What is the ideal way for a player to handle not wanting to sign?

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]What is extreme?

Because the current financial incentive is pretty big, and it isn't working...and if you did that, you'd have rookies posturing constantly to try and get to certain franchises.

Also, while I agree that contraction would greatly help to go down to 12 per conference...it isn't happening.[/QUOTE]

Extreme is your salary being cut in half by going elsewhere. Rookies get locked in, I already said that. They don't get a choice.

[QUOTE=Ben Simmons 25]Extreme is your salary being cut in half by going elsewhere. Rookies get locked in, I already said that. They don't get a choice.[/QUOTE]

There is no way something like that ever gets into the CBA...

And, again, it would create havoc in the draft and you'd see players go overseas.

You can't reward shit franchises like that. You would start to see owners make more cost saving moves because there wouldn't be a huge reward to compete. You get lucky and draft a stud...and know that he essentially can't leave unless he wants to make hundreds of millions of dollars less over the course of his career?

That is way too much power in the hands of owners / franchises.

I think the best way is for the player to say they will explore free agency once his contract expires. That way the franchise will look to trade him instead of having him ask for a trade. Seems like people are not ok with players asking for a trade specifically. The worst thing is for the player to have a small list of destination teams.

[QUOTE=Ben Simmons 25]The following franchises are complete dogshit...

Cleveland
Orlando
Atlanta
New Orleans
Charlotte
[B]Brooklyn[/B]

The Clippers should also be on the list.[/QUOTE]They're good now though.

[QUOTE=kennethgriffen]i think players have far too much control and the team that drafts a player should have their rights for as long as they're willing to extend them


whatever amount they're eligible for as long as the team matches it they keep that player


if they get upset and demand a trade the team has the right to keep paying them and basically sitting them for as long as they want. or the player can quit the nba/forfeit his contract and go to a different league to play basketball[/QUOTE]

Teams have control over a player for 7 years. And yet you want them to have more control? Silly

[QUOTE=Ben Simmons 25]Without getting too deep into it, for an extremely large percentage of businesses, they could lay off their entire staff, suffer the growing pains for a few years, and just move on no problem as if nothing ever happened.

If the NBA wiped the slate of every current NBA player and those players formed another league, the NBA would be out of business in short order.

This is not an apples to apples comparison when you compare the NBA to a regular business.[/QUOTE]


sorry but how many anthony davis situations are there... that would never be an option.

and no... the players cant just make their own league because for that you need billions of dollars
then they would need 30 of the top stars to own their own team. then who pays the players. who gets the tv deals. are the contracts guaranteed? what kind of stability is there. wouldnt they choose a much shorter season. then how do you make as much money. how do you strong arm the networks into forking over billion dollar deals with no leverage.

starting a league is very very very hard. just look at AEW the new start up wrestling company. they have a billionaire owner and even he cant afford more than 5 big name guys right now without a lucrative tv deal. they have one show planned in the future. how many guys would be out of work for years before it became anywhere near as good as the nba


so many guys would choose to stay behind because the money would still be there in the nba. rookies coming up would still enter the nba draft and within a few years youd have all new stars


the nba needs to say enough is enough and if they wanna go on strike for years then so be it. bring in replacement players until they agree to a deal where the owners have the power again

[QUOTE=sammichoffate]They're good now though.[/QUOTE]

And the Clippers are probably about to be really good with Jerry West but that doesn't mean it's not a dogshit franchise overall.

[QUOTE=kennethgriffen]


what other business gives its employees the right to choose where they work


when i worked i couldn't just call up a district manager and demand they move me to another location


the location (team) i worked for had a boss ( GM ) that controlled my fate. sure i did all the work and sold all the merchandise for them. it was my blood and sweat making sales. but that doesn't make me an equal partner.. for that to happen i would need to become an investor/share holder


if these players want say in the direction of a franchise then they can try and find a way to raise 1.5 to 2 billion dollars. go to the owner and get a 50/50 share[/QUOTE]

There are plenty of companies who will allow an employee to transfer to a different location, if they have an opening available. And even if they don't, there's nothing to keep an employee from quitting their job and moving, then finding a new job in the same industry. NBA players don't have that option.

[QUOTE=baudkarma]There are plenty of companies who will allow an employee to transfer to a different location, if they have an opening available. And even if they don't, there's nothing to keep an employee from quitting their job and moving, then finding a new job in the same industry. NBA players don't have that option.[/QUOTE]



you said it... "allow"

its up to them. its their business

This is like the people who propose ending entitlements as a solution to the budget issues. Yes...it might work. But it wont happen in the real world so why go into it?

Reserve clauses are dead and will never ever ever return.

The only way to have player loyalty and prevent superteams is to have a hard cap.
If teams had to pay $5 for every $1 they are over the luxury tax you won't have only 3-5 teams that matter. Also if a team like the Pelicans get a player like AD, he wouldn't leave all those millions on the table and wouldn't have to beat a stacked AF Superteam.

[QUOTE=Duderonomy]The only way to have player loyalty and prevent superteams is to have a hard cap.
If teams had to pay $5 for every $1 they are over the luxury tax you won't have only 3-5 teams that matter. Also if a team like the Pelicans get a player like AD, he wouldn't leave all those millions on the table and wouldn't have to beat a stacked AF Superteam.[/QUOTE]

Hard cap would be great...there would have to be caveats to create incentives for players to stay on a team that drafted them...while not hurting the cap of said team, but those details can easily be worked out.

There are a lot of interesting things that could be tried, but most aren't happening like Kblaze said.

Players should have to fulfill 75% of a contract before being allowed to demand a trade, it gives teams a time frame to understand what they have work with, and it gives both sides some sort of framework for when to anticipate something happening.

And how exactly would you enforce that?

You realize a player asking out has no actual power to demand a trade right? Its just a request usually to spare you losing him for nothing later. Very few if any simply refuse to play till its done. Though one could argue Jason Kidd and Vince Carter did. You still couldnt make a rule to prevent it.

What could you do?

Besides 75% of these usual 4 year deals is 3 full seasons. But you get MORE for the player when he has more time left. You get more for a star with a year and change on his deal than with 2 and a half months.

Teams would be hurting their own players trade value if they couldnt trade them till it was too late for the new team to make an impression on the guy and maybe get him to stay.

Its a problem but not very much of one really. All the solutions just make the team losing the guy more likely to get fleeced or nothing at all.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]And how exactly would you enforce that?

You realize a player asking out has no actual power to demand a trade right? Its just a request usually to spare you losing him for nothing later. Very few if any simply refuse to play till its done. Though one could argue Jason Kidd and Vince Carter did. You still couldnt make a rule to prevent it.

What could you do?

Besides 75% of these usual 4 year deals is 3 full seasons. But you get MORE for the player when he has more time left. You get more for a star with a year and change on his deal than with 2 and a half months.

Teams would be hurting their own players trade value if they couldnt trade them till it was too late for the new team to make an impression on the guy and maybe get him to stay.

[B]Its a problem but not very much of one really. All the solutions just make the team losing the guy more likely to get fleeced or nothing at all.[/QUOTE]
[/B]

:applause: