***2019 NBA OFF-SEASON***

Originally posted by Knowledge:

Nope not going to get excited Ben. Not going to do it. Nope. Not happening

More Ben Simmons draining jumpers 🔥🔥

This is really happening!#Sixers
🎥 @swishcultures_ pic.twitter.com/WwwdIrDHDq

— John Clark (@JClarkNBCS) July 25, 2019

the baseline fadeways looks like NBA contested jumpers. looks good.

the other ones, not so much

lemme see some contested catch and shoot 3s on an NBA court lol

Originally posted by 4ML:

Lol how did mark Jackson built that dynasty? Perk is high lol

"Mark Jackson built that dynasty"

MJax was running post isos for JO and Hilton Armstrong in the playoffs. FOH

Was running Dray at 3

Banned Jerry West from Practice

Not even mentioning all his behind the scenes, off court b******t

-Warriors World

Originally posted by Bluefalcon61:

Originally posted by 4ML:

First of all, one has nothing to do with the other. Kerr said - players sign on the dotted line and therefore shouldn't demand a trade. Well, the contract is signed by both parties. If it's ok for teams to break that contract and trade the player - then it is absolutely ok for players to ask for trade. Can't have it both ways.

In spirit, I'll agree with you. In practice, how is that workable? (btw, I have never seen the exact wording of an NBA contract, but I would presume there is language there that says a player can be traded unless there is a specific no trade clause. Contract language that is ratified as per their CBA.

Secondly, as far as guaranteed contracts go - there is no such rule in the NBA that forces NBA teams to hand out long term guaranteed contracts. Several players were released this summer who had contracts that were partially guaranteed.

But teams are guaranteeing contracts because they can. To entice and benefit players to sign. Oky fine, so players would rather just have non guaranteed contracts then in exchange for mobility? None of them want that.

Not following your logic here Blue. Trade=trade. Teams can trade player and player can try to force team to trade him. That's a 1-to-1 thing. Not getting how you think player demanding trades = type of contracts they sign. Those aren't related in this conversation.

Originally posted by valrod33:
settle down, no one is playing defense

lol Booker

Originally posted by DaBum:

Not following your logic here Blue. Trade=trade. Teams can trade player and player can try to force team to trade him. That's a 1-to-1 thing. Not getting how you think player demanding trades = type of contracts they sign. Those aren't related in this conversation.

It seems like apples and oranges on the surface. I argue that it is inter-related. Player movement that is initiated by the player (a trade demand) while in the middle of a contract that they signed for guaranteed money (which is the main enticement/benefit to get said player to stay with the team long term).



NBA teams trade players all the time. NBA players demand to be traded often. That's not new. But if we're advocating that a player should have a right to initiate a trade at any time, then what does that really mean? To me, it means that there would have to be a mechanism or contract language in place for a team to honor that trade request even if the team did not wish to do so. But why would a team agree to that? Especially when the value of an NBA contract is guaranteed money?

If these were NFL contracts, then that's different.


Team: So Steph, we want to sign you to a super max deal of 5 years for $240M. All guaranteed.

Steph: Cool! I would like a trade demand clause where I can ask to be traded - lets says starting in year 2. Oh, and that also means, I get a no trade clause too. Okay?

Team: Wait. What?

Originally posted by TheSixthRing:

Originally posted by valrod33:
settle down, no one is playing defense

lol Booker

lol

Originally posted by Bluefalcon61:

Originally posted by 4ML:

First of all, one has nothing to do with the other. Kerr said - players sign on the dotted line and therefore shouldn't demand a trade. Well, the contract is signed by both parties. If it's ok for teams to break that contract and trade the player - then it is absolutely ok for players to ask for trade. Can't have it both ways.

In spirit, I'll agree with you. In practice, how is that workable? (btw, I have never seen the exact wording of an NBA contract, but I would presume there is language there that says a player can be traded unless there is a specific no trade clause. Contract language that is ratified as per their CBA.

Secondly, as far as guaranteed contracts go - there is no such rule in the NBA that forces NBA teams to hand out long term guaranteed contracts. Several players were released this summer who had contracts that were partially guaranteed.

But teams are guaranteeing contracts because they can. To entice and benefit players to sign. Oky fine, so players would rather just have non guaranteed contracts then in exchange for mobility? None of them want that.

Nope...I didn't say that. Again, one has nothing to do with the other. Players see that teams trade them when it's best for them - so now in situations where players have power - they're doing what's best for them.

They're not saying - trade me or I won't show up. So, they're still honoring their guaranteed contract.

I just don't see what's wrong with player saying - look I won't be re-signing with you - so, you better trade me if you want something in return. They're not saying - trade me or I'm not playing.

Don't see how guaranteed contract has anything to do with this. Guaranteed contracts are in place so NBA players agree to smaller share of the revenue. They're not in place to limit their mobility.

Originally posted by 4ML:

Nope...I didn't say that. Again, one has nothing to do with the other. Players see that teams trade them when it's best for them - so now in situations where players have power - they're doing what's best for them.

They're not saying - trade me or I won't show up. So, they're still honoring their guaranteed contract.

I just don't see what's wrong with player saying - look I won't be re-signing with you - so, you better trade me if you want something in return. They're not saying - trade me or I'm not playing.

Don't see how guaranteed contract has anything to do with this. Guaranteed contracts are in place so NBA players agree to smaller share of the revenue. They're not in place to limit their mobility.

I dont know. This is still a team sport. Teams making trades for the best of the team should still take a bit more importance over a player's individual desire. Even in a players league like the NBA. If you follow a player or players instead of a team, I can see why that wouldn't matter.

