Next CBA

[ranger001]

What I find amazing is the number of people who think that the owners shouldn't be able to implement non-guaranteed contracts like the NFL if they want to when they are the ones paying the bills.

Its the duty of the league(Stern) to make an ownership investment safer for the owners. If the majority of teams are losing money then it jeopardizes the future of the NBA as an entity. If it were true that the teams were all lying and they were all making money then there would be no need for a lockout and they'd just continue the present CBA.

Owners already have the option of offering non-guaranteed contracts. Outside of rookie contracts (which aren't bankrupting anybody) and the 1st year of S&T deals no other contracts have to be guaranteed.

They just freely choose to give Joe Johnson $120M.

Only 1 year of a contract can be non-guaranteed. There is no way to give a multi-year non-guaranteed contract to a free agent.

Anyway the point isn't what you can do to save money. Theoretically, an owner could just fill out the roster with mostly minimum contracts and rookie contracts every year e.g. Minnesota but take a look at their attendance and revenue.

The point is that it should be impossible for any one team to overspend and pressure other teams to do the same. The NFL is the model of what the NBA wants to be like. Every team has a chance and every team makes money.

[killbuckner]

Only 1 year of a contract can be non-guaranteed. There is no way to give a multi-year non-guaranteed contract to a free agent.

THats not at all true. Its just that players get no benefit from a multi-year non-guaranteed contract so they normally have no reason to sign them. They would be better off just taking the 1 year contract and then hitting free agency again the next season where they can sign with whatever team would pay them the most money. Think of non-guaranteed years as a team option- and players need a really good reason to accept a team option which can keep them from hitting FA when they want to.

In the NFL they give players incentive to sign multi-year non-guaranteed contracts by giving them tons of money up front in a signing bonus which has its own set of perverse incentives built in.

[Three34]

Only 1 year of a contract can be non-guaranteed. There is no way to give a multi-year non-guaranteed contract to a free agent.

Explain Ishmael Smith, Manny Harris, Samardo Samuels, Stephen Graham, Jeremy Lin, Matt Janning, Garret Siler, Joe Alexander, Pops Mensah-Bonsu and Sherron Collins to me, then.

[ranger001]

Ok sham, but those are all scrubs. So even though its possible, practically its not for a regular rotation player much less Joe Johnson.

I noticed you ignored the part of my post about that not being the point anyway.

[ranger001]

In the NFL they give players incentive to sign multi-year non-guaranteed contracts by giving them tons of money up front in a signing bonus which has its own set of perverse incentives built in.

And those bonuses will be an issue for the NFL when they negotiate. They will start limiting the percentage that can be given as a bonus.

[killbuckner]

Ranger- without the bonuses then NFL players would have no reason to take anything more than a 1 year contract. Without the bonuses then the NFL system doesn't work. Thats what you are missing here.... What incentive do players have to agree to team options if you get rid of signing bonuses and get rid of guaranteed contracts?

[ranger001]

For the NFL I didn't say get rid of the signing bonus just limit the percentage of the contract that can be given as a bonus. They might implement a maximum salary also.

For the NBA I can see them doing something like make contracts 75% guaranteed for only the first 2 years say and say 50% partially guaranteed after. So there still is incentive to sign a muliyear deal. It all depends on how much money owners are actually losing, if they are really losing money its going to be a long negotiation.

[Nanogeek]

Septhaka- if contracts were unguaranteed why would players ever sign more than a 1 year contract? I think that it would be pretty ridiculous to have 80% of players hit FA every season.

WHat should happen is that teams stop offering contracts as if the player is sure to continue to improve. The Hawks gladly promised Joe Johnson $25 million dollars in 2015. Teams simply need to be smarter about the contracts they offer.

Obviously, the compensation system would be more complicated than "Everyone must sign unguaranteed contracts." Incentives would be in place for players who can perform to sign multiyear deals such as lower maximums with steeper raises for successive years. Signing bonuses can also be utilized to incentive players to sign longer term deals. Teams could be required to pay a player say 20% of unpaid salaries on a contract if they waive the player. A system can be implemented to incentivize players to sign longer term deals without saddling teams with players that do not deliver on the promises they made or potential they displayed when they signed deals.

To think a system would be so simple to eliminate any incentive to sign a contract longer than a year is daft.

[killbuckner]

Sephtaka- you are the one that said "all contracts should be unguranteed". I think that is pretty daft to use your words.

