Does anyone actually support Guaranteed Contracts?

[Joyner82reload]

I'm just curious as to the argument behind being in favor of them, unless of course you receive direct benefit financially from an NBA player.

My personal view is that guaranteed contracts have damaged this sport since they were introduced and they need to be eradicated.

[Nowitness]

support them 100%

nfl has non guaranteed contracts. and it is the most volatile, depressing, ****ed up league in the world //

[Joyner82reload]

support them 100%

nfl has non guaranteed contracts. and it is the most volatile, depressing, ****ed up league in the world //

That has everything to do with the physicality and frequency of acute injuries associated with football. It is a full contact sport where basketball is a limited contact sport with rules put in place to prohibit substantial contact between players and thus limit injuries.

This is precisely why professional basketball players are the least likely of athletes in the big 4 american sports to undergo an acute, career ending injury with no pre-existing factors.

This is also why NBA players have the longest median careers among professional athletes, at 6 years, while other sports are less than 3 years

What does not make any sense however, is the justification for guaranteed contracts. In what other environment are you 100% guaranteed a wage with no terms for early termination in the event of poor performance?

Yes, let's go ahead and hear the baseball argument. How about we skip to the facts, the median salary in baseball is 1.1 million and the average is 2.5 million. The median salary in the NBA is 2.3 million and the average is 5.2 million. This is despite the fact the NBA generates barely half(7 billion to 3.6 billion) of the revenue that baseball does.

Also given that there is empirical data supporting the hypothesis that NBA players exhibit the "trying harder in contract years and then showing a decline", how are guaranteed contracts good for the league?

How is it a positive that the next decade of a franchise's ability to compete could hinge on whether or not a guy wants to stay in shape/play to his ability? Sure you could use the amnesty clause, once every 5 years like that's going to permanent solution.

[MavsSuperFan]

Its definitely more fair to the players. The alternative would change nothing except marginally making billionaires richer and increasing the sad stories of ex NBA players going broke.

[MavsSuperFan]

support them 100%

nfl has non guaranteed contracts. and it is the most volatile, depressing, ****ed up league in the world //
The NFL is by far the most successful of the 4 major american pro sports leagues

[midatlantic09]

Why do guaranteed contracts even exist? The owners could easily decide to shut that down and do what the NFL does instead.

It's not like the players have some other league to go to if the owners decide to strike for an indefinite period of time.

[Droid101]

The NFL is by far the most successful of the 4 major american pro sports leagues
Because Americans are stupid, not because of the contract situations.

[ProfessorMurder]

Why do guaranteed contracts even exist? The owners could easily decide to shut that down and do what the NFL does instead.

It's not like the players have some other league to go to if the owners decide to strike for an indefinite period of time.

What's the point of a contract if it doesn't guarantee both parties of something?

Why are you siding with billionaires instead of millionaires?

[I<3NBA]

players like Trevor Ariza are the consequences of guaranteed contracts.

we would be seeing better basketball with non-guaranteed contracts.

but the best solution would be yearly contracts instead of multi-year deals.

yes, it would suck for players that would get injured, but at least teams wouldn't be tied to an injured player, paying him millions just to take up cap and roster space.

[sundizz]

What's the point of a contract if it doesn't guarantee both parties of something?

Why are you siding with billionaires instead of millionaires?

Yeah, OP is a dummy. These athletes spend 10+ years developing to get to the league. If they get hurt ON THE JOB they should still get paid. However, I think max contracts should be 3 years. I'm not a big fan of 5 etc year contracts. It's ridiculous...both for injury reasons and for who knows what happens to the player reasons.

[navy]

What's the point of a contract if it doesn't guarantee both parties of something?

Why are you siding with billionaires instead of millionaires?
Basically this. These guys get hurt on the job, but not like I really give a damn about the owners or players. It just forces them to be smarter with their contract decisions. Which is better for us if you really want us to talk about how it affects the game.

[imnew09]

What's the point of a contract if it doesn't guarantee both parties of something?

Why are you siding with billionaires instead of millionaires?

Never doubted your knowledge. :bowdown:


How often do you hear a NBA owner goes bankrupt? But I bet you read a lot of headlines about professional athlete going broke

[bdreason]

I'm fine with the NFL model. Just pay the athletes up front. Instead of giving an NBA player a 5 year deal worth $60 million... just give them $40 million up front, and $20 million over 5 years. That way the team can cut or trade the player at any time, instead of getting stuck with contracts like Amare Stoudemire that ruin a franchise for its duration.

[Joyner82reload]

What's the point of a contract if it doesn't guarantee both parties of something?

Why are you siding with billionaires instead of millionaires?

:lol @ you must be siding with the owners if you aren't in favor of guaranteed contracts.

WRONG. I'd siding with the teams to give them the maximum ability to put forth the best product on a nightly basis and therefore give their fans a team worth watching. Not hurr durr, our gm just got fired for sucking but we're still stuck with the mess he made via Eddy Curry, Zach Randolph, Stephon Marbury, etc. and will be irrelevant for the next 4 years.

Nonguaranteed contracts lead to better basketball, PERIOD.

[Joyner82reload]

Yeah, OP is a dummy. These athletes spend 10+ years developing to get to the league. If they get hurt ON THE JOB they should still get paid. However, I think max contracts should be 3 years. I'm not a big fan of 5 etc year contracts. It's ridiculous...both for injury reasons and for who knows what happens to the player reasons.

Oh ya? Doctors spend 10+ years in school to practice medicine, I guess we should just let them do whatever the hell they want to without repercussions too, right? Who cares if they kill a few dozen people out of negligence next year, they're doing what they trained half their life for. They earned this right.

:facepalm

[Sarcastic]

The actual definition of contract implies a guarantee from both sides.

If you want non guaranteed contracts, would you be ok with players being allowed to opt out at any point as well? A player like Steph Curry should be able to rip up his contract for $10m this year and demand more money, no?

[RoundMoundOfReb]

The actual definition of contract implies a guarantee from both sides.

If you want non guaranteed contracts, would you be ok with players being allowed to opt out at any point as well? A player like Steph Curry should be able to rip up his contract for $10m this year and demand more money, no?


Of course if it's specified in the contract that the player has a right to...i.e. the player negotiates for that clause...

[Joyner82reload]

The actual definition of contract implies a guarantee from both sides.

If you want non guaranteed contracts, would you be ok with players being allowed to opt out at any point as well? A player like Steph Curry should be able to rip up his contract for $10m this year and demand more money, no?

I'm positive that there would be absolutely no way a stanza allowing that would be found within the team-player contract, ever. No team would ever sign off on that, and the player could do nothing about it because they hold no leverage. On the flip side, if an owner vote passes to get rid of guaranteed contracts, the players would be be forced to conform. Well that or go play overseas which would never happen.

[Sarcastic]

Of course if it's specified in the contract that the player has a right to...i.e. the player negotiates for that clause...


NBA contracts don't allow that to occur at any point; only at specified times which are agreed upon. What the OP wants is the NFL system where a team can simply cut a player at any time, so it would only be fair to allow the player to opt out at any time as well.



The NFL is not popular because of its non guaranteed contracts. The NFL is popular because it has football. If the NBA wants to achieve NFL level parity, they should start playing 16 game seasons, 1 game a week, and have the players play football instead of basketball.

[Sarcastic]

I'm positive that there would be absolutely no way a stanza allowing that would be found within the team-player contract, ever. No team would ever sign off on that, and the player could do nothing about it because they hold no leverage. On the flip side, if an owner vote passes to get rid of guaranteed contracts, the players would be be forced to conform. Well that or go play overseas which would never happen.


In the NFL, we get hold outs. You wanna see Kevin Durant hold out a year because he's not happy with his contract? I'm sure that would be fun.

[Done_And_Done]

players like Trevor Ariza are the consequences of guaranteed contracts.

we would be seeing better basketball with non-guaranteed contracts.

but the best solution would be yearly contracts instead of multi-year deals.

yes, it would suck for players that would get injured, but at least teams wouldn't be tied to an injured player, paying him millions just to take up cap and roster space.

That would be turn the league into a circus. The face of every roster would change dramatically each year. Stars would be impossible to lock up and dynastys would be forever extinct. The owners would never allow such a model to exist. The only beneficiaries would be those who profit off Jersey sales.

[Joyner82reload]

NBA contracts don't allow that to occur at any point; only at specified times which are agreed upon. What the OP wants is the NFL system where a team can simply cut a player at any time, so it would only be fair to allow the player to opt out at any time as well.



The NFL is not popular because of its non guaranteed contracts. The NFL is popular because it has football. If the NBA wants to achieve NFL level parity, they should start playing 16 game seasons, 1 game a week, and have the players play football instead of basketball.

If players are concerned with injuries, then take out an insurance policy that will pay you if you sustain them. What the hell is wrong with holding players accountable for what they're expected, and paid, to do? Last time I checked, players were paid based upon an expectation they were supposed to bring to the team. If the player can no longer uphold that expectation, then there should be a system to get rid of them, and don't bring amnesty in here(its bullshit)

I guess I could compare it to this. Imagine a player signs a max contract with a team. Imagine said player holds up his end of the bargain and performs as a max player, but the team tanks financially to the point where the ownership group literally can't pay the player his salary he was promised. Do you think that would be ok? Because that's essentially what is happening in guaranteed contracts, it's just the other way around.

[Sarcastic]

If players are concerned with injuries, then take out an insurance policy that will pay you if you sustain them. What the hell is wrong with holding players accountable for what they're expected, and paid, to do? Last time I checked, players were paid based upon an expectation they were supposed to bring to the team. If the player can no longer uphold that expectation, then there should be a system to get rid of them, and don't bring amnesty in here(its bullshit)

I guess I could compare it to this. Imagine a player signs a max contract with a team. Imagine said player holds up his end of the bargain and performs as a max player, but the team tanks financially to the point where the ownership group literally can't pay the player his salary he was promised. Do you think that would be ok? Because that's essentially what is happening in guaranteed contracts, it's just the other way around.


There are just as many players who out-perform their contracts as there are players who under-perform. It all balances out.


Stop worrying about the owner's bank accounts. They are making tons of money.

[Joyner82reload]

In the NFL, we get hold outs. You wanna see Kevin Durant hold out a year because he's not happy with his contract? I'm sure that would be fun.

