End gurranteed contracts...good idea?

[hoops4life]

Yes it is a good idea but the player's union will never allow it.

[The Notic]

I understand the issue that players need some long-term security, particularly if they're asked to play the role of a grunt role player with few "show me" stats.

At the same time, owners need to be protected from players who stop working hard immediately after signing their long term deal.

There is middle ground here.

Why not give all owners the right to buy out any player at any time for half of their remaining contract? Players aren't left with nothing but ownership can clean up their long term cap situation if they're willing to pay the price.

Obviously, provisions would have to made so that players don't get bought out because of an injury.

I always thought guaranteed contracts were a really good way to reward smart GM'ing.

The Ben Wallace free agent signing was a really good indicator of a Smart GM move vs. a Poor GM move .

Do you spend an abhorrent amount amount of money on a player who was gradually getting worst statistically due to his deteriorating athleticism who, by most fan accounts, was losing his heart in the process?

I like guaranteed contracts in that sense. It rewards strategical, well-thought out maneuvers and punishes impulsive, wrong decisions.

Like, the Knicks are stuck with Jerome James and frankly, that makes me happy inside.

[MalReyn]

Why not give all owners the right to buy out any player at any time for half of their remaining contract? Players aren't left with nothing but ownership can clean up their long term cap situation if they're willing to pay the price.

A more viable solution that the players might actually accept would be if ownership was allowed to buyout any player for the full amount of their contract at any time, but the bought out contract does NOT count against the cap.

Of course, this would give a huge leg up to big market teams. But it would still allow teams to escape from salary cap hell.

[nate33]

-= original quote snipped =-



A more viable solution that the players might actually accept would be if ownership was allowed to buyout any player for the full amount of their contract at any time, but the bought out contract does NOT count against the cap.

Of course, this would give a huge leg up to big market teams. But it would still allow teams to escape from salary cap hell.

Too much of an advantage for the big market teams IMO. The owners won't go for it.

My solution makes teams think twice about making a buyout (the buyout would still count against the cap) but it at least helps get rid of really, really bad players who tank it. That would provide more money to throw at good players - which is something the Player's Association might go for. I think my solution is an improvement for both the players and the owners.

Perhaps to make it more palatable for the players, the MLE cap should be raised by about 10% or so. That's the real restriction of player salary growth.

[killbuckner]

Owners are free to offer non-guaranteed contracts if they think thats what will make the team better. Its just that players aren't going to accept when so many other teams think its in their best interest to offer longer guaranteed contracts.

[Doctor MJ]

I would try to fix this in a different way, if for example you would allow a maximum rise of 5% in a player's salary from year to year but make it a 15% maximum rise on a team option year (If the team uses the option obviously) than this would be something both sides would like. The players get a good reason to make their contracts non-guaranteed but have to play harder for the duration of the contract to make sure the team doesn't cut them.

So what you're talking about is the potential for a non-promised pay raise. That's nice, but again that's what everyone else in the world has in addition to having the ability to leave when they want. I doubt offering that would be something that would make players drop guaranteed contracts in mass.

[Doctor MJ]

Basketball is a sport that relies on continuity to become a championship team. The NFL does not. Non-guaranteed contracts and massive player movement works better in a league that doesn't need continuity, that favors parity and lots of changes in the standings each year. Basketball takes a little more patience and appreciation than that.

Besides, the NBA has a functional union unlike the NFL.

Well the real reality is that the reason why football owners fight so hard for non-guaranteed contracts is that what they pay their players to do is likely to completely destroy their bodies, thus making it harder to predict who will be worth a long-term deal.

I hope that disgusts y'all like it disgusts me.

[Joe Kleazy]

It seems that there are so many risks involved with most suggestions regarding this issue. Maybe since the cap limit is so low compared to the players salaries there should be a point when the guranteed contracts are only for the lower amount players and for the max players only the first 3 years are gauranteed.

