Millsap for Bledsoe?

[Stifle Tower]

LOL you really think this is such a rare occurrence? It's not preferable, but **** like this happens alllll the time in the NBA. Odom in Dallas last year ring a bell? Arenas? Hell what do you think the ****ing amnesty clause is?

And ethical? What contrived notion of ethics do you subscribe to? Bell doesn't want to play here, he's a troublemaker, so we don't want him around. He doesn't give a ****, he's getting paid 3x more than any other team would give him to sit and chill in Miami.

So why not amesty Raja? The Jazz could have.
Odom was a different situation. He had personal problems and was at least given the chance to play. It was only after his on-court performance was so poor that the team AND Odom agreed to him staying home.

Bell is a troublemaker? Really? He gave an honest assessment last season of Corbin. Watson has complained about PT. Was he banished from the team? The situation could have easily been resolved by using the amnesty clause when it was available or just waiving him. But the Jazz have held on. C'mon, having his salary availabel for trading purposes really isn't the issue. Jazz could have easily signed any other vet for a few million. And when Mo went down, they should have brought in a legit PG from the D-League to replace him. But they couldn't, because there are no roster spots...unless they waive Raja (and pay him the rest of his $) or release Murphy.

We complain about having two abysmmal PG's running the team in Tinsley and Watson, yet don't hold the FO accountable for not going out and doing something about it. Just about every starting PG in the D-League would be the 2nd-stringer over Watson and likely the starter over Tinsley. And they could have used 10-day contracts if they wanted flexibility until the trade deadline.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Has anybody mentioned that this deal makes no sense for the Clippers until CP3 re-signs?
Also, Milsap is redundant on that team.

He is going to re-sign. The Clippers have huge potential going forward and are in a great market. Why wouldn't he? Where else would he go?

 

[Sneakers]

So why not amesty Raja? The Jazz could have.
Odom was a different situation. He had personal problems and was at least given the chance to play. It was only after his on-court performance was so poor that the team AND Odom agreed to him staying home.

Because then we're paying him to play for another team. And we didn't have dire salary cap implications that may have forced our hand at using the amnesty. Ya dig?

That Bell was a troublemaker and a pot-stirrer really isn't up for debate. I won't waste my time arguing over it with you.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

So why not amesty Raja? The Jazz could have.
Odom was a different situation. He had personal problems and was at least given the chance to play. It was only after his on-court performance was so poor that the team AND Odom agreed to him staying home.

Bell is a troublemaker? Really? He gave an honest assessment last season of Corbin. Watson has complained about PT. Was he banished from the team? The situation could have easily been resolved by using the amnesty clause when it was available or just waiving him. But the Jazz have held on. C'mon, having his salary availabel for trading purposes really isn't the issue. Jazz could have easily signed any other vet for a few million. And when Mo went down, they should have brought in a legit PG from the D-League to replace him. But they couldn't, because there are no roster spots...unless they waive Raja (and pay him the rest of his $) or release Murphy.

We complain about having two abysmmal PG's running the team in Tinsley and Watson, yet don't hold the FO accountable for not going out and doing something about it. Just about every starting PG in the D-League would be the 2nd-stringer over Watson and likely the starter over Tinsley. And they could have used 10-day contracts if they wanted flexibility until the trade deadline.

You can't be serious? Yes Tinsley and Watson are offensively inept, but they are still both good PG's, far better than any D-Leaguer. You may be able to find a flash in the pan that is alright, but chances are they are in the D-League for a reason. Gaines was one of the better D-League PG's when we called him up, and we all saw how bad he was when he was the actual PG (the shot aside).

 

[Weezur]

He is going to re-sign. The Clippers have huge potential going forward and are in a great market. Why wouldn't he? Where else would he go?

Not saying he wouldn't, but I thought that the reason these Bledsoe discussions all took a halt was for this reason. And what are the chances that Paul re-signs with them given that he plays behind Griffin?

 

[Stifle Tower]

Let's say I'm under a binding contract with a company, one that they cannot legally get out from under. Yet when I go in I don't perform, and what's more I badmouth my bosses, create friction in the office, etc.... so the company tells me just to stay home. Why, how unethical of the company to stop me from coming in and polarizing and inhibiting their workplace.

