khans2k5 wrote:I think teams should be able to cut guys and not take the salary cap hit. That way the players still get paid and teams can dump guys that aren't living up to their contracts. Then have that players next contract eat into their old contract so if we cut Pek and he signs a 5 million dollar deal elsewhere that's 5 less million we have to pay him. You shouldn't get rewarded for being so bad or unbearable on your team that you get paid even more when someone else wants to take a chance on you. I don't get the overall system of contracts always being on your cap even if they aren't on your team. I think it's an odd punishment when most of the time the player flat out isn't earning their contract and the team gets punished for wanting to move on from an underperformer.
But it's often the teams that sign guys to bad contracts. How many more provisions/outs do we have to give them to protect them from themselves? I don't know of any other guaranteed contract league that does more than the NBA already does to help dumb guys recover from making dumb moves.
How many athletes on the other end of those dumb deals can you say are doing everything he can to earn that contract, but just isn't good enough? Bad deals are a two way street. Teams overpay guys and then those guys coast or don't get better because there's no repercussions for them once that deal is signed. How are some markets supposed to reasonably get players there without overpaying in hopes those players live up to the deal? It's just not as simple as GM's making bad deals just because they don't know what they're doing. Half the league has to make bad deals just to get in the door with these players because they have an inherent disadvantage to signing players. So if big markets like LA and NY have inherent advantages to sign players because of their market, I am perfectly fine giving small market GM's more ammo to try to compete with those markets in the form of getting out of bad contracts.
I just think eliminating guaranteed contracts is myopic. It opens up an entirely new set of problems. Baseball and Hockey deal with the same thing. I've pointed out why only football doesn't... along with injuries that are much more frequent and can often change the trajectory of a guy's career... a lot more than in the other sports.
There has to be a balance. Players are paid handsomely... but they should still have some job security. After all, both sides signed that contract. In fact, I think it's good for the fans (back to my original premise... continuity is good in my opinion) too.
You must have misunderstood me. I never said ditch guaranteed deals. I said cut teams a break on the cap hit when they cut guys. Players still get paid their full deal in my scenario. Teams just are more easily able to move on from them because they don't take a cap hit for cutting a guy. There's a difference between no cap hit and simply not having to pay a guy. I.E. If we cut Pek, we have 12 million more to spend on free agency, but we still have to pay him his 12 million. I basically just want the amnesty provision to be unlimited to any deal at any time. That way the players get paid and the teams can move on to other players without further penalty which is what you have when you have to pay a guy to not play for you and his contract restricts your ability to pay someone else because of a cap hit.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:
There has to be a balance. Players are paid handsomely... but they should still have some job security. After all, both sides signed that contract. In fact, I think it's good for the fans (back to my original premise... continuity is good in my opinion) too.
They could always have their contract insured against injury. That would be job security. I am not sure you would have any less continuity. What good is continuity for fans to have a player that is on a bad contract? I don't want the continuity of someone not living up to the standard we agreed to pay them.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:
There has to be a balance. Players are paid handsomely... but they should still have some job security. After all, both sides signed that contract. In fact, I think it's good for the fans (back to my original premise... continuity is good in my opinion) too.
They could always have their contract insured against injury. That would be job security. I am not sure you would have any less continuity. What good is continuity for fans to have a player that is on a bad contract? I don't want the continuity of someone not living up to the standard we agreed to pay them.
khans2k5 wrote:I think teams should be able to cut guys and not take the salary cap hit. That way the players still get paid and teams can dump guys that aren't living up to their contracts. Then have that players next contract eat into their old contract so if we cut Pek and he signs a 5 million dollar deal elsewhere that's 5 less million we have to pay him. You shouldn't get rewarded for being so bad or unbearable on your team that you get paid even more when someone else wants to take a chance on you. I don't get the overall system of contracts always being on your cap even if they aren't on your team. I think it's an odd punishment when most of the time the player flat out isn't earning their contract and the team gets punished for wanting to move on from an underperformer.
But it's often the teams that sign guys to bad contracts. How many more provisions/outs do we have to give them to protect them from themselves? I don't know of any other guaranteed contract league that does more than the NBA already does to help dumb guys recover from making dumb moves.
How many athletes on the other end of those dumb deals can you say are doing everything he can to earn that contract, but just isn't good enough? Bad deals are a two way street. Teams overpay guys and then those guys coast or don't get better because there's no repercussions for them once that deal is signed. How are some markets supposed to reasonably get players there without overpaying in hopes those players live up to the deal? It's just not as simple as GM's making bad deals just because they don't know what they're doing. Half the league has to make bad deals just to get in the door with these players because they have an inherent disadvantage to signing players. So if big markets like LA and NY have inherent advantages to sign players because of their market, I am perfectly fine giving small market GM's more ammo to try to compete with those markets in the form of getting out of bad contracts.
I just think eliminating guaranteed contracts is myopic. It opens up an entirely new set of problems. Baseball and Hockey deal with the same thing. I've pointed out why only football doesn't... along with injuries that are much more frequent and can often change the trajectory of a guy's career... a lot more than in the other sports.
