RealGM

I dont remember seeing this disscussed but I think its a pretty good idea for the NBA. why?

-Guys earn their salaries. Play hard all the time which is good for the NBA and the fans and bring the most out of teams.

-Allows small market teams to take chances by overpaying some free agents.

-Allows to get rid of injury riddled/underachieving player's salaries that clog up the cap.

Now obviously there is gonna have to be a cap limit so that "richer" teams dont have an advantage.

Also, Obviously the players are gonna be the only once who dont like the idea and you would expect them to go on a strike or something but a strike could only last for so long...or maybe thats where im wrong in this whole idea.

I think it makes things more fair from an economic perspective because the players like all of us will actully have to earn the money they get on a continues basis..instead of busting their butt off for a year..getting a fat contract and than doing nothing for next few years.

Overall I think its a good idea that will bring back excitment to the NBA and it will blaance things out by allowing all teams to be competitive.

Ehh, then some players who really are in it for the money will go to Europe where the contracts are guaranteed.

It is a good idea, player's would play hard or get fired. Just like the rest of us, all you need to do is look at the NFL and how succesful it's been. It would make the NBA a far better product.
Problem is, it will never happen, the player's union would never allow it, once you go donw that road there's no going back.

The dilemma from a player's perspective is you would be less inclined to be a role player. Every player would only be thinking about their numbers. There would be a lot of player's out there trying to prove what they can do individually, rather than what they can contribute to the overall betterment of the team.

I think guaranteed contracts should just be shorter. Four years should be the max.

No.

SlickWilly8 wrote:It is a good idea, player's would play hard or get fired. Just like the rest of us, all you need to do is look at the NFL and how succesful it's been. It would make the NBA a far better product.
Problem is, it will never happen, the player's union would never allow it, once you go donw that road there's no going back.

Roles are more defined in the NFL because there are more players in play at once. Receivers run routs and catch the ball. Running backs run (duh). Linemen block (or rush the QB).

Positions are less defined in the NBA. Less players on the floor at once means each player has more responsibilities. Just look at Bruce Bowen and Lebron James. Both are small forwards, but their roles and their responsibilities are completely different.

JellosJigglin wrote:The dilemma from a player's perspective is you would be less inclined to be a role player. Every player would only be thinking about their numbers. There would be a lot of player's out there trying to prove what they can do individually, rather than what they can contribute to the overall betterment of the team.

I think guaranteed contracts should just be shorter. Four years should be the max.

That's what I think too. The NFL has balanced it by designating "franchise" players, but I don't think that would work in basketball. I think what is important is removing the whole restricted free agent crap and make contracts max of 4 years. make the MLE max of 3 years.

^ Reducing the number of years you can offer a free agent via the MLE is a great idea ^

Buck4Life wrote:I dont remember seeing this disscussed but I think its a pretty good idea for the NBA. why?

-Guys earn their salaries. Play hard all the time which is good for the NBA and the fans and bring the most out of teams.

-Allows small market teams to take chances by overpaying some free agents.

-Allows to get rid of injury riddled/underachieving player's salaries that clog up the cap.

Now obviously there is gonna have to be a cap limit so that "richer" teams dont have an advantage.

Also, Obviously the players are gonna be the only once who dont like the idea and you would expect them to go on a strike or something but a strike could only last for so long...or maybe thats where im wrong in this whole idea.

I think it makes things more fair from an economic perspective because the players like all of us will actully have to earn the money they get on a continues basis..instead of busting their butt off for a year..getting a fat contract and than doing nothing for next few years.

Overall I think its a good idea that will bring back excitment to the NBA and it will blaance things out by allowing all teams to be competitive.

First, you have to understand both sides of the issue. If the goal is to see guys try as hard as possible for the win, kill the losing team. Why don't we do that? Because basketball players are people and they must be treated fairly.

Now, does that mean guaranteed contracts are the only fair way to do things? No. However, guaranteed contracts provide benefits to both sides. The players can't be fired, but they can't leave either. I wouldn't have a problem with an open employment system where both sides can stop at any time, but that's not the true alternative to guaranteed contracts in the sports world. The true alternative is a kind of one-way guarantee where the players get no security, but the owners own the player. This, frankly, sucks. If management tried to pull this at basically any other job in the US, there would be riots. It's simply not fair. Hence, guaranteed contracts are the best of the realistic alternatives.

Guaranteed contracts have nothing to do with the salary cap. The salary cap is an ownership creation. More than that, pre-salary cap, small market teams were in worse shape, not better. When it's open bidding, the big market team always wins.

As far as how long a strike can last. The owners know they can only push the players so far, and then they have to cave. This is true in most business, is particularly true in professional sports where it's impossible to find adequate scabs, and is most true in basketball where teams are so small and individual stars are promoted. This isn't to say that the owners can't come out on top in negotiations, but they aren't in a position where they can just hold the players' collective head underwater indefinitely. Word to the wise for businessmen: Don't go into a business where the labor is irreplaceable and rich enough they don't have to worry about their livelihood if you want to have total control over your underlings.

A-freakin'-MEN

guaranteed contracts are a joke and one of the main reasons why 25 out of 30 franchises have no chance at the title in any given year and they know it.

Thank you Doctor MJ for bringing reason to this thread.

Or howbout team owners just be smart and stop giving guys like Tim Thomas 5 and 6 year contracts.

Max contracts should be for the Pauls, Kobes, Lebrons, Duncans, Howards, etc of the league.

sp6r=underrated wrote:Thank you Doctor MJ for bringing reason to this thread.

Any time sp6r.

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

The only way I would favor it is if the contract started at 100% and the guarentee declined as the contract aged. Of course giving the player opt out clauses would be done to balance it.

In the end I dont feel the need to help the bad GMs who overpay players or extend them too long.

Cevap wrote:A-freakin'-MEN

guaranteed contracts are a joke and one of the main reasons why 25 out of 30 franchises have no chance at the title in any given year and they know it.

No, the reason for that is that the NBA is a star-driven league. Almost impossible to win a title without at least one of the very best players.

Anyway, in a practical sense it would never work. The NFL can get it done because of:
a) The abundance of injuries in the NFL
b) Lack of competition from any other league
c) Weak players union

The NBA has none of these things. If players can negotiate guaranteed deals, more power to them. Otherwise it'd just be the owners who are getting the extra money (and frankly I'd rather see the players get it).

What DOES need to be done is a vastly simplified cap structure that eases the ability of teams to trade with each other. But that's a different issue...

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.

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.

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.

legacyinthemakin89c wrote:Ehh, then some players who really are in it for the money will go to Europe where the contracts are guaranteed.

i bet not the top players
too many endorsements here

and players would look bad when they leave for the money