Official 2016 Summer League Thread

[raybies]

Season	G	GS	MPG	FG%	3P%	FT%	OFF	DEF	RPG	APG	SPG	BPG	TO	PF	PPG
2016 LAL	3	3	25.3	0.308	0.000	0.667	2	13	5.0	1.0	0.3	0.7	1.67	0.33	8.7

Date	Opponent	Result	MIN	FGM-A	3PM-A	FTM-A	OFF	DEF	REB	AST	STL	BLK	TO	PF	PTS
Jul 11	at GSW	W 78-65	22	0-5	0-1	7-9	1	6	7	1	0	0	1	0	7
Jul 09	at PHI	W 70-69	28	3-12	0-3	1-2	0	4	4	1	0	0	3	1	7
Jul 08	vs NOP	W 85-65	25	5-9	0-2	2-4	1	3	4	1	1	2	1	0	12

Brandon Ingram

[Chinook]

What the dude, who said anything about signing?

Not you. Hence why you don't have any evidence for your argument. Anti-tampering laws are meaningless to the discussion. You can talk all you want, but you can't force a team to let you go.

I said from the get go that in Europe you can pay a full buyout clause and then you get to sign the player.

You don't get how illogical your assertion is. If the player could just get out of his contract, THEN YOU WOULDN'T have to pay a buyout at all. Like why would Bismack and Charlotte give Fuenlabrada a million and a half bucks in 2011 if Bismack would have just quit and signed with Charlotte anyway? It's not just to be nice.

A contract is a mutual agreement

Yes, it's mutual to get into AND OUT OF.

"A contract between a professional and a club may only be terminatedupon expiry of the term of the contract or by mutual agreement."

From that same FIBA release I posted earlier. Can a team release the player who doesn't show up to work? Yes. But they don't have to, and they don't have to pay them. You're acting as if there aren't international rules specifically about these sorts of things. I imagine non-FIBA teams can sign whoever they want, but those aren't the teams with money or really any recognition.

That's *why* there's buyouts.

They are buyouts because players want them. They're just like options. And yes, there are buyouts that are only allowed for NBA teams. If your line of reasoning were true, then such a provision would be completely useless.

[Chinook]

Why do you think we even need anti-tampering if nobody can't get out of their contracts? That is the whole point of anti-tampering.

EDIT: well, except for trades, but players can force a trade anyways.

Nope. Teams can get head starts on recruiting players with no anti-tampering laws in effect. Like what happened with GS and Durant. The stink about the tampering accusations had nothing to do with the idea that Durant by quit mid-season to join the Warriors. It had everything to do with him being recruited when he was still property of another team. FIBA doesn't have that specific exclusion, but it does have the ability to block contracts as they see fit. Hence what it told the NBAers in China during the lockout. The NBA and most leagues are part of FIBA, so they have to follow those edicts. If LJC tried to just quit and go play for another team, FIBA would just tell him to sit his ass down. They've done it before. Buyouts are there to allow player movement, in the same way options and free agency are there. They aren't there because teams are desperate to recoup anything they can.

[ElNono]

No. If Kawhi went up to the Spurs and told them he was going to Real Madrid, Pop would roll his eyes and say, "Not for at least three years you aren't." And if the Spurs don't want it to happen, that's the end of the conversation. Kawhi would sit out, get no money, the Spurs would get their cap space back, and that would be the end of Kawhi for at least three seasons.

And then get nothing and just let him walk? no, they'll drag his ass to court for breach of contract and try to get every penny they can from him.

Again, you're being illogical. If players could leave whenever they wanted, there would be NO buyouts at all. If Bertans could have joined the Spurs this season no matter what, they aren't going to through $675k or whatever away to make it happen. No one would. It's not just those clubs being nice. Serious, man. It's strange that you're trying to go down this road. It's very wrong.

No, that's *IS* the whole point of buyouts, to accelerate the entire process. It would probably take longer to get out of his contract, longer than the time the Spurs have to sign him, but there's no doubt he can. It would cost him a pretty penny too, probably, so unless he has a sure thing, it's not worth doing.