A player making a very public trade demand like AD did has negative effects, regardless of him saying he'll show up for work. Cascading effects as we saw initially with New Orleans. (though in the end it worked out well enough for NOP, you cant expect the same result to be the norm). It's like a disgruntled employee showing up for work. He's there, but he's not really there.

I thought the current salary structure of the NBA was designed with the intent to enable teams (ie small market teams) to keep their own players (financial incentive to dissuade the desire to move). But we all see its not working that way at all for various unintended reasons.

Originally posted by Bluefalcon61:

I dont know. This is still a team sport. Teams making trades for the best of the team should still take a bit more importance over a player's individual desire. Even in a players league like the NBA. If you follow a player or players instead of a team, I can see why that wouldn't matter.

A player making a very public trade demand like AD did has negative effects, regardless of him saying he'll show up for work. Cascading effects as we saw initially with New Orleans. (though in the end it worked out well enough for NOP, you cant expect the same result to be the norm). It's like a disgruntled employee showing up for work. He's there, but he's not really there.

I thought the current salary structure of the NBA was designed with the intent to enable teams (ie small market teams) to keep their own players (financial incentive to dissuade the desire to move). But we all see its not working that way at all for various unintended reasons.

It has nothing to do with following player or team. It's about not having a double standard.

I do agree that making a trade demand public is not right and they were fined. But, we also know Demps was trying to play games and at that point AD made the demand public.

I also agree that it is a team sport and teams are "supposed" to do what's best for the team but many owners don't (they do what's best for business) and hire/keep incompetent front office staff. Pels also had terrible training staff. AD played 6 years with Pels, why does he need to waste another 2 years of his career?

And, I completely disagree that it is like disgruntled employee. Kawhi didn't want to be in Toronto and we saw what he did in the playoffs. Pels reduced AD's minutes but his production per minute was as great as ever.

Lastly, where was this energy when Kyrie demanded trade 2 years ago lol. He did the exact same thing as AD. Then it was Lebron's fault and Kyrie was taking control of his career. This is how I know Kerr is full of it on this issue. He's usually right on most things but he's bsing here.

Originally posted by Bluefalcon61:

Originally posted by 4ML:

Nope...I didn't say that. Again, one has nothing to do with the other. Players see that teams trade them when it's best for them - so now in situations where players have power - they're doing what's best for them.

They're not saying - trade me or I won't show up. So, they're still honoring their guaranteed contract.

I just don't see what's wrong with player saying - look I won't be re-signing with you - so, you better trade me if you want something in return. They're not saying - trade me or I'm not playing.

Don't see how guaranteed contract has anything to do with this. Guaranteed contracts are in place so NBA players agree to smaller share of the revenue. They're not in place to limit their mobility.

I dont know. This is still a team sport. Teams making trades for the best of the team should still take a bit more importance over a player's individual desire. Even in a players league like the NBA. If you follow a player or players instead of a team, I can see why that wouldn't matter.

A player making a very public trade demand like AD did has negative effects, regardless of him saying he'll show up for work. Cascading effects as we saw initially with New Orleans. (though in the end it worked out well enough for NOP, you cant expect the same result to be the norm). It's like a disgruntled employee showing up for work. He's there, but he's not really there.

I thought the current salary structure of the NBA was designed with the intent to enable teams (ie small market teams) to keep their own players (financial incentive to dissuade the desire to move). But we all see its not working that way at all for various unintended reasons.

I agree with Blue in principle on this. I think the power of the player is dangerous, as teams create entire rosters and systems around certain players. And if they leave that's years of scouting planning etc (if you're a good org) that is thrown away. It's potentially crippling to a franchise and I think players should honor contracts.

I also think this is a very special situation. AD gave 7 solid years, which is more than half of most careers to the franchise. And had enough. Who knows what was also going on behind the scenes, this isn't a case where he played 2 year of a 5 year contract and goes "I'm out". He could have been promised many things upon signing contract and none of them played out, which seems probable considering demps getting canned mid season.

Then you have a situation like derozan. First guy in the history of...Canada to commit there (even though he isn't that good) with a huge contract, maybe has family wanted to call Toronto his home, all in and boom he's gone. They got a ship out of it but that's not really the point. That's chicken s**t imo, so it goes both ways.

If you make players play out their contract, you'd have to ask teams to do the same and that's a scary precedent. It's a tough one.

Can someone post the tweet/pic of the over under totals in here

https://www.instagram.com/p/B0Ws0IJlBSa/?igshid=1semazjtjznej

Originally posted by DynastyChile:

Can someone post the tweet/pic of the over under totals in here

https://www.instagram.com/p/B0Ws0IJlBSa/?igshid=1semazjtjznej

Only cause you are the man!

Here

Originally posted by 49erWill:

Originally posted by DynastyChile:

Can someone post the tweet/pic of the over under totals in here

https://www.instagram.com/p/B0Ws0IJlBSa/?igshid=1semazjtjznej

Only cause you are the man!

Here

Originally posted by DynastyChile:

Originally posted by 49erWill:

Originally posted by DynastyChile:

Can someone post the tweet/pic of the over under totals in here

https://www.instagram.com/p/B0Ws0IJlBSa/?igshid=1semazjtjznej

Only cause you are the man!

Here

Don't forget the halo tickets you promised me. Oh and the "other" things.....

Kings over seems like a lock. But the kings are cursed so tough to bet on them.

Rockets over for sure. Westbrook and Harden are regular season heroes, 2nd round exit bound.

Wolves under. Just as a rule