Reply With Quote
I've been upgraded? I'll have to change my avatar to match:
No it's not. But they wouldn't have to pay him anything, technically.
I've been upgraded? I'll have to change my avatar to match:
I thought they had some kind of gentleman's agreement. What I mean is, how can they get rid of him and keep their reputation intact.
Give him his $2 Million and release him. Or paint it like he really didn't want to be a Spur and they gave him his wish by renouncing him.
LJC does not impress me, if only Stokes were at least 3 inches taller.
Very classy! Go for it!I've been upgraded? I'll have to change my avatar to match:
I want McCaw
The Spurs could/should sign LJC to a contract.
Then the Spurs could waive LJC. Assuming no other team claims LJC, then the Spurs pay out the contract as part of the cap, but opens a roster spot.
Would the Spurs do that? Yes.
Special example: Tim Duncan. Like Duncan, the Spurs could be paying LJC next year not to play.
Normal examples: Rasul Butler, Ray McCallum, Austin Daye.
When: Not now. It's summer and the Spurs can have 20 players.
I predict LJC gets to stay on the Spurs at least till the beginning of the season.
Actually, you're right. That roster spot seemed a lot more important a couple of weeks ago.
I mean, the Spurs have two open roster spots with LJC on the team. There really isn't a numbers crunch to make the squad for front-court players right now.
I want to bet real money that ljc will be on the 15 man roster. It's a lock. Next year too.
All this talk of waiving him, they aren't going to waive him after several years of waiting. Six summer league games? Summer league sucks for bigs. They don't get touches. You are going to waive ljc after six games?
If cady out plays ljc then we may have an issue. But I'm not counting on that.
Have you noticed that dedmon only got a year contact? They know he might leave.
Young bigs on cheap contracts are good! Ayres was good but he was getting too old.
LJC looked like a real find based on his play in the Nike Hoops game. It's like some alien has since possessed his body turning him into an indifferent crappy player.
More like an alien abducted his knee (which is what happened).
It's really not luck anymore. They draft really well. It has to be Jerry West... Someone there knows talent when they see it.
It was an ACL. That shouldn't be an issue 2 years later. Best case scenario for an explanation was he had ty development under Parker's Asvel club and his confidence got totally drained.
He looked like last year too.
This right here. The Spurs would be smart to start developing some of these kids in Austin over Europe. Especially ASVEL. I wish we would have developed Milutinov in Austin over Europe. Get an NBA game.
If he isn't signed they can renounce him.
He might have gained leverage when they signed Manu and obliterated the capspace, and Dedmon's signing. My understanding is that now if they renounce they don't get his 100% caphold but minimum salary. Not a difference if they sign a vet, for instance. But if they had wanted to give a little more than minimum to a Euro or hot summer league commodity it might have been useful. So renouncing him doesn't get the Spurs anything and there's empty roster spots for him anyway.
But if he wants to play hardball they can throw right back. They can decline to contribute to any buyout if he has one.
^^ Brought a smile to my face. Thanks.I've been upgraded? I'll have to change my avatar to match:
Thanks you. This post sums up pretty well what I was explaining. Is it easy to break a contract? No. Can it be protracted? Yes. Could it be onerous? You bet. Can it be done? Absolutely.
And the penalty would be, as you say, terribly small compared to a buyout. Once this situation arises where the player doesn't want to play anymore for a particular team, the most common scenario isn't going straight to court, it's player and team getting together an trying to find an amount that will let him buy himself out of that deal (buyout amounts can be renegotiated at this point as well). When you're at that point though, it's basically the team trying to recover losses. And at that point, as you also point out, the team really doesn't want to go to court, because their remedies would pale in comparison to the value they could get otherwise. But they absolutely could and likely will, if they can't negotiate anything better, because something is better than nothing.
Venue does matter, as you point out. Contract law generally is pretty similar among countries, but there are nuances depending on country. For example, Spain is a special case for insolvency. They don't allow automatic contract termination in that case. That's because the spanish want to give their companies an opportunity to retain assets, either to come out of bankruptcy or to pay off lenders. In the US, you might have to go through binding arbitration instead of a court, to reduce costs. But the net effect after all of this is concluded, is that the contract is over, and the player is free.