[Chinook]

And then get nothing and just let him walk? no, they'll drag his ass to court for breach of contract and try to get every penny they can from him.

The NBA is very clear about how to handle these cases. They wouldn't sue him; they just wouldn't pay him.

No, that's *IS* the whole point of buyouts, to accelerate the entire process. It would probably take longer to get out of his contract, longer than the time the Spurs have to sign him, but there's no doubt he can. It would cost him a pretty penny too, probably, so unless he has a sure thing, it's not worth doing.

See, if it were so obvious that the player would win any court case when trying to switch teams, there'd be easy legal precedent to expedite the trials. I can understand that you'd think of buyouts as similar to settlements to avoid court cases. But they are legally binding, as the Bismack ruling showed. So it's obvious that the player doesn't have the leverage to just leave. FIBA's already ruled that they won't allow that to happen.

[ElNono]

Not you. Hence why you don't have any evidence for your argument. Anti-tampering laws are meaningless to the discussion. You can talk all you want, but you can't force a team to let you go.

Look, read up on contract law, you're obviously way out of your league on this. If you need help, I think we have some lawyers here (FromWayDowntown, elbamba, vy65, IIRC) that can help you get acquainted with how that works. There's simply no way you can't get out of a contract. It's time consuming, and can be costly, but there's absolutely no case where you cannot terminate it.

You don't get how illogical your assertion is. If the player could just get out of his contract, THEN YOU WOULDN'T have to pay a buyout at all. Like why would Bismack and Charlotte give Fuenlabrada a million and a half bucks in 2011 if Bismack would have just quit and signed with Charlotte anyway? It's not just to be nice.

Because it takes time and money to do it, that's why. And the NBA has a window to sign players. That's the whole point of the buyout, to accelerate that entire process, and the other team gets more compensation than they would otherwise. How many times I need to repeat that until it sinks in. It's absolutely logical.

Yes, it's mutual to get into AND OUT OF.

"A contract between a professional and a club may only be terminatedupon expiry of the term of the contract or by mutual agreement."

From that same FIBA release I posted earlier. Can a team release the player who doesn't show up to work? Yes. But they don't have to, and they don't have to pay them. You're acting as if there aren't international rules specifically about these sorts of things. I imagine non-FIBA teams can sign whoever they want, but those aren't the teams with money or really any recognition.

That's the whole point, which I can't believe you're still arguing. What do you think it happens when a club drags the player to court and recovers remedies? That the contract remains? No, that's the end of the contract. That's the mutual agreement. Once that contract is over, it's done. If the club doesn't want to drag the player to court, then they're pretty stupid, because they actually have grounds to recover *some* money, instead of absolutely nothing at all and instead wait for the contract to be done. Now that's illogical.

[ElNono]

The NBA is very clear about how to handle these cases. They wouldn't sue him; they just wouldn't pay him.

No, suspension is the first step. You can look at the Royce White case, who he was eventually waived by the Sixers. You can prolong it, but it's inevitable that eventually something is going to have to give. Teams at least try to cash in before that happens.

[Chinook]

No, suspension is the first step. You can look at the Royce White case, who he was eventually waived by the Sixers. You can prolong it, but it's inevitable that eventually something is going to have to give. Teams at least try to cash in before that happens.

You don't pay a player you suspend.

[ElNono]

You don't pay a player you suspend.

Sure, but eventually he got out of his contract, right? At least the Rockets cleared up cap space by trading him, but the Sixers got nothing in return.

[ElNono]

Nope. Teams can get head starts on recruiting players with no anti-tampering laws in effect. Like what happened with GS and Durant. The stink about the tampering accusations had nothing to do with the idea that Durant by quit mid-season to join the Warriors. It had everything to do with him being recruited when he was still property of another team. FIBA doesn't have that specific exclusion, but it does have the ability to block contracts as they see fit. Hence what it told the NBAers in China during the lockout. The NBA and most leagues are part of FIBA, so they have to follow those edicts. If LJC tried to just quit and go play for another team, FIBA would just tell him to sit his ass down. They've done it before. Buyouts are there to allow player movement, in the same way options and free agency are there. They aren't there because teams are desperate to recoup anything they can.