If you think teams should be allowed to give bigger signing bonuses to give players incentive to sign unguaranteed contracts then thats a worthwhile conversation. If you think that teams should be prohibited from guaranteeing a contract thats even 1 year long then thats an opinion we can talk about. But I'll also just remind people that if you say contracts would be required to be non-guaranteed then you probably also need to require that they cannot be based on performance measures. Because if a team wants to give a guaranteed contract then its trivial to offer a contract where the entire amount becomes guaranteed if they play 1 minute or if they participate in offseason workouts. And then really it just comes down to the fact that teams need to be far smarter about WHEN it makes sense to offer a guaranteed contract.

[ranger001]

But that goes back to the Rashard Lewis mention earlier. Rashard got heavily overpaid by Otis Smith, but it wasn't like Rashard got fat or lazy; Rashard just wasn't as good as Otis thought he was. So why should he be sudden;y stripped of all his dues just because Otis woke up?

He should get stripped because he's not performing like he's paid to perform. The same way most of us would get fired if we stopped performing at our jobs. Or you'd get divorced if you didn't pay any attention to your wife. You should reap what you sow.

It's a system that would benefit teams stuck with guys like Curry, who quite clearly mailed it in for 4 years, yet the enforcement of such a rule would be so subjective that I don't think it could ever truly work.

The rule would have to be objective, e.g. last 2 years of a contract are only 20% guaranteed. Plus Curry is hurting other players, if the Knicks could cut him they would give the money to other deserving players. Owners should be able to get rid of contracts like Curry and give his money to someone who deserves it.

[Three34]

He should get stripped because he's not performing like he's paid to perform.

And he never could. That's not his fault.

[ranger001]

This particular issue is not so much about whose fault it is but the desire to correct mistakes. Mistakes will always be made, a mechanism to correct mistakes benefits both owners and those players who can perform.

[Three34]

.......whilst unfairly penalising other players who did nothing wrong.

[ranger001]

The virtue of righting a mistake is better than the dubious virtue of a player benefitting from that same mistake. Why wouldn't you want the money going to Curry be spent on more deserving players?

You're not part of the Rashard entourage are you?

[Three34]

Why wouldn't you want the money going to Curry be spent on more deserving players?

Did I say that?

[killbuckner]

Why wouldn't you want the money going to Curry be spent on more deserving players?

Because if the Knicks thought it was best for their team to give him a guaranteed contract. IF the knicks thought that he was the most deserving person at the time to get that money then why do I care? I don't think that Joe Johnson deserved to get the biggest contract this past offseason but I am not going to complain that the money isn't going to more deserving players. Congrats to Joe Johnson.

If you want to let teams cut players and get the salary off of their books (while the player still gets the money contractually owed to them) then thats worth talking about. But once you sign a player to a guaranteed contract I will never understand the people who think that the player shouldn't be paid what is owed to him.

If teams want to have players where 2 years are partially guaranteed then they should start offering those contracts. Just keep in mind that the players would have to have some incentive to give the teams that kind of control.

[ranger001]

Why wouldn't you want the money going to Curry be spent on more deserving players?

Did I say that?

So do you?

[ranger001]

Why wouldn't you want the money going to Curry be spent on more deserving players?

Because if the Knicks thought it was best for their team to give him a guaranteed contract. IF the knicks thought that he was the most deserving person at the time to get that money then why do I care? ...

I don't expect you to care in some sort of outraged manner but the issue is a guiding principle. Is it better for the NBA to have mistakes like Curry around or is it better for the NBA to have some way of cutting contracts like Curry's?

You probably didn't care that rookies used to get the biggest contracts either but it was decided that rookies should be limited as a principle to benefit the NBA. This is another issue. Where do you stand?

[Three34]

Dude. You're really being quite annoying. If you really need me to point out the difference between Eddy Curry and Rashard Lewis's situations, why not go back to page 5, post 13?

[killbuckner]

I'm fine with teams having some sort of amnesty clause to be able to get contracts like Curry off of their books. When a team wants to blow it up and start over I do think there should be more ways to let them regain that caproom. And players wouldn't at all oppose another amnesty.

I just think that teams should be able to offer Lebron James a 5 year guaranteed contract so they can lock him in and don't want to ahve to deal with the uncertainty of him becoming a free agent. ANd then its just a matter of letting the teams decide when its worth it for them to guarantee the full contract vs giving themselves more flexibility by guaranteeing less of the contract. But I'd let teams decide that for themselves on who to give the guaranteed contract to.

I don't have any issue with a rookie scale contract. The only change I'd make is that I think if you want to retain the rights of a player you draft in the second round then I think you should be required to offer them a 1 year guaranteed contract at the league minimum. Otherwise I think the player should be free to sign with whatever team gives him the best chance of making the roster.