Poll: The State of The League

[inthepaint]

Yeah, but this is simplifying it in a biased way.

You could just as easily say the team can duck the money they owe the player by trading him elsewhere, but the player has to play basketball somewhere for the duration of the contract.

Yes, the player gets his guaranteed money. Yes, the player has to play basketball for that money. Yes, the team can trade the player, even though the team was supposed to be the one paying the player. Yes, the player can ask to be traded, even though that team was the one the player was supposed to be playing for.

It's an incredibly equal situation right now. It's only unequal if you choose to view it as one side getting a guarantee they really aren't getting. Neither side truly makes a commitment to the other. And unless you fix it so both sides are fully committed with no recourse (something neither side wants), there is not much logic to a system where the team can bail on their commitments (by transferring them to another team) while the player cannot.

Players get a guaranteed salary. Teams don't get the guaranteed talent.

When a top player asks to be traded out mid-contract to a specific destination, that hinders the team's leverage on a trade because all the other 20+ that are not in the players target destination lose interest or will offer less, knowing it's a possible rental. The player though, will get the money no matter what. The team loses out and is back to square one. When a team trades a player out they will still get paid the same millions in the NBA to do what they love, for the duration they chose to on their initial contract, even if they're sitting out injured and/or sulking, just in a different city. There's virtually no setback for them, compared to the setback to a small franchise when a top 10 player asks out.

This is why there should be 2 types of contracts:
A: Double-no trade clause. Neither team nor player can initiate trades until the term is over. Agree to something from the get-go and stick to it.
B: Open ended: Both player and team can bail on each other whenever they want. That is not what we have now. What I mean when I suggested this originally is that there's literally no "term" on this option. Basically the team gets the player as a "day-to-day" free agent. If the player wants out, no hard feelings, go to your preferred destination, and sign another deal. Same goes for the team, if you're sulking, not producing, causing trouble in the locker room etc. the team can just let go of you.

Players will never allow this in reality though, precisely because they (especially top 10 players) have it too good right now. They want the financial security of "term" in case they get injured, old, go through slumps etc..but they don't want the obligation to fulfill said term in case they're at the top of the world and ready to play with their buddies in LA or NY.

[Demographic Shift]

Players get a guaranteed salary. Teams don't get the guaranteed talent.

When a top player asks to be traded out mid-contract to a specific destination, that hinders the team's leverage on a trade because all the other 20+ that are not in the players target destination lose interest of will offer less, knowing it's a possible rental. The player though, will get the money no matter what. The team loses out and is back to square one. When a team trades a player out they will still get paid the same millions in the NBA to do what they love, for the duration they chose to on their initial contract, even they're sitting out injured and/or sulking, just in a different city. There's virtually no setback for them, compared to the setback of a small franchise when a top 10 player asks out.

This is why there should be 2 types of contracts:
A: Double-no trade clause. Neither team nor player can initiate trades until the term is over. Agree to something from the get-go and stick to it.
B: Open ended: Both player and team can bail on each other whenever they want. That is not what we have now. What I mean when I suggested this originally is that there's literally no "term" on this option. Basically the team gets the player as a "day-to-day" free agent. If the player wants out, no hard feelings, go to your preferred destination, and sign another deal. Same goes for the team, if you're sulking, not producing, causing trouble in the locker room etc. the team can just let go of you.

Players will never allow this in reality though, precisely because they (especially top 10 players) have it too good right now. They want the financial security of "term" in case they get injured, old, go through slumps etc..but they don't want the obligation to fulfill said term in case they're at the top of the world and ready to play with their buddies in LA or NY.

I think the NBA should adopt a SAS type model for contracts...

No not Steven A Smith... but a Superstar as Service contract model. .

Its a 12 month minimum commitment.. but after that the player and teams go month to month and either side could just give 30 days notice to get out of the agreement.

If your the team.. after you shotgun the clause you can trade the player after 30 days. If you don't your not obligated to pay
If your the player.. you shotgun the deal and ask for the trade and take the next best deal your agent has been looking for over the past 12 months. You "owe" the last 30 days to the team but your not paid for it.

Superstar as a Service....adopt the Uncle Dennis model.

[DanH]

The right to get out of the contract via trade isn't the only consideration in play. It isn't an incredibly equal situation unless you view that as the sole contractual term. It isn't. And, even if a movement right was the only consideration, it isn't equal in the sense that the risk to the team is far greater than the risk to a player. The player only needs to worry about himself. He will get paid either way and will be able to play. The team, on the other hand, could have its entire billion dollar organization thrown into chaos for years.

And the bolded part is absolutely false. Both sides do make a binding, enforceable commitment to each other. Do people not know what a contract is? Fuck, I'm glad I don't do business with some people on this board.