What's your evidence for any of this? The bolded particularly is factually incorrect. If the NBA would be part of FIBA, there wouldn't need to be a FIBA-NBA agreement.

[ElNono]

Also, why insist with the China argument? Your claim that their league doesn't have buyouts has already been dispelled as being patently wrong.

[ElNono]

Anyways, too late here. To be continued...

[gilmor]

Zhou Qi to Houston Rockets have all the Yao Ming maneuvering in the background.

When things like that happen you can basically the contracts bindings when it comes to Asia laws.. whether sports or not sports-related.

[Chinook]

Look, read up on contract law, you're obviously way out of your league on this. If you need help, I think we have some lawyers here (FromWayDowntown, elbamba, vy65, IIRC) that can help you get acquainted with how that works. There's simply no way you can't get out of a contract. It's time consuming, and can be costly, but there's absolutely no case where you cannot terminate it.

Let's just be clear on this: You're arguing this entire point to show why LJC could've just gone to a better team. It's obvious that no matter what you say at this point that you've shown that that was just not an option. But I think this whole, "You can just fight a years-long case with your team, your league and FIBA" argument is so unworkable that it's inadmissible. If you could get out of contracts, you could get out of buyouts just as easily. Again, there's obvious precedent that that is not the case.

Because it takes time and money to do it, that's why. And the NBA has a window to sign players. That's the whole point of the buyout, to accelerate that entire process, and the other team gets more compensation than they would otherwise. How many times I need to repeat that until it sinks in. It's absolutely logical.

No it's not. If you could just sue and not get a buyout, players would have done so already. And if it's so obvious that players would win every time, then there'd be legal precedent which essentially says contracts are not binding. Of course, they'd lose that court case despite your idea that they wouldn't.

That's the whole point, which I can't believe you're still arguing.

The "whole point" is that you're simultaneously arguing the player has all this power and that they player would have to sacrifice a bunch of earning potential to exercise it. That sounds like a lack over leverage to me. "Let me go or else I'll stop playing here and try to sign with another team, get rejected by FIBA, file a grievance with them, get that rejected, go to international court, be told FIBA's within their rights to bar me from signing somewhere else, and keep appealing until maybe some court somewhere agrees with me." WTF kind of threat is that? What kind of other club is still going to want you after all that? The further you get into this, the more obvious it is that you're trying to win on technicalities after losing everywhere else.

Players can't do you've proposed, not practically. And as far as I know, there aren't limits on buyout amounts teams can set -- and there certainly isn't a mandate to have them at all. So it's clear that the clubs still have power over player movements when those players are under contract with the club, and they concede some of that power in the form of buyouts from time to time. Again, this is just like an option in the NBAl. Guys who have the leverage to get it get it, and the guys who don't don't. If this were a player-generated concession, as you seem to think it is, then it would be club-based, not player-based.

You're an awesome poster, Nono, and you often have wonderful insight. There are topics where I just take my hands off the keyboard and read when you're talking. And that will be the case in future threads, I'm sure. But you've gone into really deep water here. Your arguments don't line up with reality anymore. Even if there is a case to be made based on the word of the law (which you still haven't shown), it's not a pragmatic path for the players to take and thus isn't worth discussion. It's sure not applicable to LJC's case, even if he were good. There are better players than him who are stuck in Europe due to their contracts.

[Chinook]

What's your evidence for any of this? The bolded particularly is factually incorrect. If the NBA would be part of FIBA, there wouldn't need to be a FIBA-NBA agreement.

FIBA is an international federation of leagues. The NBA is a member. There's an agreement between them in the same way there are agreements between the UN and the countries that are part of it.

[Chinook]

FIBA is an international federation of leagues. The NBA is a member. There's an agreement between them in the same way there are agreements between the UN and the countries that are part of it.

Zhou's contract just underscores my point, btb. China said they'd let him go in two years. What kind of leverage can a player have if a team is like, "Nah, not this year. Next year, maybe."

