PDA

View Full Version : Are guaranteed contracts killing the NBA?



ChicagoJ
10-12-2006, 08:02 PM
I used to think the guaranteed contracts were good for all parties.

But now I think this might be true from both a "lack of player discipline" perspective (e.g., its believed to be so difficult to void a contract that teams have no choice but to hold onto players that no other franchise would take, like Bender and perhaps SJax).

And from a "team mismanagement" perspective. See Exhibit I, the New York Knicks. See also Exhibit II, the Portland TrailBlazers under Bob Whitsett.

I'm starting to believe the teams need a quicker way to remedy problems. New contracts were shortened one year by the lastest CBA. Was that just applying a bandaid to an arm that's been severed?

Do fans benefit or lose from guaranteed contracts?

The NFL, of course, does not have such guarantees.

Discuss...

Kstat
10-12-2006, 08:06 PM
The NFL isn't made any better because of non-guarenteed contracts. The owners are just made richer and the NFL is more financially stable.

Fans neither win nor lose from guarenteed contracts. The same amount of money will be spent either way, the names will just be different.

On one hand, you could say that a player that isnt performing worth his deal could be let go in favor of a cheaper player that can do the same job. Sure.

But on the other hand, owners (like the NFL) can just as easily let go of GOOD players and fan favorites simply to save a buck.

Also, you can re-negotiate a new contract with non-guarenteed deals. In the NBA, contracts are set in stone, so you don't have the player holdouts in the NBA that you see in the NFL.

Say Al Harrington has a superb season this year, and plays at the level of a $12 million player. He then can go to Indiana management and demand to be PAID like a $12 million player next year, if he has a non-guarenteed deal. The Pacers would be forced to either pay him, release him, or trade him to teams that are going to lowball the Pacers.

I'll take the guarenteed contracts and hope my GM is smart enough not to break the bank on a lemon.

Unclebuck
10-12-2006, 08:12 PM
I think non-guaranteed contracts could encourage selfish basketball because every season players are playing for a contract.

Kstat
10-12-2006, 08:14 PM
I think non-guaranteed contracts could encourage selfish basketball because every season players are playing for a contract.

Precisely.

In addition, anybody in the league could hold out whenever they wanted to in order to get a bigger contract.

ABADays
10-12-2006, 08:39 PM
Conversley, a player could play at a $12M player, get a guaranteed contract for 3 years and play like a $3M player. As much as I hate to say it because I love the guy but we had one like that in Cro.

Hicks
10-12-2006, 09:09 PM
I think you have to keep contracts in the NBA guaranteed, but give teams an out for situations like the ones we've had with Artest and now perhaps with Jackson. Something that makes us pay in something other than money to do it (perhaps a forfeit of a draft pick), but allows a team to get rid of a player and have the players' contract be paid by all 30 teams and/or the league itself. For instance, Jackson has about what, $24mm left on his deal? Divided by 30, that's $800,000 per team. Over 4 seasons that's $200,000 a season. Maybe a draft pick isn't the right type (or too much/little) of payment. What do you think of something like that? I'm not as much asking if it's realistic, but rather, if something like that were to happen, how do you feel about it, and how would you modify it?

Leisure Suit Larry
10-12-2006, 09:13 PM
I think you have to keep contracts in the NBA guaranteed, but give teams an out for situations like the ones we've had with Artest and now perhaps with Jackson. Something that makes us pay in something other than money to do it (perhaps a forfeit of a draft pick), but allows a team to get rid of a player and have the players' contract be paid by all 30 teams and/or the league itself. For instance, Jackson has about what, $24mm left on his deal? Divided by 30, that's $800,000 per team. Maybe a draft pick isn't the right type (or too much/little) of payment. What do you think of something like that? I'm not as much asking if it's realistic, but rather, if something like that were to happen, how do you feel about it, and how would you modify it?

How would that be fair? I think the problem is how much they are making. These are people with usually only a HS degree or 1-2 years of college. They don't have much bargaining power. They can't say oh no I don't want to make $100k to play basketball. I'll go work at so-and-so for $30-40k a year.

Hicks
10-12-2006, 09:15 PM
How would that be fair?

I think the part where they're free to sign with any team that will take them while still making every bit of their multi-million dollar contract is what makes it fair.

Kstat
10-12-2006, 09:16 PM
How would that be fair? I think the problem is how much they are making. These are people with usually only a HS degree or 1-2 years of college. They don't have much bargaining power. They can't say oh no I don't want to make $100k to play basketball. I'll go work at so-and-so for $30-40k a year.

Um, that's what unions are for.

The owners can't simply tear up the CBA and offer 100k contracts, the union would revolt, and you'd be stuck watching sub-par talent in the NBA.

You wouldn't even get the best college players, because none of them would want to side against the players union.

So actually, the players have a TON of bargaining power.

Leisure Suit Larry
10-12-2006, 09:19 PM
Um, that's what unions are for.

The owners can't simply tear up the CBA and offer 100k contracts, the union would revolt, and you'd be stuck watching sub-par talent in the NBA.

You wouldn't even get the best college players, because none of them would want to side against the players union.

So actually, the players have a TON of bargaining power.

How?! If they decline, what else are they going to do? I'm sure 10% could get decent jobs (still not making $100k) but the majority would be working bad jobs just like everyone else with a HS education.

Kstat
10-12-2006, 09:22 PM
How?! If they decline, what else are they going to do? I'm sure 10% could get decent jobs (still not making $100k) but the majority would be working bad jobs just like everyone else with a HS education.

If they decline, what are the owners going to do?

(A) they have $300+ million investments they now can't make money off of.

(B) they have contracts ALREADY guarenteed that they will be under OBLIGATION to pay (since they'd be the ones violating the CBA to begin with)

(C) The TV companies woul in turn rip up their deals with the NBA, having no elbron or Wade to show off on friday nights.

There is no NBA without the players.

The players know this.

The players have enough power to get guarenteed contracts and keep them.

As meddling at Stern is, he's the one that AGREED to give the players guarenteed deals in the first place, because he knows that ultimately will keep a happy ship.

Leisure Suit Larry
10-12-2006, 09:25 PM
I'm not saying they should do it, especially right now, I'm saying it should have never gotten this far out of hand. Think how much salaries have escalated over the past 10-20 years. It's ridiculous. If they are that great they can still get endorsement money.

Kstat
10-12-2006, 09:30 PM
Think how much salaries have escalated over the past 10-20 years. It's ridiculous. If they are that great they can still get endorsement money.

Actually, salaries have gone DOWN over the last 10 years.

Mediocre players aren't getting $105 million deals anymore.

As for the 10 years previous to that, the NBA started to make more money, and the players, knowing they were as big a part of the growth as anybody, wanted their chunk of the profits.

Leisure Suit Larry
10-12-2006, 09:33 PM
Actually, salaries have gone DOWN over the last 10 years.

Mediocre players aren't getting $105 million deals anymore.

As for the 10 years previous to that, the NBA started to make more money, and the players, knowing they were as big a part of the growth as anybody, wanted their chunk of the profits.

No.

Top Salaries for the '95-'96 season....


1. Patrick Ewing (NY) ......... $18,724,000
2. Clyde Drexler (Hou) ......... 9,810,000
3. David Robinson (SA) ......... 7,700,000
4. Chris Webber (Was) .......... 7,000,000
5. Joe Dumars (Det) ............ 6,881,000
6. Danny Manning (Pho) ......... 6,833,000
7. A.C. Green (Pho) ............ 6,473,000 (average)
8. Shaquille O'Neal (Orl) ...... 5,700,000
9. Derrick Coleman (Phi) ....... 5,476,000
10. Sean Elliott (SA) ........... 5,333,000 (average)
11. Hakeem Olajuwon (Hou) ....... 5,305,000
12. Anfernee Hardaway (Orl) ..... 5,230,000
13. James Worthy (LAL) .......... 5,150,000 (retired)
14. Detlef Schrempf (Sea) ....... 5,000,000
15. Sam Bowie (LAL) ............. 4,800,000 (retired)
16. Charles Barkley (Pho) ....... 4,760,000
17. Brad Daugherty (Cle) ........ 4,700,000
18. Danny Ferry (Cle) ........... 4,643,000
19. Alonzo Mourning (Mia) ....... 4,560,000
20. Tom Gugliotta (Min) ......... 4,500,000
21. Clarence Weatherspoon (Phi) . 4,500,000
22. Shawn Bradley (NJ) .......... 4,320,000
23. Larry Johnson (Cha) ......... 4,295,000
24. Brian Shaw (Orl) ............ 4,250,000
25. John Williams (Pho) ......... 4,151,000 (average)
26. Dale Davis (Ind) ............ 4,050,000
27. Grant Hill (Det) ............ 4,050,000


Teams payrolls
Team Payroll
Toronto Raptors ........ $17,955,000
Vancouver Grizzlies .... $18,413,000
Boston Celtics ......... $20,219,000
Los Angeles Clippers ... $21,165,000
Dallas Mavericks ....... $21,753,000
Miami Heat ............. $22,087,000
Washington Bullets ..... $22,224,000
Atlanta Hawks .......... $22,227,000
Utah Jazz .............. $22,451,000
New Jersey Nets ........ $22,580,000
Minnesota Timberwolves . $22,642,000
Golden State Warriors .. $22,877,000
Milwaukee Bucks ........ $23,011,000 (paper lists total as $23,309,000)
Charlotte Hornets ...... $23,084,000
Chicago Bulls .......... $23,512,000
Indiana Pacers ......... $23,909,000
Portland Trailblazers .. $23,926,000
Detroit Pistons ........ $23,970,000
Sacramento Kings ....... $24,391,000
Denver Nuggets ......... $24,553,000
Philadelphia 76ers ..... $25,133,000
Houston Rockets ........ $25,632,000
Seattle Supersonics .... $25,852,000
San Antonio Spurs ...... $26,553,000
Cleveland Cavaliers .... $27,695,000
Los Angeles Lakers ..... $30,073,000
Phoenix Suns ........... $36,525,000
Orlando Magic .......... $36,526,560
New York Knicks ........ $43,329,000 <---Some things never change, huh?

Only 7 players earned more than $6 million.

http://www.nationwide.net/~patricia/misc/salaries96.txt

</pre>

JayRedd
10-12-2006, 09:34 PM
Clearly, guarenteed contracts cause some problems. If a GM misjudges talent even once or twice and overpays or if a serious injury or "quick aging" player (for example, CWebb or KMart) occurs, it can really end almost any chance for competitiveness.

But the NBA Player's Union is too strong for the owners to ever change to non-guarenteed contracts, so even debating it is somewhat pointless.

What I think the owners/League needs to do is try to shorten the contract length once again to say four years (I doubt they could ever get shorter than that). The blunders become less magnified and you'd have a lot less situations where someone becomes "untradable" just because their agent got them an incredible deal (Dunleavy, KMart) or the GM was an idiot (Peja, Nene).

Also, I'd like to see a bi-annual exception where a GM is free to release one player and it won't count against the cap. The player would still get his money from the team, but it wouldn't effect the cap. I suppose that would enable rich owners (Dolan, Buss), and probably hurt teams like us, but it would be a nice way for teams that are willing to spend money to be able to take chances on guys and not have to suffer competitively for years if it doesn't work out.

Leisure Suit Larry
10-12-2006, 09:36 PM
We almost had our entire roster for less than the cost of JO

Indiana Pacers ......... $23,909,000
Player Salary
Dale Davis .............. $4,050,000
Rik Smits ............... 3,750,000
Reggie Miller ........... 3,211,000 (average)
Derrick McKey ........... 2,800,000
Mark Jackson ............ 2,600,000
Scott Haskin ............ 1,313,000
Eddie Johnson ........... 1,000,000
Ricky Pierce ............ 1,000,000
Haywoode Workman ........ 900,000
Duane Ferrell ........... 845,000
Antonio Davis ........... 800,000
Travis Best ............. 580,000
Damon Bailey ............ 250,000 (released)
Adrian Caldwell ......... 225,000
Dwayne Schintzius ....... 225,000
Fred Hoiberg ............ 200,000
Kevin Salvadori ......... 110,000 (released)
Mark Strickland ......... 50,000 (released)

Wow, it got a little ridiculous there in the late 90s. Jordan got over 30 million a few years

Kstat
10-12-2006, 09:36 PM
I'm talking about 96-97, wqhen the contracts went through the roof on a bunch of no-names.

JayRedd
10-12-2006, 09:39 PM
I'm talking about 96-97, wqhen the contracts went through the roof on a bunch of no-names.

Juwan Howard, Glenn Robinson and Vin Baker say "Thanks"

Leisure Suit Larry
10-12-2006, 09:40 PM
I'm talking about 96-97, wqhen the contracts went through the roof on a bunch of no-names.



