Harkless resolves after Crabbe decision?

[UKRAINEFAN]

So we should assume he's not coming back at this point.

I would not assume that. He hasn't signed the QQ so he could want to stay here longterm and is waiting for a better offer from Olshey.

 

[Cippy91]

 

[Chris Craig]

Not surprising, seems Neil gave an offer and is sticking to it, and sooner or later Mo will take it

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The player might have a legit grievance if not given a fair shake. He's playing for a contract, the team can't deliberately lower his value.

Who's to decide if he's been "given a fair shake" though? The team can do what's best for the team. If Turner and Crabbe are better options, then what basis would Harkless have for a "grievance"?

 

[Denny Crane]

Who's to decide if he's been "given a fair shake" though? The team can do what's best for the team. If Turner and Crabbe are better options, then what basis would Harkless have for a "grievance"?

The legal courts or arbitration.

Plus if the player doesn't warrant playing time, why pay him at all?

 

[Natebishop3]

The legal courts or arbitration.

Plus if the player doesn't warrant playing time, why pay him at all?

The coach can play whomever he wants. If the team decides it's not worth giving minutes to a guy that is likely to leave at the end of the year because they have a stacked roster and other players they would rather develop, I doubt any court is going to get involved. There aren't any minute stipulations in contracts. He can't say that they promised him playing time. If he takes the QO that's his problem.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The legal courts or arbitration.

Plus if the player doesn't warrant playing time, why pay him at all?

Potential? Insurance against injury? Because he's better than other options for that roster spot? Plenty of reasons to pay a player but not necessarily be obligated to play him 20 mpg.

Honestly Denny, when has an NBA player ever filed a grievance with a court over a lack of playing time? You think Harkless is going to be some kind of pioneer for 10th men? ("Why not? He is a Trail Blazer!!") This premise is absolutely ridiculous. "The coach cost me money by not playing me, so I'm going to sue!!" Child please...

 

[Denny Crane]

The coach can play whomever he wants. If the team decides it's not worth giving minutes to a guy that is likely to leave at the end of the year because they have a stacked roster and other players they would rather develop, I doubt any court is going to get involved. There aren't any minute stipulations in contracts. He can't say that they promised him playing time. If he takes the QO that's his problem.

Sure. You are right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/sports/basketball/16dribble.html?_r=0

The National Basketball Players Association recently filed a grievance on behalf of Tinsley, who was effectively exiled this season by the Pacers.

“I have some problems with it,” Billy Hunter, the union’s executive director, said Saturday night during his joint press conference with Commissioner David Stern at All-Star weekend. “We think that it may be a developing problem or issue.”

 

[Denny Crane]

Potential? Insurance against injury? Because he's better than other options for that roster spot? Plenty of reasons to pay a player but not necessarily be obligated to play him 20 mpg.

Honestly Denny, when has an NBA player ever filed a grievance with a court over a lack of playing time? You think Harkless is going to be some kind of pioneer for 10th men? ("Why not? He is a Trail Blazer!!") This premise is absolutely ridiculous. "The coach cost me money by not playing me, so I'm going to sue!!" Child please...

Jamal Tinsley. See above

 

[Natebishop3]

Sure. You are right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/sports/basketball/16dribble.html?_r=0

The National Basketball Players Association recently filed a grievance on behalf of Tinsley, who was effectively exiled this season by the Pacers.

“I have some problems with it,” Billy Hunter, the union’s executive director, said Saturday night during his joint press conference with Commissioner David Stern at All-Star weekend. “We think that it may be a developing problem or issue.”

That's from 2009. What was the outcome?

 

[Denny Crane]

That's from 2009. What was the outcome?

The player has no risk, the team has all the risk of losing. Why risk it at all?

I don't know of any player who took the QO that wasn't given playing time.

I saw the Bulls start and played Ben Gordon, for example, 3000+ minutes, even though he signed the QO and then did leave for Detroit. I think that's typical, and can't think of an example where a team squashed a player's minutes due to QO.

Again, if the team doesn't want him, don't offer the QO or rescind it. Or sign and trade him.

 

[Denny Crane]

The Pacers bought out Tinsley to avoid the arbitration hearing.

 

[Natebishop3]

The player has no risk, the team has all the risk of losing. Why risk it at all?

I don't know of any player who took the QO that wasn't given playing time.

I saw the Bulls start and played Ben Gordon, for example, 3000+ minutes, even though he signed the QO and then did leave for Detroit. I think that's typical, and can't think of an example where a team squashed a player's minutes due to QO.

Again, if the team doesn't want him, don't offer the QO or rescind it. Or sign and trade him.

Because the Blazers have more deserving players than they have minutes.

Harkless will mostly see time at SF and PF.

We have Turner and Crabbe and Aminu at small forward. It's going to be hard enough to find minutes enough for Crabbe coming off the bench.

At power forward we have Aminu, Davis, and Vonleh. Possibly even Layman. We don't NEED to play Harkless. You're talking about Ben Gordon, but Ben Gordon was a huge part of the Bulls' rotation. Harkless drifted in and out of the rotation last season. He was a big part of our playoff run, but we also added a key player at his position.

 

[Denny Crane]

Because the Blazers have more deserving players than they have minutes.

Harkless will mostly see time at SF and PF.

We have Turner and Crabbe and Aminu at small forward. It's going to be hard enough to find minutes enough for Crabbe coming off the bench.

At power forward we have Aminu, Davis, and Vonleh. Possibly even Layman. We don't NEED to play Harkless. You're talking about Ben Gordon, but Ben Gordon was a huge part of the Bulls' rotation. Harkless drifted in and out of the rotation last season. He was a big part of our playoff run, but we also added a key player at his position.

So you agree they're going to play him.

I think so, too.

If not, rescind the offer. It's a waste of his time and our money.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Jamal Tinsley. See above

And the major difference is that Tinsley was under contract for another 3 years, whereas taking the QO gives Hark UFA status next summer. And that Tinsley was basically told to go away completely rather than just not play as many minutes as he wanted. And that he was already in his 30's, so the whole situation threatened to end his career. But other than that, yes, completely comparable.

 

[Natebishop3]

So you agree they're going to play him.

I think so, too.

If not, rescind the offer. It's a waste of his time and our money.

How do you get that I agreed with you out of that post?

We don't need Harkless.

We have multiple players that need minutes at SF and PF. Players that are just as deserving as Harkless. So if he's not going to commit to the team long term, fuck him.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

So you agree they're going to play him.

I think so, too.

If not, rescind the offer. It's a waste of his time and our money.

Nobody has said he won't play. The basic concept has always been that he might not play as much because of Turner's presence and Crabbe's expected increased role. Why rescind the offer? $4M for a 10th man is perfectly reasonable.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Because the Blazers have more deserving players than they have minutes.

Harkless will mostly see time at SF and PF.

We have Turner and Crabbe and Aminu at small forward. It's going to be hard enough to find minutes enough for Crabbe coming off the bench.

At power forward we have Aminu, Davis, and Vonleh. Possibly even Layman. We don't NEED to play Harkless. You're talking about Ben Gordon, but Ben Gordon was a huge part of the Bulls' rotation. Harkless drifted in and out of the rotation last season. He was a big part of our playoff run, but we also added a key player at his position.

Yeah I guess the more and more I think about it, the more it seems like he won't be back. They have a certain amount they want to allocate to Harkless and if there is an offer that goes over........he's gone. I wonder what that number is. I am sure Harkless would not mind coming back, but at the same time he probbaly is not too excited about the log jam at the SF spot.

 

[Natebishop3]

Nobody has said he won't play. The basic concept has always been that he might not play as much because of Turner's presence and Crabbe's expected increased role. Why rescind the offer? $4M for a 10th man is perfectly reasonable.

Well, also it's better to hold onto his bird rights. He might not have much of a market next summer either. He's thinking he's going to get some massive payday and he just hasn't done enough to warrant it. He did well enough last season to entice us, and get just about everyone excited about his potential, but his track record is not good. The Magic gave him away for practically nothing. I think he got greedy. I wish we had some idea of what he's looking for.

 

[Natebishop3]

Yeah I guess the more and more I think about it, the more it seems like he won't be back. They have a certain amount they want to allocate to Harkless and if there is an offer that goes over........he's gone. I wonder what that number is. I am sure Harkless would not mind coming back, but at the same time he probbaly is not too excited about the log jam at the SF spot.

We also went from a situation where he would probably return as the starter, to now we have Turner at that spot, and there's very little chance he's going to supplant Turner as the starter. PG, SG, and SF all look pretty locked up at this point. PF and C are still questionable, but I don't see Harkless as a full-time PF. Aminu is taller (6'10) and longer, which suits him better to be a starter at that position.