There has to be a balance. Players are paid handsomely... but they should still have some job security. After all, both sides signed that contract. In fact, I think it's good for the fans (back to my original premise... continuity is good in my opinion) too.
You must have misunderstood me. I never said ditch guaranteed deals. I said cut teams a break on the cap hit when they cut guys. Players still get paid their full deal in my scenario. Teams just are more easily able to move on from them because they don't take a cap hit for cutting a guy. There's a difference between no cap hit and simply not having to pay a guy. I.E. If we cut Pek, we have 12 million more to spend on free agency, but we still have to pay him his 12 million. I basically just want the amnesty provision to be unlimited to any deal at any time. That way the players get paid and the teams can move on to other players without further penalty which is what you have when you have to pay a guy to not play for you and his contract restricts your ability to pay someone else because of a cap hit.
Gotcha. But wouldn't that help the big market teams even more? After all, they have more money to play with. They could sign anybody they wanted. And then dump them and start anew whenever they want to
GM and Coach at the end of they day. They will build the team around who they think will help them win the most. I think this would really be a big deal for the fringe players in the league. The guys that come to camp do everything asked of them and are good enough to make the team, but because another player is on a guaranteed contract they won't make the team.
I am sure glad we had continuity with JJ Barea. I like the idea of being able to cut people before the opener if they come to camp out of shape or have attitude issues. Or they get hurt playing international ball? Why should it be the leagues issue? I think if you went this route you need a true IR though.
khans2k5 wrote:I think teams should be able to cut guys and not take the salary cap hit. That way the players still get paid and teams can dump guys that aren't living up to their contracts. Then have that players next contract eat into their old contract so if we cut Pek and he signs a 5 million dollar deal elsewhere that's 5 less million we have to pay him. You shouldn't get rewarded for being so bad or unbearable on your team that you get paid even more when someone else wants to take a chance on you. I don't get the overall system of contracts always being on your cap even if they aren't on your team. I think it's an odd punishment when most of the time the player flat out isn't earning their contract and the team gets punished for wanting to move on from an underperformer.
The league would shrink down to about 6 of the strongest markets. Local TV contracts would become the biggest determinant in your chances for success. Hello Lakers, Knicks, Philly, Bulls, Celtics.
GM and Coach at the end of they day. They will build the team around who they think will help them win the most. I think this would really be a big deal for the fringe players in the league. The guys that come to camp do everything asked of them and are good enough to make the team, but because another player is on a guaranteed contract they won't make the team.
I am sure glad we had continuity with JJ Barea. I like the idea of being able to cut people before the opener if they come to camp out of shape or have attitude issues. Or they get hurt playing international ball? Why should it be the leagues issue? I think if you went this route you need a true IR though.
But we both know it wouldn't just be malcontents who those GMs and coaches deem "not worthy" of their contracts/place on the team, right?
Back to our football example, did Antoine Winfield loaf through his last season with the Vikings? By many metrics, he had his best season as a pro player. He was cut in the offseason.
I don't know where the league, owners and the players association are at on this but I think players should be able to renegotiate their contracts if they want like in the NFL. I know it seems like who would do that with a guaranteed contract and basically no leverage from a team to make them do it but I think some players who are literally massively underperforming their contracts may be willing to take a pay cut to stay on their team or go to another team instead of being passed around as basically a contract and something to be despised. If that was available it probably would be utilized Ina very limited number of instances relatively speaking but I'd like to see it.
khans2k5 wrote:I think teams should be able to cut guys and not take the salary cap hit. That way the players still get paid and teams can dump guys that aren't living up to their contracts. Then have that players next contract eat into their old contract so if we cut Pek and he signs a 5 million dollar deal elsewhere that's 5 less million we have to pay him. You shouldn't get rewarded for being so bad or unbearable on your team that you get paid even more when someone else wants to take a chance on you. I don't get the overall system of contracts always being on your cap even if they aren't on your team. I think it's an odd punishment when most of the time the player flat out isn't earning their contract and the team gets punished for wanting to move on from an underperformer.
The league would shrink down to about 6 of the strongest markets. Local TV contracts would become the biggest determinant in your chances for success. Hello Lakers, Knicks, Philly, Bulls, Celtics.
Why do you think? Those teams aren't hindered by contracts right now, yet only one is even close to being a winner. Good players don't get amnestied. So those teams would stock up with the Josh Smith's of the world maybe which aren't title changing moves. Odds are still that the Josh Smith's will go to contenders over markets anyway. Clearing the cap space on a whim helps them, but there aren't many game changing free agents heading to those markets right now because their teams flat out suck. They literally need a Miami situation to be successful which has only happened once in free agency and they'll need something attractive to join or use as trade bait which most of them don't have at this point. I don't think it would get used on too many meaningful players and everyone can use it which is all you can do. You still at best can only sign three max guys so I don't imagine any super teams that would be considered better than what Miami had. There's just not enough cap space at the end of the day even with the cap jump next year.