1. Michael Jordan (Chi) .... $30,140,000
2. Horace Grant (Orl) ...... 14,857,000
3. Reggie Miller (Ind) ..... 11,250,000
4. Shaquille O'Neal (LAL) .. 10,714,000
5. Gary Payton (Sea) ....... 10,212,000
6. David Robinson (SA) ...... 9,952,000
7. Juwan Howard (Was) ....... 9,750,000
8. Hakeem Olajuwon (Hou) .... 9,655,000
9. Alonzo Mourning (Mia) .... 9,380,000
10. Dennis Rodman (Chi) ...... 9,000,000
11. Dikembe Mutombo (Atl) .... 8,013,000
12. Chris Webber (Was) ....... 8,000,000
13. Elden Campbell (LAL) ..... 7,000,000
14. Kevin Johnson (Pho) ...... 7,000,000
15. Latrell Sprewell (GS) .... 7,000,000
16. Otis Thorpe (Det) ........ 7,000,000
17. Danny Manning (Pho) ...... 6,833,000
18. Derrick Coleman (Phi) .... 6,739,000
19. Anfernee Hardaway (Orl) .. 6,655,000
20. Dale Davis (Ind) ......... 6,508,000
21. John Stockton (Uta) ...... 6,000,000
22. Clyde Drexler (Hou) ...... 5,500,000
23. Sean Elliott (SA) ........ 5,333,000
24. Dino Radja (Bos) ......... 5,313,000
25. Antonio Davis (Ind) ...... 5,200,000
26. Shawn Bradley (NJ) ....... 5,130,000
27. Grant Hill (Det) ......... 5,025,000
28. Larry Johnson (NY) ....... 5,004,000
29. Tom Gugliotta (Min) ...... 5,000,000
30. Allan Houston (NY) ....... 5,000,000
31. Vlade Divac (Cha) ........ 4,718,000
32. Charles Barkley (Hou) .... 4,695,000
33. Karl Malone (Uta) ........ 4,657,000
34. Danny Ferry (Cle) ........ 4,643,000
35. Glenn Robinson (Mil) ..... 4,640,000
36. Christian Laettner (Atl) . 4,500,000
37. Steve Smith (Atl) ........ 4,500,000
38. Jason Kidd (Pho) ......... 4,408,000
39. A.C. Green (Dal) ......... 4,315,000
40. Kenny Anderson (Por) ..... 4,175,000
41. John Williams (Pho) ...... 4,151,000
42. Harvey Grant (Was) ....... 4,111,000
43. Chris Dudley (Por) ....... 4,100,000
44. Glen Rice (Cha) .......... 4,002,000
45. Rik Smits (Ind) .......... 4,000,000
46. Brian Shaw (Orl) ......... 4,000,000</pre>

Not really, but what happened? These aren't as big as salaries now.

FrenchConnection
10-12-2006, 09:53 PM
We had a whole discussion about salaries this summer around draft time. If the NBA were to try to lower entry-level salaries to the point of $100,000-$300,000 dollars, you would see top American talent going over to Europe. Remember, European teams are paying really good money, and would jump at the chance to sign top American talent. They operate without salary caps and have shown the willingness to sign big contracts. Our European friends pointed out to us that European contracts are reported as net, so you can double all the amounts. You are seeing a situation in hockey were players are using big offers from European clubs as leverage in contract negotiations. I think you might see a similar situation in the NBA before too long.

Leisure Suit Larry
10-12-2006, 09:56 PM
We had a whole discussion about salaries this summer around draft time. If the NBA were to try to lower entry-level salaries to the point of $100,000-$300,000 dollars, you would see top American talent going over to Europe. Remember, European teams are paying really good money, and would jump at the chance to sign top American talent. They operate without salary caps and have shown the willingness to sign big contracts. Our European friends pointed out to us that European contracts are reported as net, so you can double all the amounts. You are seeing a situation in hockey were players are using big offers from European clubs as leverage in contract negotiations. I think you might see a similar situation in the NBA before too long.

Good point, I never really thought about that.

ChicagoJ
10-12-2006, 10:06 PM
Right... its not a vacuum, there are other leagues. The choice isn't "NBA or carwash."

Although I find it peculiar that LSL is the closest of any of you to agreeing with my premise. :buddies:

I want to see a few more responses and then I'll add a few more thoughts.

Kegboy
10-12-2006, 10:11 PM
Are guaranteed contracts killing the NBA?

For some reason, my brain read that as, "Are contract killings guaranteed in the NBA?" Man, I knew Jay was mad, but geez. :crazy:

Destined4Greatness
10-12-2006, 10:11 PM
I think non-guaranteed contracts could encourage selfish basketball because every season players are playing for a contract.

Well there are the rare exception players that play better team ball to make themselves look better in a contract year, sadly they are few and far between.

vapacersfan
10-12-2006, 10:13 PM
I don't think that guarenteed contracts are killing the NBA, if anything I would say GM's making stupid decisions and players acting like fools are killing it.

We can sit here and talk about escape clauses for the bad decisions GM's make all we want, but the way I see it they get credit for the good, they can take the heat for the bad.

I do think that after the last few years it would be nice to see more "morale" clauses put into NBA contracts, but even if they were added, the fact is the PA would still raise hell any time a team tried to take advantage of said clause.

Bball
10-12-2006, 10:36 PM
Guaranteed contracts are part of the problem, not part of the solution to what ails the NBA.

If there was one thing I would change it would be the guaranteed contracts would be gone.

I think it would even be worth a lockout.

All the excuses against the non-guaranteed contracts are just excuses against changing the status quo. Saying you have players who'd play selfish because they are playing for their lives is just the other side of the 'got a big contract and now has no drive and desire' arguments we have now.

IMHO...
If a player plays the wrong way then he doesn't get his next year guaranteed, he gets cut. I think rather quickly players would learn to listen to their coach and management, not their pals or agent. And it wouldn't take long before agents started advising their clients to play the way the coach wants.

Personally, I think the scenario of players playing selfish would quickly self-correct (as they learn what it takes to stay on the team).... Unlike the scenario of a player getting a big fat guaranteed contract putting his game on cruise control until the next contract year rolls around where he MIGHT pick it up if he still cares at all.

Guaranteed contracts make it too easy on the players.

I wouldn't have a problem guaranteeing a small percentage of the contract, guaranteeing the 1st year, or some kind of 'severence pay' scenario so that if you're cut you get enough money that you aren't on the street begging for pennies in a year.

But management, and fans, need some kind of protection against mistakes and problems ... And coaches need some real leverage so that they can coach.


-Bball

Kstat
10-12-2006, 10:39 PM
Its a silly idea.

Player movement would be out of control. There would be entire TEAMS with complete roster turnover from year to year.

The NBA needs stability, and that's chaos. You build a fanbase by keeping your players (for the most part) in the same sport to build a local following. The owners had a lockout in the late 90's, in part BECAUSE of too much roster turnover.

Arcadian
10-12-2006, 10:59 PM
I think teams should pay for bad mistakes in signings. It is just another part of the game. A contract is a contract.

Bball
10-12-2006, 11:03 PM
Its a silly idea.

Player movement would be out of control. There would be entire TEAMS with complete roster turnover from year to year.

The NBA needs stability, and that's chaos. You build a fanbase by keeping your players (for the most part) in the same sport to build a local following. The owners had a lockout in the late 90's, in part BECAUSE of too much roster turnover.

It's killing the NFL and just having Peyton, Marvin, Freeney, and Reggie for a lone year was rough for the Colts. How can anyone identify with the Colts with all the turnover?

You're arguing against changing the status quo IMHO and just throwing out straw man arguments and excuses.

The NFL is a viable counter to your argument unless you left off a lot of depth as to why the NBA would be different. I'm just not seeing your point.

The only thing I see as a hurdle is the fact the players would scream murder at this point if the owners went for it. But in the long run, I think it would be worth it to let them scream.

-Bball

Kstat
10-12-2006, 11:07 PM
It's killing the NFL and just having Peyton, Marvin, Freeney, and Reggie for a lone year was rough for the Colts. How can anyone identify with the Colts with all the turnover?

You're arguing against changing the status quo IMHO and just throwing out straw man arguments and excuses.

The NFL is a viable counter to your argument unless you left off a lot of depth as to why the NBA would be different. I'm just not seeing your point.

The only thing I see as a hurdle is the fact the players would scream murder at this point if the owners went for it. But in the long run, I think it would be worth it to let them scream.

-Bball



You're comparing 53-man rosters to 12-man rosters. Silly counter-argument.

An NFL roster can let 10 run off and nobody notices. DO that in the NBA and it's a disaster.

As a hurdle? This isnt even a realistic possibility.

WIthout the players you have no NBA, and the players will fight to the death for their guarenteed deals, which the commissioner supported to BEGIN with.

Bball
10-12-2006, 11:17 PM
You're comparing 53-man rosters to 12-man rosters. Silly counter-argument.