But contract law is long and winded, and has those nuances, and there's plenty of sources to read up on it, and that's a rabbit hole I don't want to get into, because...
Exactly. In an attempt to teach somebody that clearly didn't know what he was talking about, I overdid it. And that's completely my fault.
But I'm gonna do it one more time, because I think it's interesting and there's more than one people reading this. Unlike it was asserted previously in this thread, suspended players contracts in the NBA count fully against the team cap for purposes of acquiring new talent.
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q14 on team salaries:
For certain purposes, 50% of salary not paid to players who were suspended by the league is excluded. For example, if a player with a $10 million salary is suspended by the league for exactly half the season, then he loses $5 million, and 50% of this amount, or $2.5 million, is excluded from certain calculations including escrow and luxury tax. The team does not receive extra cap room which it can use to sign another player.
So the Spurs would sit out a disgruntled player for 3 years, not pay him, take a combined $60m hit to their capspace over 3 years for a player that doesn't play, and then let him walk for free, to "punish" him?. That's the "logical" argument here?
What one would suspect happens, which does happen all the time, is the team trying to talk them out of it, and failing that, move on to recovering anything they can from that. IE: look for a trade and restart the process (Rockets on the Royce White case). Failing that, sitting down, either on friendly terms or arbitration, and come to an agreement to conclude the contract.
So those that didn't know and wanted to learn, hopefully they did. Those that don't, well, that's not really my problem.
This is what Chinook is kind of saying. When he was drafted he had shown potential, but it's like he hibernated. The season before this last one he barely played. Basically between the injury and the season he barely played, those were two years of his development as a player that went
Lol, completely ignore the parts where K... said FIBA would bar you. No one was talking about whether a player could unilaterally quit basketball. That's what retirement is. Again, trying to ride technicalities.
Again, FIBA's already on your idea that players can just up and leave. And until you show an actual precedent that an international court has ruled that an Association like FIBA or the NBA can't impose such rules to force players to honor their contracts, you're just saying nothing. This whole, "Obviously you don't know contract law" argument is weak.
More garbage.
Ricky Rubio is suing Badalona
The rising star of spanish basketball, Ricky Rubio is suing the club of Badalona asking for the buy-out clause of his contract to be reduced.
http://www.sportando.com/en/europe/s...-badalona.html
I believe Rubio is having a fruitful (at least monetarily) career both in the NBA and FIBA.
Yeah, because some other Euro team paid $5 Million to buy him out of his deal (and then allowed him to leave for $1.4 Million two years later, which has to the worst financial decision I could imagine). In the NBA, the buyout would have mostly come out of his pocket.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Rubio
Rubio was getting paid about $200k a year with that first team. In no way was them getting $5 Million for his contract them "recouping assets". They made a killing off him, and I would imagine that that was one of the largest buyouts ever, especially between European clubs. If that doesn't show the leverage teams have, nothing does.ESPN reported that his original buyout with Joventut was €5.7 million ($8.1 million) in both 2009 and 2010.[6] Barça bought out Rubio's contract for €3.5 million ($5.0 million), and announced on September 1 that he had signed a six-year deal with the club. The contract gave him the option to go to the NBA after the 2010–11 season,[18] with ESPN reporting that the buyout at that time would be a more manageable $1.4 million (of which the Timberwolves could pay $500,000).[5]
Better luck in your next attempt to find any evidence for your point.
So you were wrong and FIBA didn't bar him for suing his team over a contractual dispute, correct?
And absolutely it's "recouping damages". They wouldn't get 1% of that on a court of law over that dispute. I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but buyout clauses in Europe are huge because once the player wants to leave, it's inevitable. So the question then becomes how much money the team can get out of losing that talent. It's not uncommon at all that buyout clauses exceed contract value by many factors. It's the team "insurance" if you will over losing top talent.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions