LaMarcus eligible for no trade clause (1 Viewer)

[Draco]

Next summer LaMarcus can join Kobe, Dirk, Duncan, KG, Melo and Wade as the only players with no trade clause. Only available to players with 8 years experience and 4 years with current team.

 

[magnifier661]

Sweet!!!!

 

[illmatic99]

Eligible or will definitely get one? I don't want a player to have that kind of power.

IMO, I'd probably only give that to two players in the league now (LBJ/KD), and could be convinced to give one to Anthony Davis.

 

[Rhal]

Sure I'll Give LMA a no trade clause id want a 4 year deal with a team option for the 4th year.

 

[Pinwheel1]

I would give it to him. If he is willing to commit to Portland for 5 years, then he should be assured management will not turn around and trade him to some shitty team. If we are not willing to give it to him, then as a player with options, I would be hesitant. Besides if things got bad with this team and we needed to rebuild, he would waive it. This just gives him a little more power in deciding where we would be shipping him off to. I am sure like Melo to NY, something could be worked out.

 

[riverman]

I fully expect the Blazers to offer LA whatever he needs to be our franchise guy to the end of his career. I'm happy with the way it's developing

 

[The_Lillard_King]

No trade clause or not . . . there will still be weekly thread to trade LA.

 

[magnifier661]

I fully expect the Blazers to offer LA whatever he needs to be our franchise guy to the end of his career. I'm happy with the way it's developing

Hear hear

 

[Natebishop3]

No trade clause or not . . . there will still be weekly thread to trade LA.

Weekly??? We must be slipping.

 

[Draco]

Eligible or will definitely get one? I don't want a player to have that kind of power.

IMO, I'd probably only give that to two players in the league now (LBJ/KD), and could be convinced to give one to Anthony Davis.

So next summer if LaMarcus is willing to sign a contract with a no trade clause you'd decline and tell him to shop the market? Thank gosh your not our GM.

 

[BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94]

So next summer if LaMarcus is willing to sign a contract with a no trade clause you'd decline and tell him to shop the market? Thank gosh your not our GM.

The problem with the no trade clause is if LA gets hurt or becomes unproductive we are stuck with his contract. I agree with yuyuza that only 2-3 players deserve the no trade clause.

 

[MarAzul]

I fully expect the Blazers to offer LA whatever he needs to be our franchise guy to the end of his career. I'm happy with the way it's developing

Yes sir, Lamarcus is right there with a handful of the best of the Blazers all time.

 

[Pinwheel1]

The problem with the no trade clause is if LA gets hurt or becomes unproductive we are stuck with his contract. I agree with yuyuza that only 2-3 players deserve the no trade clause.

Who is going to trade for him if he is hurt or becomes unproductive with a max contract? I think the non-trade clause is a non-issue. If someone really wants him, then he would waive it. The only way it hurts us is if some shit team that no one wants to go to, offers us an incredible deal for LA. I doubt a team would ever do that knowing he would be unhappy there. Why give up a lot for a disgruntled player? You don't. Non issue IMO.

 

[magnifier661]

The problem with the no trade clause is if LA gets hurt or becomes unproductive we are stuck with his contract. I agree with yuyuza that only 2-3 players deserve the no trade clause.

Bro, no trade clause or not, if lma is hurt or unproductive, he won't be traded. The stipulation is only there to protect the player from going to a shitty team when he has value. Not when he's a Brandon Roy situation.

 

[illmatic99]

So next summer if LaMarcus is willing to sign a contract with a no trade clause you'd decline and tell him to shop the market? Thank gosh your not our GM.

Nah thats what I'm asking. Does he automatically get a no trade clause with a five yr deal or is it an addon? I'd offer hin a 5 yr max, but I wouldn't throw in a no trade clause unless he insisted

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I wonder if he'll also ask for a no post up clause?

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Who is going to trade for him if he is hurt or becomes unproductive with a max contract? I think the non-trade clause is a non-issue. If someone really wants him, then he would waive it. The only way it hurts us is if some shit team that no one wants to go to, offers us an incredible deal for LA. I doubt a team would ever do that knowing he would be unhappy there. Why give up a lot for a disgruntled player? You don't. Non issue IMO.

This

 

[riverman]

Call me superstitious but I'd much rather folks avoided using LA's name with the "i" word in the same post. 8 years, 3 times an allstar, this is not Greg Oden we're talking about.

 

[Draco]

The problem with the no trade clause is if LA gets hurt or becomes unproductive we are stuck with his contract. I agree with yuyuza that only 2-3 players deserve the no trade clause.

None of the players in the NBA deserve to make tens of millions for playing a game; but the reality of the market is thats what they get paid.

Similarly multiple all star veterans on max deals get no trade clauses. We can sit here all day and say how it would be better for a player to get less. But when the risk is losing an allstar for nothing these are easy benefits for a team to give up.

 

[Draco]

Nah thats what I'm asking. Does he automatically get a no trade clause with a five yr deal or is it an addon? I'd offer hin a 5 yr max, but I wouldn't throw in a no trade clause unless he insisted

It's a negotiable optional clause between the player and the team.

But I'd expect a player on a max contract who is eligible for one to always get it. Its rare; as evident by only 6 players in the entire league having them.

 

[magnifier661]

It's a negotiable optional clause between the player and the team.

But I'd expect a player on a max contract who is eligible for one to always get it. Its rare; as evident by only 6 players in the entire league having them.

I think it's only rare because, as Brian used to always point out, players never stay with the same team long enough.

 

[Minstrel]

None of the players in the NBA deserve to make tens of millions for playing a game; but the reality of the market is thats what they get paid.

You mean in a non-capitalistic society, none of them deserve it? Because in a capitalistic society, the reality is that they're the engine creating massive wealth and enriching many, many people, inside and outside of basketball. If they don't deserve tens of millions, neither do the owners, TV executives and such. But then you're advocating for a command economy, where "someone" decides what each role is worth. That sounds pretty difficult.

Even as it is, player salaries are artificially limited. In a true market economy, the top-end players would make much more.

In a purely conceptual world, I can sympathize with the idea that people playing a game should make less than firemen or teachers or whomever else you or I deem "more important" but even that is complicated. Entertainment is important, as much as people (not necessarily you) sneer at its importance. Entertainment is pretty much what makes life worth living once you've moved past the subsistence level.

 

[Draco]

You know what else I just realized.... Batum will be eligible for one at the end of his current contract in the following summer of 2016.

So few players stay with the same team for 4 years and sign big money deals after 8 years in the league. Many teams are constantly trading away and signing different players. I think the Blazers should be proud they have multiple players spending their entire career with the Blazers. Stability of roster players and guts of management to stay the course with players already on the team is rare in today's NBA. The Spurs have done it with Parker, Manu and Duncan; the Heat have done it with Wade; the Lakers have done it with Kobe; the Mavs did it with Nowitzki; maybe we should try to follow a similar path with our best guys.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I'm sure CLE would've loved to with LBJ.
And DEN with Melo.
And UTH with Deron-is-Deron.
And MIN would do it in a heartbeat for Love.
And ORL with Shaq...

and so on.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I think it's only rare because, as Brian used to always point out, players never stay with the same team long enough.

Repped for remembering.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I'm sure CLE would've loved to with LBJ.
And DEN with Melo.
And UTH with Deron-is-Deron.
And MIN would do it in a heartbeat for Love.
And ORL with Shaq...

and so on.

A player with a no trade clause can still demand to be traded.

 

[BrianFromWA]

A player with a no trade clause can still demand to be traded.

They'd have to sign a contract post-8 years to do get a no-trade clause, and I'm sure each of those teams would've jumped at the chance to do so.

 

[magnifier661]

Repped for remembering.

Don't say I never listen!