Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[ranger001]

^ in a free agent market where Hedo Turkgulo gets $50 million for 5 yrs the system is broken.

That wasn't too sad. What was sad is that he was able to sign that and then check the f out. Do you know what I love about thee NFL? Non guaranteed contracts. You work your tail off every week or you are out the door with no paycheque. There are no Hedo's or Curry's in the NFL. They are rife in the NBA thou.

This is the issue, the guaranteed contracts. There is no way to know if injury or laziness is going to ruin a player. IMO contracts should not ever be guaranteed for more than 1-2 years.

[Cool-Hand-Luke]

Agree. Non-guaranteed contracts keep players in check. NBA teams have 15 players, if 1 player on a large contract checks out, breaks the law, plays with no heart, that team suffers more than any NHL, NFL and MLB team with the same scenario.

[ranger001]

And before somebody says the tired refrain of just dont give out guaranteed contracts they well know that any team that does that will never sign a quality free agent.

[BLKMASS]

While Wizards guard Nick Young has already declared he will no longer wear Jordan Brand shoes, the Charlotte Observer wonders if Jordan’s hawkish stance in these labor negotiations may turn off free agents from wanting to play for Jordan in Charlotte.


Hahaha, **** M.J ...

[douggood]

^ in a free agent market where Hedo Turkgulo gets $50 million for 5 yrs the system is broken.

That wasn't too sad. What was sad is that he was able to sign that and then check the f out. Do you know what I love about thee NFL? Non guaranteed contracts. You work your tail off every week or you are out the door with no paycheque. There are no Hedo's or Curry's in the NFL. They are rife in the NBA thou.

This is the issue, the guaranteed contracts. There is no way to know if injury or laziness is going to ruin a player. IMO contracts should not ever be guaranteed for more than 1-2 years.

100% year 1, 80% year 2, 60%year 3, 40% year 4, 20% year 5. fair and resonable imo.

[Rapsfan07]

The Hard Cap + Franchise Tag is something that I was trying to say earlier but I called it a Flex Cap. Anyway, I think it would be fair if teams had a hard cap of 58-60 million with a minimum salary of say 45-50 million and a Franchise Tag however, max contracts would still be in play and the only reason you are allowed to exceed the cap is a) if you are signing or extending an option to a rookie or b) if you signing an MLE deal (which should stay at a 5 mil). SIgn and Trade should also be allowed so "farm teams" can be compensated for.

That way, there will be a clear difference between the tier of stars and this system would also allow more player movement by rookies. Because if a team cannot afford to sign a player to a fair deal then they are not allowed to exceed the cap and would be forced to trade him (e.g James Harden with OKC). He could still play for OKC if he truly wants to but will have to take a slight pay cut and would require some skillful moves by management in order to keep the team together.

That's my opinion anyways.

[Reignman]

The players are funny like that, they tell the owners to spend their money wisely then oppose every provision that would help the owners spend money wisely.

Why do you think they want the MLE and a less punitive lux tax? It's cuz they know those are the provisions that create bloated deals that benefit them.

So the owners are now putting in provisions that will limit the damage they can do.

Like many of us have said, if the players want freedom to move around then bring down the length of the contracts. Then after 2 or 3 years they can go wherever the **** they want. But ofcourse not, the players want the guarantee of a longterm contract AND they want to be able to force there way to which ever team.

You can't have it both ways, if you want the longterm deal then you have honour your contract. Unfortunately many players don't know what "honouring a contract" actually means.

[Reignman]

And before somebody says the tired refrain of just dont give out guaranteed contracts they well know that any team that does that will never sign a quality free agent.

And those same fools will mock owners like Sterling for doing exactly that. Donald Sterling should be the poster boy for those folks that say "just don't give out bad contracts". That's exactly what he's done for the last 2 decades yet everyone from fans to media mock him for letting talent walk.

[Indeed]

IMO, if the system allows it to happen then the system is at fault. If the minimum payroll is set too high then the minimum should be reduced right?

lol, even the RBI is at 1%, would the owners be losing money? Yes, they can claim that.
So would it make sense to have a 0% on RBI? Should everyone be working without being paid?

Wake up my friend, the owners take their own risk on those inflated expenses, nothing to do with the players. I can't ask you for money if I am losing money at this moment right?

The players are employees. Thus they are exposed to risk just like any other employee.

The players are partners. Just like music singers, they are unique, not like a manufacture employees where they are replaceable. LeBron James cannot be replaced like manufacture employees. It doesn't work that way.

[YogiStewart]

Agree. Non-guaranteed contracts keep players in check. NBA teams have 15 players, if 1 player on a large contract checks out, breaks the law, plays with no heart, that team suffers more than any NHL, NFL and MLB team with the same scenario.

what if he blows his ankle a la Garbo?

[Indeed]

That wasn't too sad. What was sad is that he was able to sign that and then check the f out. Do you know what I love about thee NFL? Non guaranteed contracts. You work your tail off every week or you are out the door with no paycheque. There are no Hedo's or Curry's in the NFL. They are rife in the NBA thou.

This is the issue, the guaranteed contracts. There is no way to know if injury or laziness is going to ruin a player. IMO contracts should not ever be guaranteed for more than 1-2 years.