Actually, you'd likely be fired for non-performance. There aren't too many employment contracts that can't be gotten out of. And, in a lot of states, the employer has complete discretion over getting rid of you, unless there's age, gender or racial discrimination. You'd be paid the money you're owed (such as accrued vacation and sick leave), perhaps even given a couple weeks or months of severance. And then you're free to go anywhere you want. If you're an executive, you've likely signed a non-compete clause, but that really doesn't apply in our analogy.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

So why not amesty Raja? The Jazz could have.
Odom was a different situation. He had personal problems and was at least given the chance to play. It was only after his on-court performance was so poor that the team AND Odom agreed to him staying home.

Bell is a troublemaker? Really? He gave an honest assessment last season of Corbin. Watson has complained about PT. Was he banished from the team? The situation could have easily been resolved by using the amnesty clause when it was available or just waiving him. But the Jazz have held on. C'mon, having his salary availabel for trading purposes really isn't the issue. Jazz could have easily signed any other vet for a few million. And when Mo went down, they should have brought in a legit PG from the D-League to replace him. But they couldn't, because there are no roster spots...unless they waive Raja (and pay him the rest of his $) or release Murphy.

We complain about having two abysmmal PG's running the team in Tinsley and Watson, yet don't hold the FO accountable for not going out and doing something about it. Just about every starting PG in the D-League would be the 2nd-stringer over Watson and likely the starter over Tinsley. And they could have used 10-day contracts if they wanted flexibility until the trade deadline.

Not really. Both disgruntled veterans.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Actually, you'd likely be fired for non-performance. There aren't too many employment contracts that can't be gotten out of. And, in a lot of states, the employer has complete discretion over getting rid of you, unless there's age, gender or racial discrimination. You'd be paid the money you're owed (such as accrued vacation and sick leave), perhaps even given a couple weeks or months of severance. And then you're free to go anywhere you want. If you're an executive, you've likely signed a non-compete clause, but that really doesn't apply in our analogy.

Raja not playing is the choice of the Jazz.

 

[Sneakers]

Actually, you'd likely be fired for non-performance. There aren't too many employment contracts that can't be gotten out of. And, in a lot of states, the employer has complete discretion over getting rid of you, unless there's age, gender or racial discrimination. You'd be paid the money you're owed (such as accrued vacation and sick leave), perhaps even given a couple weeks or months of severance. And then you're free to go anywhere you want. If you're an executive, you've likely signed a non-compete clause, but that really doesn't apply in our analogy.

Damn, I should have included a clause about not being able to fire the employee in my analogy. Maybe in the first line of the analogy... that would have been a good place for it. Oh well.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Because then we're paying him to play for another team. And we didn't have dire salary cap implications that may have forced our hand at using the amnesty. Ya dig?

That Bell was a troublemaker and a pot-stirrer really isn't up for debate. I won't waste my time arguing over it with you.

Actually it kind of is. All the Jazz teammates said Raja was actually a very good teammate and helped them a lot. The only beef was between him and Corbin, which was due to poor judgments on both parties. Then they mutually agreed that Raja and the team would be better off separate. The Jazz would pursue trades involving Raja, but wouldn't just make a trade to make him happy.

 

[Stifle Tower]

Raja not playing is the choice of the Jazz.

Exactly. Sneakers gave me an example of a company being unhappy with an employee and telling him to stay home. In the corporate world, that company is going to get rid of the employee. If he's not doing his job or is a "troublemaker" they'll fire him with cause. If they simply want to go in a different direction, whatever the case may be (cost, clashes with a superior, etc.), they'll make him/her redundant, reach a settlement or if the company is in an "at-will" state, they can simply say sayonara without any repercussions - except in cases where it's shown they've violated age, gender or race laws.

 

[Sneakers]

Actually it kind of is. All the Jazz teammates said Raja was actually a very good teammate and helped them a lot. The only beef was between him and Corbin, which was due to poor judgments on both parties. Then they mutually agreed that Raja and the team would be better off separate. The Jazz would pursue trades involving Raja, but wouldn't just make a trade to make him happy.

Yeah but he did have a beef about Corbin, and was pretty vocal about it. He could be the best teammate in the world yet that would still qualify as being a pot-stirrer. Anyway, I'm off to the library to work on this huge *** presentation for Tuesday, carry on gents

Edit: And Mo quit mischaracterizing the analogy and intentionally missing the part where they cannot fire the employee. Makes you look lazy. And before "well in real life that doesn't happen"... it's an analogy, a thought experiment, a hypothetical, and besides I'm certain there are industries or niches where such contracts exist (maybe a professional basketball league, for example... others as well) so stop trying to skirt by on a technicality.