dougthonus wrote:CobraCommander wrote:I agree with you on all points. So don’t take my points as disagreement.
I’m saying that if you have a mental issue that’s NOT caused by the team (head injury from falling excluded) should he treated like braking your leg skiing in the off season. The sixers wouldn’t pay him for that unless they wanted to...right?
Off-season injuries are still guaranteed unless the player is doing something explicitly forbidden in the contract. Ie, if Simmons fell down the stairs, he'd still be protected for injury regardless of the 76ers thoughts on it. If he hurt himself skiing, skiing might be excluded from his contract and they might have a choice.
Any mental health issue would still be covered by this criteria unless there were explicit causes that were removed, but with mental health I don't know how you would identify specific causes you would not cover. Beyond that, you could easily make the case that a good chunk of his mental health issue (assuming he is being honest and has one) is explicitly caused by the team and his role on it.
Problem is Ben was saying he wanted out of Philly - thus implying his mental issue is associated to the sixers. Which is why we all feel like his issue is disingenuous.
Compromise
If ben can’t play for the sixers, after signing the contract but can for other teams, his contract has to be voided and money paid back for this year and signing bonus....and sixers get draft compensation and money from who he signs with.
Because I doubt he would get a max deal right now from most teams.
Ben’s playing with fire that’s going to hurt the rest of the union.
All owners are business people first team owners second. They, rightfully in my opinion, can’t have a player have a unsubstantiatable condition determine the outcome of 200 million contracts