There should also be a cutback on the amount of Max contracts a team can offer. This would help free agency due to players truly competing for those type of contract while establishing better level of tiers between players and allow more flexibility for each franchise.

A good example is the suns who have 3-Max players who are extremely close to the luxary limit who are forced to fill the roster with weaker talent and are even forced to trade picks because money is tight. Limiting max contracts puts things in place.

There are too many jerome james type players making money off a lucky streak of games that cause a chain of other bums to force their teams to pay them the same contracts to avoid loosing them because they are better than said player.

[Doctor MJ]

I understand the issue that players need some long-term security, particularly if they're asked to play the role of a grunt role player with few "show me" stats.

At the same time, owners need to be protected from players who stop working hard immediately after signing their long term deal.

There is middle ground here.

Why not give all owners the right to buy out any player at any time for half of their remaining contract? Players aren't left with nothing but ownership can clean up their long term cap situation if they're willing to pay the price.

Obviously, provisions would have to made so that players don't get bought out because of an injury.

I don't really see that as a middle ground. That is a direct compromise on the players' part for the owners' gain. If the owners can negotiate that with the players that's fine, if not I'd wouldn't blame the players for not wanting to sacrifice for the owners.

Now where this could get interesting is to make it symmetrical, and have players be able to buy out their contracts as well. There's certainly precedence for this in other sports. I'd say the only thing is that with the salary cap as it is, big salary guys won't be able to do anything with this most of the time, so it'd be a question of whether the small salary guys see it as a big advantage.

[Joe Kleazy]

The proble is that there are just too many bums getting paid unreasonable contracts that suck up most of the cap. Superstars make the league and are gonna make that money but since you can have a team like boston with 3 guys and all bums your always gonna be near the limit.

Limiting the amount of Max contracts allows the tiers to be set while spreading talent to all of the leagues franchies and creates better seasons and playoffs games, which makes all teams more money and uplifts the league.

[Cevap]

-= original quote snipped =-



Well the real reality is that the reason why football owners fight so hard for non-guaranteed contracts is that what they pay their players to do is likely to completely destroy their bodies, thus making it harder to predict who will be worth a long-term deal.

I hope that disgusts y'all like it disgusts me.

a top NFL player or draft pick could make 20+ million dollars in the first year. NFL does offer guaranteed contracts (Viniatieri i believe is under one) but they are for a lesser amount

[tha_rock220]

-= original quote snipped =-



Well the real reality is that the reason why football owners fight so hard for non-guaranteed contracts is that what they pay their players to do is likely to completely destroy their bodies, thus making it harder to predict who will be worth a long-term deal.

I hope that disgusts y'all like it disgusts me.

In all fairness, football players generally get nice signing bonuses and havge a portion of their contract guaranteed to prevent them from being totally screwed over. I think in football it should work both ways though. If a player signs a contract then explodes for 2 seasons he should be allowed to get out from under the contract and get was he's worth.

Basketball needs something similar IMO. Guarantee a portion of the contract so that the player has to keep working, but give the player an opt out clause. This way the owner won't be stuck with a overpaid, bad player, and if a player feels he's being underpaid he can test the free agency market. They also need something similar to what some baseball contracts have where if a player's production drops there's a clause in the contract that adjusts it accordingly. I hate seeing guys half ass it once they get a good deal, but I don't want to see otherwise good players getting screwed because they get hurt on the court.

Oh, and good role players do get paid accordingly by smarts GM's. Most guys with Bruce Bowen's stats would be getting the minimum. Good teams know how to keep their team together. In the NBA keeping the same players and coaches generally leads to success, and usually those teams also know what to pay their players.

[Cliff Levingston]

First of all, there's no way the player's union allows a provision that says (something along the lines of) that no contract can be guaranteed. Besides, teams can offer non-guaranteed contracts right now, but most players can find a guaranteed one from another team.

