Next CBA

killbuckner · Post #61 » by **killbuckner** » Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:58 pm

If a team wants to make their offer better by guaranteeing a contract I think its pretty ridiculous to prohibit teams from doing so. Because thats what you are talking about- making a guaranteed contract illegal. I think thats pretty ridiculous.

Curmudgeon · Post #62 » by **Curmudgeon** » Fri Oct 15, 2010 6:35 pm

killbuckner wrote:If a team wants to make their offer better by guaranteeing a contract I think its pretty ridiculous to prohibit teams from doing so. Because thats what you are talking about- making a guaranteed contract illegal. I think thats pretty ridiculous.

Why? A team might want to pay it's star performer 25 million a year, but it can't, because under the CBA the maximum salary for a player with 10+ years of experience is $19,045,250. To pay more isn't "illegal", it's just a breach of the contract. If a team tried to pay more, the league would impose a stiff fine and recover the overage from an offending owner. End of story.

Collective bargaining agreements force ownership to do lots of things that they don't want to do. That's what CBAs are for. If the CBA says that the last two years of any maximum length contract are only 50% guaranteed, then that's the way it is.

killbuckner · Post #63 » by **killbuckner** » Fri Oct 15, 2010 8:38 pm

Is there any league in the world that makes it against the rules to have a guaranteed contract? I understand having a max salary- I don't at all see why a team shoudl be prohibited from guaranteeing a contract if they think it is in their best interest to do so.

Curmudgeon · Post #64 » by **Curmudgeon** » Fri Oct 15, 2010 9:17 pm

killbuckner wrote:Is there any league in the world that makes it against the rules to have a guaranteed contract? I understand having a max salary- I don't at all see why a team shoudl be prohibited from guaranteeing a contract if they think it is in their best interest to do so.

Well, it might be in their best interest to pay someone 25 million a year. But they can't.

SJSF · Post #65 » by **SJSF** » Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:19 am

hard49 wrote:
SJSF wrote:Hard Cap will happen. I say 55m.
Max contract at 12m.
I personally would not have guaranteed contracts. If you stink, you get cut. You don't get paid. Just like every other job.

Players will get less money then owners. Owners should get the most. THey are the employers!!!!

You do understand that employees usually get more than the employers in other industries right?

Not in sales they don't

SJSF · Post #66 » by **SJSF** » Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:27 am

There will be a lockout. The owners want a hard cap. End of story. There are only a handful of teams that make money. They can't hide their numbers. Its called the IRS.

killbuckner · Post #67 » by **killbuckner** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:22 pm

So Curmudgeon- in your world would it be legal to have contracts become guaranteed based on performance measures?

SJSF · Post #68 » by **SJSF** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 8:36 pm

There shouldn't be any guaranteed contracts in sports. Copy football. Because football doesn't have guaranteed contracts, the prodcut is so much better then other sports.

killbuckner · Post #69 » by **killbuckner** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:00 pm

SJSF- NFL teams are allowed to guarantee as much of the contract as they want to. The NFL GM's just tend to be smart enough to be very careful about how much they are willing to guarantee considering how short the average NFL career is. And they are willing to let a player go somewhere else if another team wants to guarantee them more than they think he is worth.

Expanding on this more, the NFL contracts are basically 1 year contracts series of team options. But players have absolutely no incentive at all to sign long contracts where the extra years are team options so in the NFL they give massive signing bonuses in order to give players incentive to sign the longer deal. Maybe the NBA needs to loosen the rules about signing bonuses so that teams can give players more incentive to sign non-guaranteed contracts.

SJSF · Post #70 » by **SJSF** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 2:13 am

The NBA needs to have incentive contracts. Players like Curry is what kills the NBA. WHy is he getting over 10m this year? U should be able to cut a player and void his contract if he is not playing or is just doggin it. It would make these players play a lot harder. ANd if you can just cut the fat off teams. It would be much better.

Post #71 » by **Three34** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 2:26 am

SJSF wrote:There shouldn't be any guaranteed contracts in sports. Copy football. Because football doesn't have guaranteed contracts, the prodcut is so much better then other sports.

No it's not. They don't even use their feet.

Cineast · Post #72 » by **Cineast** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 2:52 am

In this article the idea of a "Eddy Curry-rule" is floated:

Besides contraction, the league is floating ideas surrounding shorter contracts and less guaranteed money.

What the league terms "modest performance standards" for players could replace the need to contract franchises or force players to accept large salary cuts.

In other words, teams would find savings from being able to reduce or remove the salaries of players such as Eddy Curry who were signed to big deals but did not perform.

Interesting as it's the first time I've seen this kind of statement reported. Could this mean something like a certain amount of playing time needed over the first year(s) of a contract for the final year(s) to be guaranteed? How could you otherwise, in a fair way, determine what "modest performance standards" are, any suggestions or ideas?

