises that all the good players want to play for?  It doesn't seem like a viable NBA if every player has 100% right to hold out and force a trade to their destination of choice.

I do not see that as a logical conclusion.

Every team will be able to fill it's roster because they have money and players play for money. If the money is good enough, they'll be able to find talented players who are happy to join.

But why would any GM offer players contracts? That would be silly. If the players could sign contracts and then simply say "You know what, I don't want to play here".

The proper time for players to decide where to play is in free-agency. Or using their leverage when they're nearing and they can decide to sign or not sign extensions. Otherwise, the league would be a trainwreck, trades would be almost impossible to execute.

This is so far off the situations we are discussing. I have no idea how you ended up here but anyway ...

If one party signed a contract with no intent of ever fulfilling it, the other party could sue him for damages. And that would put an end to players doing that quick smart.

--------------------------------------------

I'd like to see teams have to have to negotiate a new contract with players once acquired via a trade. That way the player has a say in where he goes. If it's in his best interests (financially or otherwise), he'll do so. If not, he'll refuse and stay with the team he has a contract with already.

I don't like this setup of contracts being switched from one team to another. Something unsavory about it. Treating players like horses.

What Billups is doing is exactly not complying with the contract he signed. To me, it'd be like a lottery team saying to an overpaid veteran "you're not as good as you used to be and you aren't helping us to contend, so we're going to cut your salary in 90%".

-----

The system you want is similar to the one of European football. I wouldn't mind it, even though I suspect that the large majority of the NBA fan base would absolutely hate it. It'd cause competitive imbalances Americans are not used to. Well, the NBA would be similar to European basketball leagues actually. Some teams winning 95% of their games year after year. But if players want to operate under that set, they can simply decertify the union and go for it. If they don't, if they want to operate under union protection and a CBA, they need to abide to the rules they agreed upon.

[Who]

The system you want is similar to the one of European football. I wouldn't mind it, even though I suspect that the large majority of the NBA fan base would absolutely hate it. It'd cause competitive imbalances Americans are not used to. Well, the NBA would be similar to European basketball leagues actually. Some teams winning 95% of their games year after year. But if players want to operate under that set, they can simply decertify the union and go for it. If they don't, if they want to operate under union protection and a CBA, they need to abide to the rules they agreed upon.

They could offset that with a hard cap.

And in doing so create far more opportunity for player movement than they have currently. I still have no idea why the players rejected the hard cap. So long as the finances were right, it would have been a much more beneficial system for them than this current soft cap system.

[barefacedmonk]

They could offset that with a hard cap.

You mean the kind of hard cap that players were against?

[PosImpos]

WindhorstESPN Brian Windhorst
Dear NBA multimillionaires: Part of the reason you make all the money is because you can be traded anywhere at anytime. It comes with cash

[RebusRankin]

How many of us have taken jobs we didn't want but had to? Were transfered despite not wanting too? Oh and we don't make millions. All this is showing is the NBA has a ton a primadonna jerks.

[RebusRankin]

Oh and I'd love to see Cleveland put in a bid to screw Miami. Go Dan Gilbert. How much $ does Miami have left? Gilbert should bid that plus $1.

[Moreover]

The system you want is similar to the one of European football. I wouldn't mind it, even though I suspect that the large majority of the NBA fan base would absolutely hate it. It'd cause competitive imbalances Americans are not used to. Well, the NBA would be similar to European basketball leagues actually. Some teams winning 95% of their games year after year. But if players want to operate under that set, they can simply decertify the union and go for it. If they don't, if they want to operate under union protection and a CBA, they need to abide to the rules they agreed upon.

They could offset that with a hard cap.

And in doing so create far more opportunity for player movement than they have currently. I still have no idea why the players rejected the hard cap. So long as the finances were right, it would have been a much more beneficial system for them than this current soft cap system.

Because a hard-cap creates incentives for teams to not offer multi-year contracts to non-star players. The job security of the middle and lower classes would be destroyed. And job security is very valuable. The only way the players will ever accept a hard-cap is if the BRI split is raised to 70% or something. So that the higher salaries can offset the absence of job security (for the majority of the union members).

[Meadowlark_Scal]

WE should have signed Battier..he is better, more versatile, and a tougher defender than west ( from NO )....on a side note, that trade with cp3 to LA would actually have made them weaker.....trading odom AND losing GASOL...gasol, as much as i hate him...was the #2 offense..hard to defend, rebounder, dunker ( easy too ) decent defender also, get your guys in foul trouble..!

[jc3celticsphan]

WE should have signed Battier..he is better, more versatile, and a tougher defender than west ( from NO )....on a side note, that trade with cp3 to LA would actually have made them weaker.....trading odom AND losing GASOL...gasol, as much as i hate him...was the #2 offense..hard to defend, rebounder, dunker ( easy too ) decent defender also, get your guys in foul trouble..!

this team didnt need defense it needed scoring and athleticism  if we get west hes instant offense

[barefacedmonk]

Eddy Curry has officially signed a one-year deal with the Miami Heat. Curry will make the veteran's minimum. Low risk, high reward signing.

- Alex Kennedy on Twitter

[ausbacker]

Miami may be plugging holes but the Knicks are addressing issues. Stoudemire and Chandler are going to be problematic moving forward, especially if the Celtics don't put together a competent center rotation.

[YouGotRondo d]

Miami may be plugging holes but the Knicks are addressing issues. Stoudemire and Chandler are going to be problematic moving forward, especially if the Celtics don't put together a competent center rotation.

They certainly aren't the Knicks of last year.

But the Celts have a big advantage at PG.. remember what Rondo did to Toney Douglas? Chandler can't cover up that discrepancy.
And they don't have a defensive stopper to run around with Ray.

I'm more worried about Miami and our ability to protect the rim against LeBrick and DWade.