Once again, there is a reason that NFL players hold out/demand more money. It's a full contact sport where acute injuries are frequent and a players shelf life isn't very long in comparison with other sports.

Basketball on the otherhand rarely sees career jeopardizing injuries that didn't have a form of pre-existing condition.

I mean seriously, when is the last time a young player got legitimately injured to the point where it ruined their career? Don't bring the Bynum's and Oden's into this who were made of glass and pre-determined to have injury plagued careers.

[Sarcastic]

If you're so worried about fairness, then you should be in favor of getting rid of max contracts for players, and start letting teams pay the Lebrons, Durants, etc the lion's share of the team cap. Let the superstars make 75% of the cap, and the rest of the players can take the rest. They are the real reasons the sport makes the money it does, and they also rarely under-perform. No team is gonna shell out $50+ million to 3rd and 4th options anymore under those rules.

[Joyner82reload]

There are just as many players who out-perform their contracts as there are players who under-perform. It all balances out.


Stop worrying about the owner's bank accounts. They are making tons of money.

You still don't understand, this has nothing to do with the owners. Instead it has EVERYTHING to do with being able to get rid of worthless players who are being paid premier money. That money should go to a player that deserves it, not someone who fails to live up to their expectations.

I guess you think Gilbert Arenas was compensated properly for his play by that ridiculous contract he got, right?

[Sarcastic]

Once again, there is a reason that NFL players hold out/demand more money. It's a full contact sport where acute injuries are frequent and a players shelf life isn't very long in comparison with other sports.

Basketball on the otherhand rarely sees career jeopardizing injuries that didn't have a form of pre-existing condition.

I mean seriously, when is the last time a young player got legitimately injured to the point where it ruined their career? Don't bring the Bynum's and Oden's into this who were made of glass and pre-determined to have injury plagued careers.


The main reason players hold out in football is money. It's not because they fear injury.

And the injury issue is the reason that the NFL can get away with non guaranteed contracts. It's the only sport that has it because of the nature of the violence.


It actually breaks anti-trust law to have non guaranteed contracts. That had to be bargained over with the Union. There is no other profession in the world where contracts are not guaranteed. If you sign a contract with an employer, both sides are bound to the contract.

[Joyner82reload]

If you're so worried about fairness, then you should be in favor of getting rid of max contracts for players, and start letting teams pay the Lebrons, Durants, etc the lion's share of the team cap. Let the superstars make 75% of the cap, and the rest of the players can take the rest. They are the real reasons the sport makes the money it does, and they also rarely under-perform. No team is gonna shell out $50+ million to 3rd and 4th options anymore under those rules.

Yes, let's get rid of max contracts so the best players in the league can be signed by sh*t teams in big markets for 50+ mm a year. That team can then do nothing but surround them with scrubs due to the cap, rendering them irrelevant for the next half decade.

Ya that would be great for the fans.

[Sarcastic]

You still don't understand, this has nothing to do with the owners. Instead it has EVERYTHING to do with being able to get rid of worthless players who are being paid premier money. That money should go to a player that deserves it, not someone who fails to live up to their expectations.

I guess you think Gilbert Arenas was compensated properly for his play by that ridiculous contract he got, right?


He OUTPERFORMED his contract prior to signing it, which is the reason why he got a huge contract in the first place. They had no idea he was gonna get injured. He deserved the money he got, if someone was willing to give it to him. You are worth what someone is willing to pay you.

[Sarcastic]

Yes, let's get rid of max contracts so the best players in the league can be signed by sh*t teams in big markets for 50+ mm a year. That team can then do nothing but surround them with scrubs due to the cap, rendering them irrelevant for the next half decade.

Ya that would be great for the fans.


NFL doesn't have max contracts. Aren't we trying to follow their lead?

[Joyner82reload]

The main reason players hold out in football is money. It's not because they fear injury.

And the injury issue is the reason that the NFL can get away with non guaranteed contracts. It's the only sport that has it because of the nature of the violence.


It actually breaks anti-trust law to have non guaranteed contracts. That had to be bargained over with the Union. There is no other profession in the world where contracts are not guaranteed. If you sign a contract with an employer, both sides are bound to the contract.

And they hold out for money because they realize the risk of injury every time out and that their career could end any minute

And LOL @ thinking fully guaranteed contracts in the "real world" are commonplace without the addition of an early termination penalty/severance package in case of without cause firing. Do you know how many people getting ready for retirement would sign their last contract and just flat out do nothing from then on? Screw going to work, I'm getting paid anyway bitches. Give me a break.

[Sarcastic]

By the way, not all contracts are guaranteed in the NBA. There are absolutely no stipulations in the CBA that forces teams to offer guaranteed contracts. They do it of their choosing. NBA players without guaranteed contracts can and do get cut every year.

[Phenith]

It's very simple, you make contracts (I'll use a 10 million dollar contract in the current system) and guarantee 2.5 million of it. The other 7.5 million is available to the player through incentives like playing so many games/minutes, hitting certain statistical incentives, making playoffs/all-star, winning awards, etc...

Superstars will obviously have the least restrictive ones where as long as they stay on the court their salary is guaranteed, but someone like Wade wouldn't cash in on the whole contract because he misses games regularly.

So, there is guaranteed money so even if a player gets injured, he isn't left in the cold, and for the "good" players, you make the incentives relatively easy to reach so they can still make lots of money if they actually play.

This will also offer teams the ability to offer lots of money to up and coming players while protecting them somewhat from that player being a bust.

The argument is of course for players that don't get their "fair share" of opportunity. Well, that's on the player(post rookie contract) to pick a situation where he feels(or has been told) he will get a chance to "earn" those incentives.

I don't like the fully guaranteed contracts, it take all the pressure off the players to perform. Mind you it separates the true superstars from the rest because they actually try after they have been paid.

There's my 2 cents on it.

[ralph_i_el]

No one is making teams offer guaranteed contracts. There's just not much salary cap incentive to NOT offer guaranteed contracts. Plus if you started offering legit players non-guaranteed contracts, they'd laugh at you.


Players get a certain amount of the money the league makes. Owners get a certain amount of the money. Garunteed or not, the same amount of money will be going to players.

[Kblaze8855]

Teams are struggling for years at a time for two reasons.....injury and poor basketball decisions. The Spurs have missed the playoffs like 5 times in 40 years. Its not guaranteed contracts holding the Knicks back....its being idiots.

Bulls wont give Curry a deal because of a heart condition he wouldn't consent to the testing they required to see the extent of. They were so concerned...they offered him half a million a year...for the rest of his life...if he failed the testing and was asked to retire in order to....live.

On top of it he played no D and rebounded like a 2 guard even though e was one of the best athletes his size ever.

So who steps in to give a huge deal to perennial non working, bad heart(so he really...cant....work very hard), non paint protecting Curry?

Who else? The Knicks. The guys who spent years stockpiling talent other teams tagged with a red flag regardless of the cost.

In doing so they traded the picks that would become Thabo, Omer Asik, and #2 overall which was used on Aldridge who was then traded).

So...they gave up a pick that could have brought in a young all star big, a great rim protector to play next to him, and a great wing defender for the right to give Eddy Curry 60 something million.

But we act like its the existence of option to sign that guaranteed contract that's to blame for the Knicks being awful for years.

Its not guaranteed contracts that make it a bad idea to sign Rashard Lewis to a 127 million dollar deal. Its the fact that hes Rashard Lewis and you didn't execute the guy who suggested you give him Kobe/Shaq/KG money.

Arenas might have the worst contract of all time.

But guess what?

His team gave it to him after he played EIGHT GAMES the previous season...

He went down...had a knee operation...came back too soon...went down again...came back in the playoffs...and went down again.

Decision?

Offer him 127 million. He did them a favor...and only took 111.

But yea...blame the system...not the idiots who gave a powerball contract to a guy who hurt the same knee 3 times in one year and was clearly a step or two slower after the FIRST operation.

Yea...systems fault.

Hold people responsible for their own actions.

For every Arenas there is a guy on a rookie contract selling a million jerseys at 80 bucks each getting raped for 3 years or a guy like Durant or Lebron selling a million a year for 20 years...generating a billion dollars or more in revenue(note...I did not say profit) while being held to a max deal paying him what 10-20 other guys with half the impact on the league can get.

Guaranteed contracts don't hold teams back...stupid decisions do.

Not like it would generate more talent. It would just move some from here to there. And most players cut wouldn't be difference makers anyway....otherwise the teams wouldn't have cut them to begin with.

Just get more cap room for teams that have already shown they don't know what to do with it....because they signed the awful deal they just cut the last time they had it to spend.

The only upside I see is lazy players being more on top of things. But these aren't players who make much difference anyway. Jerome James sucked(funny enough...on the Knicks) after he got his deal.

But he wasn't exactly Bob Lanier to begin with.

He had good 4-5 playoff games and got a big deal from a team desperate to make a splash and sign a hot name.

Give the Knicks the ability to cut players in that era all they do is cut Curry then sign Arenas...then cut him and sign Roy Hibbert.

People who make bad decisions cant be protected from themselves by changing the rules. And really...they shouldn't be if you could.

Idiocy needs to be punished.

Reward those doing the right thing.

[code green]

I think it's fine the way it is. Let the GMs figure out who they want to spend the money on, and have to live with it. If any change had to be made, maybe offer periodic amnesty clauses to "undo" one contract. All hell would break loose if teams could just start shredding half of their players' contracts.

[Darius]

It would be a better product for fans if contracts were non-guaranteed.

Players would play harder and teams wouldn't be stuck with scrubs.

However, if that were to happen, the NBA would need to set up a fund to help guys who became injured etc and had to retire

[midatlantic09]

No one is making teams offer guaranteed contracts. There's just not much salary cap incentive to NOT offer guaranteed contracts. Plus if you started offering legit players non-guaranteed contracts, they'd laugh at you.


Players get a certain amount of the money the league makes. Owners get a certain amount of the money. Garunteed or not, the same amount of money will be going to players.

If the owners got together and decided on going that route, they'd be able to do so and they players wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Without the owners, there is no NBA. On top of that, the players NEED the NBA far more than the owners need the NBA. Most NBA owners are billionaires and don't really need income from owning an NBA team to continue living luxurious lifestyles (most NBA owners probably make $30+ million a yr in interest alone from various bank accounts and other investments that have nothing to do with the NBA). On the other hand, the players definitely need the NBA to continue living their lifestyles since that's probably the primary source of income for 99% of NBA players.

[SuperCereal]

Teams are struggling for years at a time for two reasons.....injury and poor basketball decisions. The Spurs have missed the playoffs like 5 times in 40 years. Its not guaranteed contracts holding the Knicks back....its being idiots.

Bulls wont give Curry a deal because of a heart condition he wouldn't consent to the testing they required to see the extent of. They were so concerned...they offered him half a million a year...for the rest of his life...if he failed the testing and was asked to retire in order to....live.

On top of it he played no D and rebounded like a 2 guard even though e was one of the best athletes his size ever.

So who steps in to give a huge deal to perennial non working, bad heart(so he really...cant....work very hard), non paint protecting Curry?

Who else? The Knicks. The guys who spent years stockpiling talent other teams tagged with a red flag regardless of the cost.

In doing so they traded the picks that would become Thabo, Omer Asik, and #2 overall which was used on Aldridge who was then traded).

So...they gave up a pick that could have brought in a young all star big, a great rim protector to play next to him, and a great wing defender for the right to give Eddy Curry 60 something million.

But we act like its the existence of option to sign that guaranteed contract that's to blame for the Knicks being awful for years.

Its not guaranteed contracts that make it a bad idea to sign Rashard Lewis to a 127 million dollar deal. Its the fact that hes Rashard Lewis and you didn't execute the guy who suggested you give him Kobe/Shaq/KG money.

Arenas might have the worst contract of all time.

But guess what?

His team gave it to him after he played EIGHT GAMES the previous season...

He went down...had a knee operation...came back too soon...went down again...came back in the playoffs...and went down again.

Decision?

Offer him 127 million. He did them a favor...and only took 111.

But yea...blame the system...not the idiots who gave a powerball contract to a guy who hurt the same knee 3 times in one year and was clearly a step or two slower after the FIRST operation.

Yea...systems fault.

Hold people responsible for their own actions.

For every Arenas there is a guy on a rookie contract selling a million jerseys at 80 bucks each getting raped for 3 years or a guy like Durant or Lebron selling a million a year for 20 years...generating a billion dollars or more in revenue(note...I did not say profit) while being held to a max deal paying him what 10-20 other guys with half the impact on the league can get.

Guaranteed contracts don't hold teams back...stupid decisions do.

Not like it would generate more talent. It would just move some from here to there. And most players cut wouldn't be difference makers anyway....otherwise the teams wouldn't have cut them to begin with.

Just get more cap room for teams that have already shown they don't know what to do with it....because they signed the awful deal they just cut the last time they had it to spend.

The only upside I see is lazy players being more on top of things. But these aren't players who make much difference anyway. Jerome James sucked(funny enough...on the Knicks) after he got his deal.

But he wasn't exactly Bob Lanier to begin with.

He had good 4-5 playoff games and got a big deal from a team desperate to make a splash and sign a hot name.

Give the Knicks the ability to cut players in that era all they do is cut Curry then sign Arenas...then cut him and sign Roy Hibbert.

People who make bad decisions cant be protected from themselves by changing the rules. And really...they shouldn't be if you could.

Idiocy needs to be punished.

Reward those doing the right thing.
:applause: :bowdown:

[Sarcastic]

If the owners got together and decided on going that route, they'd be able to do so and they players wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Without the owners, there is no NBA. On top of that, the players NEED the NBA far more than the owners need the NBA. Most NBA owners are billionaires and don't really need income from owning an NBA team to continue living luxurious lifestyles (most NBA owners probably make $30+ million a yr in interest alone from various bank accounts and other investments that have nothing to do with the NBA). On the other hand, the players definitely need the NBA to continue living their lifestyles since that's probably the primary source of income for 99% of NBA players.


Yea, but it's not like another league wouldn't sprout up. We've already seen 2 leagues at the same time. There is a huge market for basketball in the USA. A market worth over $4 billion.


And they can't just strong arm the players. That would break anti trust laws. They have to collectively bargain right now to break the labor laws that they currently do.

[ralph_i_el]

Yea, but it's not like another league wouldn't sprout up. We've already seen 2 leagues at the same time. There is a huge market for basketball in the USA. A market worth over $4 billion.


And they can't just strong arm the players. That would break anti trust laws. They have to collectively bargain right now to break the labor laws that they currently do.


^This

If the owners collude to stop giving player guaranteed salaries the players would strike.

[midatlantic09]

^This

If the owners collude to stop giving player guaranteed salaries the players would strike.

Okay, but as I said before, the owners don't need the money they receive from owning an NBA team. Therefore, a player strike wouldn't affect the owners at all while a strike would definitely impact the players substantially.

You realize the owners could go on a 10 yr strike and it wouldn't affect them much financially, right? The same cannot be said for the players.

[Sarcastic]

Okay, but as I said before, the owners don't need the money they receive from owning an NBA team. Therefore, a player strike wouldn't affect the owners at all while a strike would definitely impact the players substantially.

You realize the owners could go on a 10 yr strike and it wouldn't affect them much financially, right? The same cannot be said for the players.


As I said before, another league would be formed. Sports are a huge market in the US. Other billionaires would leap at the opportunity to form a new league, should the NBA decide to cease to exist.

[Jailblazers7]

Okay, but as I said before, the owners don't need the money they receive from owning an NBA team. Therefore, a player strike wouldn't affect the owners at all while a strike would definitely impact the players substantially.

You realize the owners could go on a 10 yr strike and it wouldn't affect them much financially, right? The same cannot be said for the players.

Public opinion would murder the owners if they power moved the players so blatantly. They've been chipping away at contract sizes in the past CBA but you can already see Lebron taking preemptive measures to change the conversation about salaries.

NBA owners are the ones that owe the public a product because they receive millions in tax money to help build their new arenas. The Warriors just left the city of Oakland holding the bag on their old stadium debt and just jumped ship to SF instead. Maybe places like MSG just end their lease with the Knicks and a new team pops up quickly. It wouldn't be crazy to imagine that happening across the country.

[gts]

In a league where a player can have such a large impact on the outcome of the game you have to pay.

Now you can either pay them massive sums of money to play for your team with the stipulation they can be released anytime for no reason or you can pay them less and supply some level of job security for 3 or 4 years.


Owners are owners, I can easily see some team spending a bunch of money in the off season to make a playoff run then as the season goes sideways and their playoff hopes have become a pipe dream they start to jettison contracts in a change of direction to save money and put themselves in a better draft position

[gts]

Okay, but as I said before, the owners don't need the money they receive from owning an NBA team. Therefore, a player strike wouldn't affect the owners at all while a strike would definitely impact the players substantially.

You realize the owners could go on a 10 yr strike and it wouldn't affect them much financially, right? The same cannot be said for the players.that's not true at all.

[midatlantic09]

that's not true at all.

Care to explain?

[Darius]

that's not true at all.

It's probably true for a lot of teams.

Not the Lakers, however, as the team is how that family makes money.

A guy like Ballmer, however, doesn't give a fvck.

[Kblaze8855]

People really have to stop with the "The owners can just end the league" bullshit.

It isnt happening...ever. Any business could just close its doors instead of bargain with its employees...but they tend not to.

These guys dont spend 250 million...to 2 billion dollars on a team...so they can destroy the NBA. For some of them the NBA is a huge portion of their wealth...for others its a passionate hobby.

But either way...you dont spend a billion dollars then devalue your investment by sitting the product for 3-5 years trying to starve out players to prevent people from getting deals you and your GM agree to give them.

The nuclear option is not happening.

Steve balmer didnt pay 2 billion dollars...to not have a basketball team.

[Sarcastic]

It's probably true for a lot of teams.

Not the Lakers, however, as the team is how that family makes money.

A guy like Ballmer, however, doesn't give a fvck.


Yes he does. He didn't spend $2 billion to not have a team.

[wakencdukest]

Okay, but as I said before, the owners don't need the money they receive from owning an NBA team. Therefore, a player strike wouldn't affect the owners at all while a strike would definitely impact the players substantially.

You realize the owners could go on a 10 yr strike and it wouldn't affect them much financially, right? The same cannot be said for the players.




The NBA wouldn't survive a ten year strike.

[Real Men Wear Green]

The owners (and maybe the players) are more concerned with what percentage they are getting of BRI than whether or not the contracts are guaranteed. Basketball Related Revenue is what dictates how much money they pull in overall, not individual contracts. They would probably prefer not to have guarantees but that's not a fight worth having for them unless the players push for a major concession somewhere else (like BRI, salary cap, or max deals).

To get back to the original question, I neither support nor oppose guaranteed deals. If you get rid of them are the owners going to trickle down the savings (if there are savings) and reduce the cost of my Celtic tickets? Can I now get league pass for $99 instead of $199? If not, then why should I be taking a stance for or against? This is business negotiations between owners and players and it doesn't affect me unless it leads to a lockout or strike. To me this would be like walking into Whole Foods and trying to convince the guy stocking fruit that he shouldn't have health insurance. Or telling the manager that the floors are really clean so the janitor should get a raise. I don't do that. Why should I do this?

Just make sure the next labor dispute doesn't kill the season (I didn't mind the shortened season) and I'm good.

[wakencdukest]

The owners (and maybe the players) are more concerned with what percentage they are getting of BRI than whether or not the contracts are guaranteed. Basketball Related Revenue is what dictates how much money they pull in overall, not individual contracts. They would probably prefer not to have guarantees but that's not a fight worth having for them unless the players push for a major concession somewhere else (like BRI, salary cap, or max deals).

To get back to the original question, I neither support nor oppose guaranteed deals. If you get rid of them are the owners going to trickle down the savings (if there are savings) and reduce the cost of my Celtic tickets? Can I now get league pass for $99 instead of $199? If not, then why should I be taking a stance for or against? This is business negotiations between owners and players and it doesn't affect me unless it leads to a lockout or strike. To me this would be like walking into Whole Foods and trying to convince the guy stocking fruit that he shouldn't have health insurance. Or telling the manager that the floors are really clean so the janitor should get a raise. I don't do that. Why should I do this?