If you have responsible/smart ownership and/or GM then it shouldn't be too big of a deal. If the guy isn't worth or isn't going to be worth the money you have to pay for him to get him than don't pay it. GM's shouldn't get the ability to just drop whatever mistake they make cause it'll just lead to a whole bunch of willy nilly signing and dropping.

However, there should be something to protect teams from guys who sign contracts and get hurt because, most of the time, the team has no way of telling that a guy is going to need micro fracture surgery or tear an ACL.

Cliff Levingston hasn't put a lot of thought into it, but some sort of general rule that says if a guy was only active for 30 of the team's regular season games (or less), the team has the option of buying out his contract for 1/4 of the remaining contract worth, which would be appropriately assigned to the salary cap for the remaining years of the contract.

So for example, let's say Ben Wallace tore his ACL on Dec. 16th and was out for the year. Since he wouldn't have been active for at least 30 games, the Bulls can buy out his contract at 25% of the remaining contract value, and that 25% value is what's applied to the salary cap figure.

'08-'09 salary: $14.5 mil ---> $3.625 mil
'09-'10 salary: $14.0 mil ---> $3.5 mil

At the point the player is bought out, he gets the full value of the buy-out in one lump sum from the team and becomes an unrestricted free agent.

Obviously there would have to be some way of preventing teams from making guys like Jerome James inactive for the heck of it just to rid themselves of his contract, but that shouldn't be too hard to do. It would basically come down to whether or not the guy is medically cleared to play, and of course, the team doesn't have to buy out the guy if they don't want.

It wouldn't help guys perform better, but at least it would protect teams a little from having to carry a big contract for a guy who physically can't perform. Probably the only realistic casualties of this a clause like this over the last few years or so would be Grant Hill and Kenyon Martin.

[Doctor MJ]

-= original quote snipped =-




a top NFL player or draft pick could make 20+ million dollars in the first year. NFL does offer guaranteed contracts (Viniatieri i believe is under one) but they are for a lesser amount

I see, so you're argument is that because these athletes make a lot of money, they should expect no rights beyond that? You're hardly alone in thinking this way, but thinking that way doesn't make any sense to me. These aren't random people being given jobs making millions and as part of the bargain they give up some contractual rights. These players are in an industry where owners pay athletes millions because the player's services generate money even bigger than that. There's absolutely no reason to think that in paying a guy big bucks so your company can make a profit you're simply entitled to more favorable contractual nuances.

And of course the NFL "offers guaranteed contracts". It would never make any sense to ban them. The question has always been about whether they are mandated or not.

[Doctor MJ]

-= original quote snipped =-



In all fairness, football players generally get nice signing bonuses and havge a portion of their contract guaranteed to prevent them from being totally screwed over. I think in football it should work both ways though. If a player signs a contract then explodes for 2 seasons he should be allowed to get out from under the contract and get was he's worth.

Basketball needs something similar IMO. Guarantee a portion of the contract so that the player has to keep working, but give the player an opt out clause. This way the owner won't be stuck with a overpaid, bad player, and if a player feels he's being underpaid he can test the free agency market. They also need something similar to what some baseball contracts have where if a player's production drops there's a clause in the contract that adjusts it accordingly. I hate seeing guys half ass it once they get a good deal, but I don't want to see otherwise good players getting screwed because they get hurt on the court.

Oh, and good role players do get paid accordingly by smarts GM's. Most guys with Bruce Bowen's stats would be getting the minimum. Good teams know how to keep their team together. In the NBA keeping the same players and coaches generally leads to success, and usually those teams also know what to pay their players.

It certainly is true that the NFL bonuses ensure that the player gets some money. However, it is not within the realm of debate which system people would prefer to play in. NFL players would take the NBA's style of contracts in a heartbeat.

I'd definitely listen to a system that gave both sides opt-out clauses.

[UGA Hayes]

The problem isn't so much guarranteed contracts for me, its that there is no mechanism in which a team can a) fire a player and in the event of firing the player b) prevent him from playing in the NBA.

