shrink wrote:Scoot McGroot wrote:shrink wrote:I disagree, but we can both admit the league is trending that way. So far it’s been “more name than game” players, but as money becomes less and less of a concern for the biggest players, why would you support NOT having a rule that prevents the legitimacy of the NBA and its championship?
After reading Scoot, and the uniqueness of the NBA employees, I don’t understand why there ISN’T a non-compete clause. We have versions for refusing to be drafted, that the entire NBA abides with, that would force a Steve Francis to go play in Europe.
I’m not sure what I said that implies this, but the non compete clause is already in place. Hold the player to the contract they’re signed for. Suspend them, fine them, etc, if t refuse to play. But there’s a benefit for the teams too. They save a bit of money and clear a roster spot. They’re not victims in this either.
These are false threats. No team would use them, because their team would alienate future free agents. Heck, if they couldn’t stand up to Steve Francis, who refused to play for the team that drafted him 20 years ago, they aren’t going to stand up now to current players.
Non-competes need to be a league-wide, CBA rule, which are a part of signing any nba contract.
They’re not a threat. They’re simply contractual rights. If they choose to yield them, they they yield them. But we’re discussing protecting the teams abilities to yield their rights, but still maintain contractual control.
But what non compete do you want? It a player is waived, they can’t compete in the nba for the rest of the year? The lakers are barred from ever signing somebody in season?
There’s already things like a hard cap, and salary cap exceptions. If you want to have the ability to sign someone midseason, keep cap space, or a TPE to claim someone, or a salary exception to sign them for more money. Or recruit someone with a reason to come play for you. Indy once did this with Wes Matthews by guaranteeing a starting spot for him midseason.
At a certain point, we’re eliminating a players right to choose completely, or talking about dismantling free agency altogether. I can’t imagine the players union would ever consent to even discussing these things.
Teams made decisions that benefited them. The he fact that it later benefits someone else shouldn’t matter.