100% year 1, 80% year 2, 60%year 3, 40% year 4, 20% year 5. fair and resonable imo.

However the idea lacked motivation for the player. From a management perspective, it will discourage players challenging themselves.

You try give that to DeRozan, and see if he wants to come back next year.

[YogiStewart]

The players are partners. Just like music singers, they are unique, not like a manufacture employees where they are replaceable. LeBron James cannot be replaced like manufacture employees. It doesn't work that way.

yeah, that reminds me of bands like REM, who, to fulfill their multimilliondollar contracts with their labels, release a live CD and a greatest hits CD to bring their release total up to snuff. or Remy Shand, who was paid $1 million, released his only CD, then disappeared.

record labels are going bankrupt thanks to that model.

so, um, bad example.

[floppymoose]

I beginning to think it's no use arguing. There's nothing much you can do with someone who actually believes the league lost $300 million last year. With that wide a gap on the facts, it's pretty hopeless.

Then even if we agreed on the financial situation for last season, that isn't the right question to ask. The correct question is how do we expect the league to do in the coming years of the next CBA? Even if we changed the CBA *not at all*, the coming years would not look like this last year.

[douggood]

Agree. Non-guaranteed contracts keep players in check. NBA teams have 15 players, if 1 player on a large contract checks out, breaks the law, plays with no heart, that team suffers more than any NHL, NFL and MLB team with the same scenario.

what if he blows his ankle a la Garbo?

in the nfl it depends on what kind of injury it is.if you have a season long injury then yes, you are put on ir and paid for the year. if you have an injury, like broken finger 4-6 weeks, then you can be cut but paid for 6 weeks.
there are protections in place for teams not to abuse it, but a player like alber haynesworth, earnd a contract for 7 yr 100 mil, got traded twice and was cut last week. he was lazy, grew too heavy, essentially the eddy curry of the nfl. he got paid a nice amount of money so far but the teams wont be stuck with him any more.

[Indeed]

The players are partners. Just like music singers, they are unique, not like a manufacture employees where they are replaceable. LeBron James cannot be replaced like manufacture employees. It doesn't work that way.

yeah, that reminds me of bands like REM, who, to fulfill their multimilliondollar contracts with their labels, release a live CD and a greatest hits CD to bring their release total up to snuff. or Remy Shand, who was paid $1 million, released his only CD, then disappeared.

record labels are going bankrupt thanks to that model.

so, um, bad example.

Yea, a bad example on a negative risk. How about positive risk? Some company is still collecting copy rights from Beatles. And did the singer take a risk to do business? They do, they take a low risk low reward approach, while record companies take big risk big reward approach. Who's wrong here? It is fair to take low risk big reward? Who doesn't want that?

[Indeed]

I beginning to think it's no use arguing. There's nothing much you can do with someone who actually believes the league lost $300 million last year. With that wide a gap on the facts, it's pretty hopeless.

Yea, I see what you mean.

[ranger001]

This is the issue, the guaranteed contracts. There is no way to know if injury or laziness is going to ruin a player. IMO contracts should not ever be guaranteed for more than 1-2 years.

100% year 1, 80% year 2, 60%year 3, 40% year 4, 20% year 5. fair and resonable imo.

However the idea lacked motivation for the player. From a management perspective, it will discourage players challenging themselves.

You try give that to DeRozan, and see if he wants to come back next year.

It would encourage players. If they play crappy they get cut.

[Reignman]

This is the issue, the guaranteed contracts. There is no way to know if injury or laziness is going to ruin a player. IMO contracts should not ever be guaranteed for more than 1-2 years.

100% year 1, 80% year 2, 60%year 3, 40% year 4, 20% year 5. fair and resonable imo.

However the idea lacked motivation for the player. From a management perspective, it will discourage players challenging themselves.

You try give that to DeRozan, and see if he wants to come back next year.

Where's Demar going to go? Europe?

If contracts weren't guaranteed he'd have no choice. Anyway, you used a bad example, Demar doesn't seem like the type of guy that would ease up after receiving his deal.


Now Bargs? There's a guy that would likely be scared of non-guaranteed pay-for-performance type deals. He'd probably go back to Europe.

[Reignman]

I beginning to think it's no use arguing. There's nothing much you can do with someone who actually believes the league lost $300 million last year. With that wide a gap on the facts, it's pretty hopeless.

Then even if we agreed on the financial situation for last season, that isn't the right question to ask. The correct question is how do we expect the league to do in the coming years of the next CBA? Even if we changed the CBA *not at all*, the coming years would not look like this last year.

There's no point in arguing with people that actually believe the last CBA was a viable one.

That's the whole problem here, you guys don't even realize how bad that CBA was (Great for the players though) so it's hard for you to fathom why the owners are asking for a CBA that looks nothing like the old one.

[MEDIC]

The players want the guarantee of a longterm contract AND they want to be able to force there way to which ever team.

You can't have it both ways, if you want the longterm deal then you have honour your contract. Unfortunately many players don't know what "honouring a contract" actually means.

Exactly. If you don't want to be locked into any one franchise long term, sign a shorter deal.

Contract negotiations go both ways. If the player has some concerns about the future of the franchise, have the balls to sign a shorter deal.

Like anything in life, nobody wants to be accountable for their decisions.