Post #73 » by **Three34** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 11:29 am

But that goes back to the Rashard Lewis mention earlier. Rashard got heavily overpaid by Otis Smith, but it wasn't like Rashard got fat or lazy; Rashard just wasn't as good as Otis thought he was. So why should he be sudden;y stripped of all his dues just because Otis woke up? It's a system that would benefit teams stuck with guys like Curry, who quite clearly mailed it in for 4 years, yet the enforcement of such a rule would be so subjective that I don't think it could ever truly work.

Nanogeek · Post #74 » by **Nanogeek** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:31 pm

There will be a lockout. The sides are too far apart and the dispute and positions too public and too dramatic. The league is going to take a hardline and the union won't accept it because Hunter's job is to not roll over. I think the latest salvo of floating contraction shows how extreme the league is willing to go. The prospect of contraction will cause the union to crack because the league can contract without the assent of the players and the union can't tow a line and watch a third of its players lose their livelihoods. I think the entire 2011-12 season will be lost also or at best the union will agree to significant concessions.

SJSF · Post #75 » by **SJSF** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:33 pm

Not sure why players think they deserve such things like a guarantee. No job has a guarantee. If you perform you get paid. SImple as that. With reagrds to Rashard Lewis. There isn't one team in the NBA that would pay him such money today. So why not be able to cut him. And resign him cheaper. You deserve what the going rate is. He isn't a max player. He is a solid player. No one comes in to see Rashard Lewis. They want to see Super Man. And yet he makes less.

SJSF · Post #76 » by **SJSF** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:36 pm

Septhaka wrote:There will be a lockout. The sides are too far apart and the dispute and positions too public and too dramatic. The league is going to take a hardline and the union won't accept it because Hunter's job is to not roll over. I think the latest salvo of floating contraction shows how extreme the league is willing to go. The prospect of contraction will cause the union to crack because the league can contract without the assent of the players and the union can't tow a line and watch a third of its players lose their livelihoods. I think the entire 2011-12 season will be lost also or at best the union will agree to significant concessions.

The players will be trading in their Escalades for Explorers. I saw this coming last year. The owners will not concede at all. They will save more money by not having a season.

Post #77 » by **Three34** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:53 pm

SJSF wrote:Not sure why players think they deserve such things like a guarantee. No job has a guarantee. If you perform you get paid. SImple as that. With reagrds to Rashard Lewis. There isn't one team in the NBA that would pay him such money today. So why not be able to cut him. And resign him cheaper. You deserve what the going rate is. He isn't a max player. He is a solid player. No one comes in to see Rashard Lewis. They want to see Super Man. And yet he makes less.

This is the fault, then, of the man who gave it to him. By taking it away from him for no reason other than an overdue recognition of that bad decision, Lewis is made a victim. Why should he be a victim?

SJSF · Post #78 » by **SJSF** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:11 pm

Sham wrote:
SJSF wrote:Not sure why players think they deserve such things like a guarantee. No job has a guarantee. If you perform you get paid. SImple as that. With reagrds to Rashard Lewis. There isn't one team in the NBA that would pay him such money today. So why not be able to cut him. And resign him cheaper. You deserve what the going rate is. He isn't a max player. He is a solid player. No one comes in to see Rashard Lewis. They want to see Super Man. And yet he makes less.

This is the fault, then, of the man who gave it to him. By taking it away from him for no reason other than an overdue recognition of that bad decision, Lewis is made a victim. Why should he be a victim?

Did you really call him a victim? He is a player in the NBA that makes huge money. About 20m a season. Katrina had victims. No victims in the NBA. Plus like any other job, you don't have to play basketball. The players can just as well serve burgers and fries like the rest of the country. Or be unemployed.

Post #79 » by **Three34** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:19 pm

As opposed to those starving owners, who have had to resort to licking gravel and suckling otters for their daily nutrition, so desperate is their plight in those tough economic times, whose kids are having to make their clothes out of worms and using dead kittens for duvets, all because the NBPA wouldn't let them have an amnesty on their own stupid business decisions.

Nanogeek · Post #80 » by **Nanogeek** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:29 pm

Sham wrote:As opposed to those starving owners, who have had to resort to licking gravel and suckling otters for their daily nutrition, so desperate is their plight in those tough economic times, whose kids are having to make their clothes out of worms and using dead kittens for duvets, all because the NBPA wouldn't let them have an amnesty on their own stupid business decisions.

You're missing the point. Think about the Orlando fans that have to fork out that much more money to pay for Rashard's unwarranted salary. I agree its ultimately ownership's fault for offering the contract (which even when it was signed most people would have agreed was excessive). But I do take exception to the idea that the only people hurt by Lewis' excessive salary is ownership because they just pass the cost along to the fans.