Blue_and_Whte wrote:Paco wrote:Not fully guaranteed contracts, but if the owners are willing to shell out the money then they should be required to pay a certain amount of the contract. "You've made your bed, now sleep in it."
Thats absurd, the owners HAVE to shell out in order to compete. Dampier brought himself to a level that put him in a specific pay bracket, got paid then sat back and collected. When you're trying to compete you can't take a chance on wether or not a guy is a contract player, an owner has to put a competative product on the floor.
Players need to get some moral and work ethic, if anything he's the prime example of why the players dont care about the game. I dont care what owners paid him before they're trying to fix it now now and of course the players want to keep the system in place that allows them to essentially cheat and steal their way into millions.
The Knicks had to pay Jerome James and Eddy Curry massive amounts of money to compete? My team was in cap hell for years and we couldn't do a damn thing about it until Donnie came and saved our asses. The Magic had to max out Rashard Lewis? Lol...c'mon dude.
If you reread my post, I said that they should not be fully guaranteed BUT a certain amount of it should be -- similar to a signing bonus in the NFL. Having non-guaranteed contracts gives owners, and management, a get out of jail free card which IMO they should not have. Managing one's cap situation is part of the game. It's also possible that because players would be then playing on a year-to-year basis they would be playing for themselves rather than the team (and thus, the quality of the game would diminish).