Norseman79 wrote:Are they free to quit and go get a different job? Do they make widgets as well (quality) as other workers? Do people pay to see the widgets they make? Do they willingly sign a contract for a salary and a set amount of time for which they potentially tie their services to a widget company? If they make widgets well enough could they be promoted and get paid even more?
These players are not "victims".
You feel better now posting that nonsense?
Are you able to quit your Widget job? Sure. Nothing stopping you. Does that make the actions of the Widget business correct, fair, wise in the scenario I presented? No, it does not. There is no reason for your strange questions. They all make widgets. Just like JMac produces scores and playmakes for others on the same floor - same basket, and better than many on the team. So in this scenario, he's making more widgets, better widgets, and gets the absolute lowest salary possible, the lowest chance at minutes possible, the lowest chance to see the court possible. The business adds new people and pay them more when they don't need to, yet use rules to keep him making widgets for them. If it was a normal Widget job, the person walks out of that horribly run business, sure. But this isn't a normal business, is it? That's why the comparison.
Is he free to quit and go get a different job? No. He was a RFA. He's not free to quit and just go to another NBA team job. If he wasn't a RFA, could he quit? Yes. Just like Rosas QUIT on this first GM position three months into working for a team he didn't feel was a good fit for him. Did you know about that? It's OK for Rosas to walk out on a team 3 months in after they hire him as GM because the "situation wasn't right" for his career, but it's not OK for JMac to walk out on a team that won't respect his play with even a standard minimum NBA guaranteed deal and has now made sure up to 5 guards will likely play before him and now has forced him into a two way for the second year in a row. It's a horrible situation for his career now but this GM felt it was within his powers to keep a thumb over this player. That RFA status they held over him while letting others like Martin walk is the tie to the slavery term, feeling you have that power over someone and you wield it like it was a success, that and how much they refuse to pay him anything real even remotely compared to his peers there.
You don't like the word slavery. It's harsh I get it. But I used it for that reason so you take note and because this is one person taking advantage of another person's situation and stopping him from a chance to improve his situation. Which is a form a slavery. Find me a better term for what they are doing? No, he's not working the cotton fields for his masta if that's all you think slavery is. But you would be wrong. That's not all it is. There is a rule or piece of paper saying they own his rights without having to pay him fairly for it. Their allowed QO for someone in this situation is an absolute joke.
The players association has not done enough for these players that successfully entered the league this way and proved useful. Teams shouldn't be able to hold rights over them, RFA or otherwise, without at least a real league minimum guaranteed deal offered.