[objective]

Anyways, too late here. To be continued...

Why even bother continuing? It's a pointless exercise in deflections and is no longer about LJC or ASVEL

It started with you posting this:

There was nothing stopping LJC from playing on a better Euro team than Asvel... like Real Madrid, Barcelona, CSKA, etc.... the only reason would be that he just wasn't that good.

And the response of:

It's not like you just get to switch teams in the middle of your contract because you've improved. Not that LJC played all that well, mind you. It's just not a valid point to talk about him upgrading from Asvel, in my opinion.

And you corrected it with this:

That actually happens all the time in Europe. It's pretty common to have buyout clauses and NBA out clauses. Teams like Madrid or Barcelona that have the cash gladly pay them to acquire top talent. Teams over there don't wait for "free agency" like the NBA.
Heck, I'm sure the Spurs would've loved him to play in a more compe ive league.

That's the important part. Unless ASVEL has a reported history of fighting off bigger clubs, nfl contracts and other stuff isn't material to LJC

[Chinook]

Why even bother continuing? It's a pointless exercise in deflections and is no longer about LJC or ASVEL

It started with you posting this:



And the response of:



And you corrected it with this:



That's the important part. Unless ASVEL has a reported history of fighting off bigger clubs, nfl contracts and other stuff isn't material to LJC

I don't think that's a "correction" at all. I have no idea what LJC's contract did or did not include, but there are quite a few players who get NBA-only buyout clauses. If LJC got one, then those other teams wouldn't've been a factor in his movement. The rest of the debate was skirmishing over whether such restrictions are legal or binding, which they obviously are or else they wouldn't exist. That's when things got out of control and into FIBA regulations and threats about international contract law.

I think with Parker owning the team and the possibility of having a farm team in a superior level of compe ion to the Toros, the Spurs may have been interested in keeping LJC there. Yes, with his injury and lack of development, he wasn't a hot prospect either here or overseas. But I don't think he'd've been with a bigger club had he been healthy and built on his NHS performance that first season. I think instead that he'd've been a Spur in 2014 instead of the rolling cast of guys that ended up with Damion James.

[objective]

I don't think that's a "correction" at all. I have no idea what LJC's contract did or did not include, but there are quite a few players who get NBA-only buyout clauses. If LJC got one, then those other teams wouldn't've been a factor in his movement. The rest of the debate was skirmishing over whether such restrictions are legal or binding, which they obviously are or else they wouldn't exist. That's when things got out of control and into FIBA regulations and threats about international contract law.

I think with Parker owning the team and the possibility of having a farm team in a superior level of compe ion to the Toros, the Spurs may have been interested in keeping LJC there. Yes, with his injury and lack of development, he wasn't a hot prospect either here or overseas. But I don't think he'd've been with a bigger club had he been healthy and built on his NHS performance that first season. I think instead that he'd've been a Spur in 2014 instead of the rolling cast of guys that ended up with Damion James.

There was a correction because you agreed to it after, posting that you knew what El Nono was posting about, thereby acknowledging that what you posted wasn't entirely correct, and then you're adding on some other context that actually confirms the correction to the absolute.

ABC :

A: players just can't change teams
B: it happens, there's many examples
C: yeah, I know, but sometimes not among euro teams

Then why be so declaritive with A?

The debate is around a thin premise that IF LJC was a desirable player, whether he could have been acquired by a big money club. And the follow up of how that would have affected his development.

But LJC was such a non descript player that CSKA or Barca or Real didn't give a damn. But if they did, there's dozens if not hundreds of examples of big money clubs getting players mid contract. LJC's contract is a mystery.

What is the point of arguing over anything else? About your hunch that maybe ljc had zero euro buyout? We can't even get accounts of LJCs ASVEL contract length and time of signing to agree, as I linked earlier. Even if he had zero buyout, it could always be added later after negotiation.

[jermaine]

What time an channel is the game on today?

