danvato wrote:The_Hater wrote:danvato wrote:i didn't follow this discussion but just want to say that its pretty ridiculous that these NBA teams throw around massive $100m contracts at players and then less than 2 years into it are looking to get out of it. I really wish there were some rules to clean this stuff up.
Whixh part needs to be cleaned up and what rules would you impose?
The money is guaranteed so the player isn’t exactly complaining. They win the lottery every month for years. And the team does have the right to trade that player, trades have been part of sports wince sports existed. At that point a different team will,be paying them their monthly lottery winnings. Heck, there was no trade market for Blake Griffin so the Pistons are going to pay him about $65 million to play basketball for a better team. That seems pretty rough for Blake....
I don't have any ideas on how to improve it but it's a problem. Teams overpay, then have to overpay again to get rid of a player, if that doesn't work they have to buy out a player causing playing through a contract is unheard of these days and you end up with already stacked teams picking up more players for peanuts.
I don’t see it see it has a huge problem. Both teams and players take on risk when entering into a contract. The rules pertaining to these contracts were agreed upon by both the owners and the players in the CBA. Any buyout that happens during that duration of that contract is also agreed upon by both the owners/teams and the players as is being able to trade the player and his contract.
When it comes to Aldridge, he signed with the Spurs as a free agent, played well and earned his money, and then the team offered him an extension before the first contract had even finished which extended into his age 35 season. If the Spurs couldn’t see that there was a pretty good chance that extension would come back to haunt them, then they need to do better research as an organization. There are good risks and bad risks.
j