In lieu of that to me the best solution is forteams to have 3 year contracts with the third year always being an option year, and whether the third year is the players or the team's option would be determined by incentives. The catch is if the player does not meet his incentive and the team doesn not pick up his option the max money of the next contact would be lower. Right now there aren't built in checks for the player to show any loyalty to the organization. There would have to be allowances for injuries and stuff.

I'd really like to see all years be incentive laden and an option for a team to drop a player and not have any cap problems if they don't meet the incentives.

[Cevap]

-= original quote snipped =-



I see, so you're argument is that because these athletes make a lot of money, they should expect no rights beyond that? You're hardly alone in thinking this way, but thinking that way doesn't make any sense to me. These aren't random people being given jobs making millions and as part of the bargain they give up some contractual rights. These players are in an industry where owners pay athletes millions because the player's services generate money even bigger than that. There's absolutely no reason to think that in paying a guy big bucks so your company can make a profit you're simply entitled to more favorable contractual nuances.

And of course the NFL "offers guaranteed contracts". It would never make any sense to ban them. The question has always been about whether they are mandated or not.

don't put words in my mouth. I said that just because the NFL doesn't have guaranteed contracts, it doesn't mean that their players get paid below market value. Instead of having their paycheck spread relatively evenly over 5-6 years like the NBA, NFL players get a big signing bonus the first day and in subsequent years bonus checks.

Yes the NFL PA would like to have guaranteed contracts being more prevailant but they also realize that through the non guaranteed contracts the level of play will be higher and thus more people will watch. That means bigger TV contracts and bigger salary cap which will lead to higher contracts. As of right now the nba player has it a lot better then an nfl player and you can see it in play

[Cevap]

So for example, let's say Ben Wallace tore his ACL on Dec. 16th and was out for the year. Since he wouldn't have been active for at least 30 games, the Bulls can buy out his contract at 25% of the remaining contract value, and that 25% value is what's applied to the salary cap figure.

'08-'09 salary: $14.5 mil ---> $3.625 mil
'09-'10 salary: $14.0 mil ---> $3.5 mil

At the point the player is bought out, he gets the full value of the buy-out in one lump sum from the team and becomes an unrestricted free agent.

Obviously there would have to be some way of preventing teams from making guys like Jerome James inactive for the heck of it just to rid themselves of his contract, but that shouldn't be too hard to do. It would basically come down to whether or not the guy is medically cleared to play, and of course, the team doesn't have to buy out the guy if they don't want.

25% is way too small, i mean a player can't help himself if he is hurt and can't play. Paying him 25 cents on a dollar is a slap in the face imo. there's no way the NBA PA would allow that. By making the contracts non guaranteed the NBA should also disallow the maximum raises. It is common sense that players with non guaranteed contracts would sign them for a higher (potential) amount). that might be one concession, unlimited "max" contracts for a nonguaranteed contract.

[jab]

Nobody forced your crappy team to offer a long-term contract to a player that didn't deserve it.

[Doctor MJ]

-= original quote snipped =-




don't put words in my mouth. I said that just because the NFL doesn't have guaranteed contracts, it doesn't mean that their players get paid below market value. Instead of having their paycheck spread relatively evenly over 5-6 years like the NBA, NFL players get a big signing bonus the first day and in subsequent years bonus checks.

Yes the NFL PA would like to have guaranteed contracts being more prevailant but they also realize that through the non guaranteed contracts the level of play will be higher and thus more people will watch. That means bigger TV contracts and bigger salary cap which will lead to higher contracts. As of right now the nba player has it a lot better then an nfl player and you can see it in play

I'm curious how you determine fair market value. There's a whole slew of MLB and NBA players who've made $100 mill in their career, can you name me some football players who've made that much?

The NFL PA realizes no such thing. The NFL PA realizes that the NFL has completely abandoned it's old time players leaving them them in poverty while the NFL makes billions. The NFL PA accepts nonguaranteed contracts because their union isn't strong enough to stop it.