We don't want to let him go because he can play three positions, and that's the kind of player that Neil is looking for, but if he's looking for a starting role, or a massive payday, it probably won't be here.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Yeah I guess the more and more I think about it, the more it seems like he won't be back. They have a certain amount they want to allocate to Harkless and if there is an offer that goes over........he's gone. I wonder what that number is. I am sure Harkless would not mind coming back, but at the same time he probbaly is not too excited about the log jam at the SF spot.

Honestly, I'm not all that worried about the SF "logjam". If Dame/CJ get 35 mpg each, and Crabbe/Turner get 28 mpg each, there's still 18 mpg at SF for Harkless, which is perfectly reasonable for him. If he plays as well as he/we hope, however, I'm sure he'll get plenty of PT.

 

[Hobbesarable]

Honestly, I'm not all that worried about the SF "logjam". If Dame/CJ get 35 mpg each, and Crabbe/Turner get 28 mpg each, there's still 18 mpg at SF for Harkless, which is perfectly reasonable for him. If he plays as well as he/we hope, however, I'm sure he'll get plenty of PT.

He played the 3/4 spots last year and he will have the chance convincing Stotts this upcoming season during training camp and preseason.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Honestly, I'm not all that worried about the SF "logjam". If Dame/CJ get 35 mpg each, and Crabbe/Turner get 28 mpg each, there's still 18 mpg at SF for Harkless, which is perfectly reasonable for him. If he plays as well as he/we hope, however, I'm sure he'll get plenty of PT.

I am not worried about the log jam either. I am saying he is probably not overly excited about it.

 

[Mediocre Man]

I am not worried about the log jam either. I am saying he is probably not overly excited about it.

I was worried about a log jam once, but a little milk of magnesia fixed that right up

 

[Natebishop3]

I am not worried about the log jam either. I am saying he is probably not overly excited about it.

Yeah, he went from a starter in the playoffs to a guy fighting for minutes. Probably not something he's psyched about coming back to.

 

[Natebishop3]

My guess is that Harkless sees a lineup that's full of versatile wing players (Turner/Crabbe/Aminu) and he's concerned about his future on this team. He wants Neil to make a sizable commitment to him to solidify his place in the rotation.

Neil is probably looking at Harkless as a utility player who can step into three positions and fill any role asked of him, but he doesn't want to pay him a large contract because he's still fairly unproven. This is a guy we picked up off the discard pile a year ago and Neil was probably hoping he'd be a bargain, but now Harkless wants to get paid. Neil is probably trying to convince him that the money is gone and most of the suitors have left the dance floor. We're the only one still dancing with him.

 

[riverman]

Because the Blazers have more deserving players than they have minutes.

Harkless will mostly see time at SF and PF.

We have Turner and Crabbe and Aminu at small forward. It's going to be hard enough to find minutes enough for Crabbe coming off the bench.

At power forward we have Aminu, Davis, and Vonleh. Possibly even Layman. We don't NEED to play Harkless. You're talking about Ben Gordon, but Ben Gordon was a huge part of the Bulls' rotation. Harkless drifted in and out of the rotation last season. He was a big part of our playoff run, but we also added a key player at his position.

Stotts pretty much said in the Ezeli introduction that Aminu will play the 4...he's way better there than the 3 so I don't see him taking minutes from Mo there at all

 

[Trackjack]

Mo can back up Turner while Crabbe backup CJ. Harkless seen Crabbe contract and he believe he is as good as Crabbe. Overall as a player he might be justify. We know Crabbe got over paid even Dame knows Crabbe got over paid. That why Dame rolls his eyes when they mention Crabbe contract.

 

[Natebishop3]

Stotts pretty much said in the Ezeli introduction that Aminu will play the 4...he's way better there than the 3 so I don't see him taking minutes from Mo there at all

I'm saying that he COULD play minutes at the three. Considering we have Davis and Vonleh at the four, we might need to open up some minutes.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Stotts pretty much said in the Ezeli introduction that Aminu will play the 4...he's way better there than the 3 so I don't see him taking minutes from Mo there at all

I agree with this and I want to see this.......but I am sure there could be match ups where Aminu might be needed at the 3. Cleveland twice a year, GS depending on where they play Durant and if the others get in foul problems. But yeah for the most part he should be playing the 4.