An NFL roster can let 10 run off and nobody notices. DO that in the NBA and it's a disaster.

As a hurdle? This isnt even a realistic possibility.

WIthout the players you have no NBA, and the players will fight to the death for their guarenteed deals, which the commissioner supported to BEGIN with.

Unless the GM is an idiot you're not going to turnover the entire roster each year.

And if you are going to use the example of the NFL turning over 10 positions from their 53 positions then you should be doing percentages. It's just not going to be 10 players on an NBA roster.

The players would put up a mighty fight, but in the end the golden rule would apply:
He who owns the gold, rules.

And I think the owners would own the PR battle in this and certainly force the players to fight uphill with their spin.

-Bball

ChicagoJ
10-12-2006, 11:39 PM
Kstat, unless I'm missing something, I think you're arguing for multi-year contracts instead of one-year contracts.

How about a 5-year contract with only the first two years guaranteed?

Or the opposite, a 5-year contract that doesn't become guaranteed until season #4?

They get the security in a multi-year deal.

When a contract gets changed in the NFL, there's usually a signing bonus that induces the player to do so. That would necessarily be part of a change.

stew
10-12-2006, 11:50 PM
The players would put up a mighty fight, but in the end the golden rule would apply:
He who owns the gold, rules.

-Bball

this is true, and this would favor big market teams...

teams like LA, NY, would forever be competitive as they can pay more and players would line up to play for them...

Kstat
10-13-2006, 12:06 AM
this is true, and this would favor big market teams...

teams like LA, NY, would forever be competitive as they can pay more and players would line up to play for them...

Somehow, I don't think bball is thinking this through.....

IMO, it's jealousy over the players getting guarenteed contracts while the average Joe doesn't. Non-guarenteed contracts would not improve the game one ioda and I'm pretty confident i'll never see the issue even challenged in my lifetime.

THe commissioner himself is the biggest proponent of guarenteed contracts. That says all you need to know about how important they have become to keeping peace in the NBA.

Kstat
10-13-2006, 12:09 AM
And I don't feel like dealing with player holdouts every year they have a career season and wants their contracts re-negotiated.

Roaming Gnome
10-13-2006, 12:16 AM
Why does this sound like the classic....Athletes make too much money argument? I know that it isn't, but it feels like it! Anyway, I don't see how taking away guaranteed deals protects the fans. I just see it putting more money in the owners pockets, unless you keep the Basketball Related Income (BRI) stipulation.

Bball
10-13-2006, 12:18 AM
Somehow, I don't think bball is thinking this through.....

IMO, it's jealousy over the players getting guarenteed contracts while the average Joe doesn't. Non-guarenteed contracts would not improve the game one ioda and I'm pretty confident i'll never see the issue even challenged in my lifetime.

THe commissioner himself is the biggest proponent of guarenteed contracts. That says all you need to know about how important they have become to keeping peace in the NBA.

Jay started it. Blame him. :D

I'm not sure when the commissioner was elected 'all-knowing'. I think the NFL model is better. There might be some workable compromise in between the two (NBA and NFL models) but I hardly think the current NBA should be put on a pedestal in regards to the salary situation. In my view the NFL model is clearly better for the sport. I still don't see why you say it wouldn't work in the NBA. It works... look at the NFL.

Of course I've followed a team that historically overpays players and year in year out they've have had limited flexibility for that very reason.

-Bball

ChicagoJ
10-13-2006, 12:19 AM
THe commissioner himself is the biggest proponent of guarenteed contracts. That says all you need to know about how important they have become to keeping peace in the NBA.

That's not exactly a ringning endorsement. He also thinks of the "glory days" of the NBA as when Larry, Magic, and Michael were very marketable stars - he doesn't really give a damn about the "team" game.

ChicagoJ
10-13-2006, 12:26 AM
Why does this sound like the classic....Athletes make too much money argument? I know that it isn't, but it feels like it! Anyway, I don't see how taking away guaranteed deals protects the fans. I just see it putting more money in the owners pockets, unless you keep the Basketball Related Income (BRI) stipulation.

I think it would be a disaster without that.

I don't have any problem with the $$$ amount, assuming the player is working to "earn" it.

I've got a problem if a player like Bender is just cruising along on the injured list.

I've got a problem if a team won't "fire" a guy that's blatantly insubordinate (as Donnie said, all four of these guys were facing an internal fine/ suspension just for being out that late - were they 'first time offenders? Is this a habitual problem?) because they're still on the hook for several more years while the player has NO incentive to do any better because they're getting paid anyway.