[Chinook]

ABC :

A: players just can't change teams
B: it happens, there's many examples
C: yeah, I know, but sometimes not among euro teams

This is instantly an incorrect way of looking at this. It's actually:

A: If he were any good, he'd be on a better team
B: He's under contract.
C: He can get out of that contract, players do it all the time.
D: Some contracts don't allow you to go to other Euro teams.
E: Armageddon

You can even match that up to quotes. It's intellectually dishonest to make it seem like I made the initial premise of the debate. And yes, I find it offensive that you believe I didn't know players get buyouts to go to other non-NBA teams often. I run the Think Tank for goodness' sake. I read everything anyone posts there, including the news of Milutinov trying to go to Crvena Zvezda from Olympiacos, a year after he secured a release from Partizan to go to Greece.

Europe has a very healthy buyout and loan market (pretty sure that's what's going on with Hanga or if not that it's what happened to him previously). But there are restrictions on that market, despite the one piece of evidence posted talking about the absence of anti-tampering laws. Players without buyouts or with buyouts too big to realistically pay are stuck with their teams. FIBA protects the rights of those teams to keep players under contract. These are facts. Now, I'm not going to claim to be an expert on these matters. But I'm not an idiot on them either.

But LJC was such a non descript player that CSKA or Barca or Real didn't give a damn. But if they did, there's dozens if not hundreds of examples of big money clubs getting players mid contract.

Most of this wasn't even in the debate circle. No one thinks LJC was doing well in France.

LJC's contract is a mystery.

Yes it is, both his previous one and his new one.

About your hunch that maybe ljc had zero euro buyout?

I wasn't asserting that he did have one, and more importantly, I wasn't asserting that that is why he wasn't at a bigger club. I've said as much multiple times. I think the Spurs wanted to experiment with developing him there. But it was a dumb idea. Should have brought him over immediately and insisted that he do summer league. May have saved that knee thought I doubt it.

Even if he had zero buyout, it could always be added later after negotiation.

Yes, that's true, and the buyout market is actually becoming a really fascinating aspect of NBA/FIBA relations. But anyway, it can be added in, but it's something that the player wants, not the team, which is Nono's biggest misconception, in my opinion. The player has to give up something to get that added in, because ultimately, FIBA would side with the team over the player, provided there wasn't a breach-of-contract reason for the player wanting to leave (as with Bertans and Milutinov in Partizan).

[Chinook]

I will say, objective, that if the Spurs are actually negotiating a contract with LJC that isn't just a normal 120 percent deal, it could be because they want him to have to earn his money, rather than then wanting to save money themselves. So they could be haggling over incentives right now rather than just the total dollar amount. I'm not in favor of shafting a guy a couple hundred grand when he hasn't made any money while also tripling your offer to another player because he threatened to go to Philly if you didn't.

But I am a fan of them trying to take control of the LJC situation. I think the dude was hibernating in France. Maybe active (and aggressive) coaching combined with being back in his home hemisphere will help snap him out of his malaise. Whatever works.

[Obstructed_View]

I will say, objective, that if the Spurs are actually negotiating a contract with LJC that isn't just a normal 120 percent deal, it could be because they want him to have to earn his money, rather than then wanting to save money themselves. So they could be haggling over incentives right now rather than just the total dollar amount. I'm not in favor of shafting a guy a couple hundred grand when he hasn't made any money while also tripling your offer to another player because he threatened to go to Philly if you didn't.

How much could the Spurs pay LJC to just go away? His roster spot is worth more than his salary.

[K...]

El nono is correct. You can break any contract. However the penalties are designed to discourage wanton beaches.


Within the nba the penalty for breach is barring the player from the nba. Fiba has the same relationship.

So any nba guy can quit and play baseball, but not basketball.


Regarding European clubs to european clubs, if you just had a straight contract the penalty for breach would be small. That's why by its make sense, to take the courts away from assigning damages.


Now fwiw, This applies mainly in usa/Britain. But that's contracts in a nuts . To answer the question correctly you need a Euro lawyer.

[K...]

How much could the Spurs pay LJC to just go away? His roster spot is worth more than his salary.

Don't waste Mr chinooks time here. It's just won't happen. Time after time you have to consider that pafto had different player evaluations than spurs talk.