Just make sure the next labor dispute doesn't kill the season (I didn't mind the shortened season) and I'm good.




Good points. We as fans should care about the product on the floor, who really gives a shit if the owners make more money, or if the players deserve guaranteed contracts? It's like the age limit argument that pops up every so often here. Things are fine the way they are as long as the product is available to us, the consumers. The owners and players finances are really insignificant. We fans are what's important, we buy the product, so give us the best product available.

[kurple]

I'm fine with the NFL model. Just pay the athletes up front. Instead of giving an NBA player a 5 year deal worth $60 million... just give them $40 million up front, and $20 million over 5 years. That way the team can cut or trade the player at any time, instead of getting stuck with contracts like Amare Stoudemire that ruin a franchise for its duration.
how would that work with a salary cap?

[bdreason]

how would that work with a salary cap?


How does the NFL do it?

I think they average the salary over the duration of the contract. So the team would still be taking the same cap hit, but they would be allowed to cut the player at any time because the majority of the contract would already be paid. I could be wrong on how the NFL works.

[Joyner82reload]

NEWSFLASH: Guaranteed contracts ABSOLUTELY impact the quality of play. You see some player not take care of their bodies, put forth sub-maximal effort, etc. because they don't really care. Just look at Andrew Bynum, he cost 100+ million and flat out quit. And then a team is stuck with the player for the next 5 years. Awesome.

The NFL model is FAR superior. The good players receive a heavy portion of their contract up front and then earn the other portion over the length of the contract. Players that are major risks, whether it be legal, physical, etc do not receive the same money up front because they may contribute NOTHING. It's ridiculous for a team to be handicapped because a player doesn't care and it fine with collecting a paycheck while taking up half 1/3 of the teams salary cap.

And LOL @ blaming the owners. Are there some bad contracts given out? Yes, there are at times. But it's far more likely you end up in a situation like Bynum and Amare where a player is paid accordingly at the time of their contract but their production free falls soon after.

[Kblaze8855]

Are there some bad contracts given out? Yes, there are at times.

Understatement of the month.



But it's far more likely you end up in a situation like Bynum and Amare where a player is paid accordingly at the time of their contract but their production free falls soon after.

Far more likely?

Ok..

name the players.

Whatever is off the top of your head.

I'll give you 3 times that number going the other way.


Its...here and there. It isnt the least bit likely. If Bynum situations were normal....

We wouldnt be talking about it.

Normal is a guy plays out a big deal...then signs another one. Thats what happens the extreme vast majority of the time.

There is a reason the same 10-15 names come up every time this issue is raised.

And that reason is....you dont have that many examples to cite.

[Sarcastic]

NBA owners WANT guaranteed contracts. Otherwise a player can get a nice big front loaded contract, tank, get cut, and go to the team he really wants to. Guaranteed contracts prevent scenarios like this from happening.


And all the examples you are providing is of players who got hurt - Amare, Arenas, Bynum. The teams have insurance on their contracts when they don't play a certain number of games, so stop worrying about the owners' bank accounts.

Do you really think that teams are gonna cut $15m-$20m players and take that cap hit? :roll:

You do realize NFL teams take cap hits when they release players, no?

[Kblaze8855]

At a glance...7 of the top 30 contracts in the NBA might be at risk if the owners had the option. Maybe 9...and of those...2 were intentionally bloated on the back end to make it hard for a team to match an offer sheet.

Real world...maybe 4 of them get cut. maybe. Big maybe. Especially considering that two of the awful contracts im counting...were signed this very summer. Id call them bad deals...but the owners clearly dont mind.

And even the teams that would do it.....would probably still be over the cap. The Knicks and Nets would at least(Amare and Joe Johnson).

It wouldnt be worth it when you get nothing back and you want to make the playoffs. Whats 20 million to the Knicks compared to knocking a few games off a win total that might be fighting for a playoff spot?

It would be awful teams cutting big contracts to aging vets or not so great players on teams going nowhere...so they would turn and sign with a contender.

I bet week one of this shit Hibbert signs a one year deal to join the Cavs or Thunder.....then someone gives him a max offersheet next summer to start it all over.

[Real Men Wear Green]

NEWSFLASH: Guaranteed contracts ABSOLUTELY impact the quality of play. You see some player not take care of their bodies, put forth sub-maximal effort, etc. because they don't really care. Just look at Andrew Bynum, he cost 100+ million and flat out quit. And then a team is stuck with the player for the next 5 years. Awesome.As a general rule pro athletes stay in shape. Bynum's decline is more about injury than anything and it's not like the NFL doesn't have players come in out of shape. Look at Albert Haynesworth or Jamarcus Russell. "NEWSFLASH": Hand a guy a few million dollars and he has economic security. Or at least can start to think he does. There are people that just aren't going to work that hard no matter what they have in the bank.


The NFL model is FAR superior. The good players receive a heavy portion of their contract up front and then earn the other portion over the length of the contract. Players that are major risks, whether it be legal, physical, etc do not receive the same money up front because they may contribute NOTHING. It's ridiculous for a team to be handicapped because a player doesn't care and it fine with collecting a paycheck while taking up half 1/3 of the teams salary cap.http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/2012/11/05/jay-cutler-ap.jpg

And LOL @ blaming the owners. Are there some bad contracts given out? Yes, there are at times. But it's far more likely you end up in a situation like Bynum and Amare where a player is paid accordingly at the time of their contract but their production free falls soon after.
Amare Stoudamire's knees were uninsurable. The Knicks really have nothing to complain about. And what do I care who the Sixers or Pacers waste their money on? Whether contracts are guaranteed or not the players that the league is comprised of are going to be almost exactly the same. The only difference it makes is how easy it is for individual teams to rebuild. But with the same players how does the overall talent level change? It doesn't.

[outbreak]

NBA owners WANT guaranteed contracts. Otherwise a player can get a nice big front loaded contract, tank, get cut, and go to the team he really wants to. Guaranteed contracts prevent scenarios like this from happening.


And all the examples you are providing is of players who got hurt - Amare, Arenas, Bynum. The teams have insurance on their contracts when they don't play a certain number of games, so stop worrying about the owners' bank accounts.

Do you really think that teams are gonna cut $15m-$20m players and take that cap hit? :roll:

You do realize NFL teams take cap hits when they release players, no?
I think it's already been established he has zero idea how the NFL system actually works....

[Kblaze8855]

Whether contracts are guaranteed or not the players that the league is comprised of are going to be almost exactly the same. The only difference it makes is how easy it is for individual teams to rebuild. But with the same players how does the overall talent level change? It doesn't.

Thats just thing thing....

If the Kings cut Rudy Gay....

They are worse(probably...though the Grizzlies might argue).

The team he signs with likely improves.

Are they gonna...sign some star to replace him?

Where does he come from? someone elses team....

The league wouldnt get better. There would just be a lot more movement.

A bad GM is gonna **** you over even if he can erase a deal after a few years. Most of them still wouldnt want to. Its just admitting a ****up.

The NFL is a very very different system. 40 guys go out for the season every week...and get cut later. They might have 75 guys on the roster before a season is over. Its a lot of shakeup.

The NBa couldnt realistically do it that way. And individual players make too much difference.

If you could just shed contracts...

How many teams clear cap space before 2010 free agency?

It would be chaos.

The NBa would never play it NFL style. Their idea of non guaranteed contracts is probably upping the number of team options in a max contract from 1 to 2.

It wouldnt be a fundamentally different set of rules.

Just make it a bit easier to wash your hands of a guy.

[Sarcastic]

Here are the top 30 contracts:

1. Kobe Bryant $23,500,000
2. Amare Stoudemire $23,410,988
3. Joe Johnson $23,180,790
4. Carmelo Anthony $22,458,401
5. Dwight Howard $21,436,271
6. LeBron James $20,644,400
6. Chris Bosh $20,644,400
8. Chris Paul $20,068,563
9. Kevin Durant $19,997,513
10. Deron Williams $19,754,465
11. Rudy Gay $19,317,326
12. Derrick Rose $18,862,876
13. Blake Griffin $17,632,688
14. Carlos Boozer $16,800,000
15. Zach Randolph $16,500,000
16. Marc Gasol $15,829,688
17. Paul George $15,800,000
18. Kevin Love $15,719,063
19. Russell Westbrook $15,719,062
20. Brook Lopez $15,719,000
21. LaMarcus Aldridge $15,200,000
22. David Lee $15,012,000
23. Dwyane Wade $15,000,000
24. Roy Hibbert $14,898,938
24. Jeremy Lin $14,898,938
24. Omer Asik $14,898,938
24. Eric Gordon $14,898,938
28. Gordon Hayward $14,746,000
29. Chandler Parsons $14,700,000
30. James Harden $14,693,906

Honestly I'm not sure any of those would really be cut. Each of the teams has an interest in keeping some of those players around, and the value gained from cutting them would be only to save the owner some money. I don't think an owner like Dolan would cut Amar'e just to save money. I think he would rather ride it out and see if he gets healthy. I think also in Joe Johnson's case, the Nets would keep him around as a star attraction at least. What do they get by cutting him? They are actively trying to make the playoffs. Cutting him would mean they are going into tank mode, and would make it harder to sell tickets.

[Sarcastic]

Can you imagine NY and LA teams in this scenario?

"Hey Lebron/Durant/(any future superstar), come to NY/LA, and we'll shed every contract you want, so that you can play with whoever you want".

Meanwhile other stars are tanking to get cut and join up with Lebron/Durant.

[Kblaze8855]

It would hurt the role players more than the stars...even the former stars.A big name lends credibility to your efforts. Maybe it shouldnt be this way but....you cut Deron Williams im not sure your fans take you serious when you say you want to make the playoffs.

Even if he isnt worth 20 million today.

It would be joke teams doing this. And a lot of big contracts on joke teams...are there for the express purpose of expiring in time to go after someone.

[PP34Deuce]

Nba teams need stability in star power more than the nfl. The nfl relies mostly on the QB being the face of the franchise.

Some of you are siding with billionaire owners that make a ton of money off players. These guys aren't hurting for money at all.

[DMV2]

The NFL is by far the most successful of the 4 major american pro sports leagues
Still doesn't change the fact that half of their players are criminals and many of their retired players die prematurely or have severe mental/physical disabilities.