There has to be some way to dangle a carrot in front... to motivate these guys. I'm wondering if, frankly, we're entering into an era where the NBA players are only looking out for the money, not improving, not helping their team win, etc. Like what baseball struggled with for years, but doesn't happen in football.

Football is the only major professional team sport with "pay for performance."

Kstat
10-13-2006, 01:18 AM
In the NBA you get paid for what you DID.

In the NFL you get paid for what teams think you're GOING to do.

You tell me which you think is more fair. At least the NBA doesn't give mega-deals to guys who haven't played a single game.

Unless you LIKE the idea of rookies getting paid more than most established veterans, and holding out for a bigger contract straight out of college?

Kstat
10-13-2006, 01:23 AM
I HATE the way the NFL treats their players.

At the same time, there's only so much money to go around in the NFL, because you have to pay 53 different guys, so I understand that it's the only way they can go, because you can't have 53 different guarenteed deals, with all the injuries that happen in football.

In the NBA, with only 12 athletes to pay, the owners would simply abuse it to the point that they would be making more money, and the quality of the game wouldn't go up at all.

RamBo_Lamar
10-13-2006, 06:10 AM
Do fans benefit or lose from guaranteed contracts?


Lose.

It's too easy for knucklehead or lackadaisical players to hold a team hostage,
and not be held accountable.

Fans end up paying for it in the long run with higher ticket prices.

Teams need the ability to void contracts of players who hurt them.

Eindar
10-13-2006, 06:33 AM
I think, given the possibility of players having Bender type careers, guaranteed contracts are a good thing. Stern made a good move for the owners this year by getting the length shortened. Had Jax's deal been made in today's CBA, he probably would have only gotten 3 or 4 years, which means he'd be on his last or next to last season with us, and nobody would be freaking out about how bad his contract is.

Hicks
10-13-2006, 06:40 AM
No thoughts on my post on the first page? I think whether it's using that idea or another, there needs to be an easier way to get out of a mess like this while still paying the players.

Will Galen
10-13-2006, 07:20 AM
In the NBA, with only 12 athletes to pay, the owners would simply abuse it to the point that they would be making more money, and the quality of the game wouldn't go up at all.

Twelve? That's the second time you've used that number, but that's wrong.

Individual teams are required to carry 13 players, while the NBA guarantees a league-wide average of at least 14.

JayRedd
10-13-2006, 10:17 AM
No thoughts on my post on the first page? I think whether it's using that idea or another, there needs to be an easier way to get out of a mess like this while still paying the players.

A bi-annual "Allan Houston"-type exception that also gives cap relief instead of only luxury tax relief.

Bad GMs will still be bad GMs, but if an owner is willing to eat the cost then the team is still able to remain competitive.

ChicagoJ
10-13-2006, 10:20 AM
A bi-annual "Allan Houston"-type exception that also gives cap relief instead of only luxury tax relief.

Bad GMs will still be bad GMs, but if an owner is willing to eat the cost then the team is still able to remain competitive.

All league rivalries suffer when the Knicks are as bad as they've been recently.

ChicagoJ
10-13-2006, 10:27 AM
In the NBA you get paid for what you DID.

In the NFL you get paid for what teams think you're GOING to do.

You tell me which you think is more fair. At least the NBA doesn't give mega-deals to guys who haven't played a single game.

Unless you LIKE the idea of rookies getting paid more than most established veterans, and holding out for a bigger contract straight out of college?

Everybody else in the real world is "paid for (future) performance."

I'd hate for players to lose a contract due to injury. I hate that the NFL allows that. But the NBA is too far in the other extreme, there should be some type of buy-out provision.

As for your last couple of comments, those have nothing whatsoever to do with guaranteed vs/ nonguaranteed contracts.

Again, football players get a "signing bonus" for reworking their contracts. As we learn in business law 101, elements of a contract include (1) there must be compensation and (2) it must be "bargained for."

JayRedd
10-13-2006, 10:27 AM
All league rivalries suffer when the Knicks are as bad as they've been recently.

Not to mention the League's overall marketability, TV ratings, merchandising, etc, etc, etc.

Same with LA. They have Kobe, so they still have that "visibility" nationally, but because they are paying Brian Grant $15 million for not even being on the team, the CBA and salary cap rules really give them no shot to be competitive until that contract is off the books.