"Hey, let's sign a 5-year $200 million agreement!"
"Excellent, we will re-organize our affairs and all our business plans to accommodate that."
One year later.
"Meh, just kidding. I don't really feel like doing it anymore. I want to do a better deal with another company."
"?????"

Equating the way NBA contracts work within a franchised system with its own set of rules, with the free market is the biggest fallacy you are pushing. There are all sorts of everyday rules that don't apply to sports contracts. You just don't like how this specific one doesn't.

Come on, try writing out your verbal exchange there, but make up a real world discussion that reflects the way a trade would work in the NBA. It would seem just as ridiculous.

[DanH]

Players get a guaranteed salary. Teams don't get the guaranteed talent.

When a top player asks to be traded out mid-contract to a specific destination, that hinders the team's leverage on a trade because all the other 20+ that are not in the players target destination lose interest or will offer less, knowing it's a possible rental. The player though, will get the money no matter what. The team loses out and is back to square one. When a team trades a player out they will still get paid the same millions in the NBA to do what they love, for the duration they chose to on their initial contract, even if they're sitting out injured and/or sulking, just in a different city. There's virtually no setback for them, compared to the setback to a small franchise when a top 10 player asks out.

This is why there should be 2 types of contracts:
A: Double-no trade clause. Neither team nor player can initiate trades until the term is over. Agree to something from the get-go and stick to it.
B: Open ended: Both player and team can bail on each other whenever they want. That is not what we have now. What I mean when I suggested this originally is that there's literally no "term" on this option. Basically the team gets the player as a "day-to-day" free agent. If the player wants out, no hard feelings, go to your preferred destination, and sign another deal. Same goes for the team, if you're sulking, not producing, causing trouble in the locker room etc. the team can just let go of you.

Players will never allow this in reality though, precisely because they (especially top 10 players) have it too good right now. They want the financial security of "term" in case they get injured, old, go through slumps etc..but they don't want the obligation to fulfill said term in case they're at the top of the world and ready to play with their buddies in LA or NY.

These are suggestions you are making thinking it would make things better for teams or players. And yet neither side would ever sign up to such a scenario, not in a million years. That should tell you that it's not really a great suggestion.

[jimmie]

Haven't thought it through fully, but:

Player demands trade? Fine.

Team is allowed to laugh at the demand and hope it doesn't turn into a Vince situation by demanding the player fulfill the terms of the contract, or they can appease the demand by releasing the player to free agency and voiding the contract, or trading the player if they prefer the return from the other team to having the contract removed from their salary sheet (cap space). Better balance of risk and return between the team and the departing player. The player ll go where they want to go, but they'll be taking a risk that the team they want to go to can actually pay them what they want and fit them on the roster/under the cap.

From the other side, everything remains the same - contract is a contract, player can be traded in the same way as today at the team's discretion.

In this scenario, Paul George would have had to go on the open market and give up guaranteed money in order to go to the Clips and play with Kawhi. The Clips, accordingly, would have to have cap space and do the roster acrobatics to make it happen on their end. I think it would prevent a lot of this stuff if players had to throw away a guaranteed contract to change teams...

[DanH]

Haven't thought it through fully, but:

Player demands trade? Fine.

Team is allowed to laugh at the demand and hope it doesn't turn into a Vince situation by demanding the player fulfill the terms of the contract, or they can appease the demand by releasing the player to free agency and voiding the contract, or trading the player if they prefer the return from the other team to having the contract removed from their salary sheet (cap space). Better balance of risk and return between the team and the departing player. The player ll go where they want to go, but they'll be taking a risk that the team they want to go to can actually pay them what they want and fit them on the roster/under the cap.

From the other side, everything remains the same - contract is a contract, player can be traded in the same way as today at the team's discretion.

In this scenario, Paul George would have had to go on the open market and give up guaranteed money in order to go to the Clips and play with Kawhi. The Clips, accordingly, would have to have cap space and do the roster acrobatics to make it happen on their end. I think it would prevent a lot of this stuff if players had to throw away a guaranteed contract to change teams...

Would the player have to agree to having their contract waived? What would prevent a team from claiming that a player requested a trade and voiding a bad contract from their books? Never mind that would essentially be the players giving up their guaranteed salary structure that they fought tooth and nail for.

If we assume you mean that the player has to agree to that - congratulations! You've described the current system. Any team and player can agree to a $0 contract buyout to send the player to free agency any time they like.

[inthepaint]

These are suggestions you are making thinking it would make things better for teams or players. And yet neither side would ever sign up to such a scenario, not in a million years. That should tell you that it's not really a great suggestion.

Disagree. Double no-trade clauses are very reasonable, especially if you keep the term small. "Trae Young, we believe in you, let's work together for 2 years. We won't trade you so you have the security of knowing where you'll be while you develop, and you reciprocate that trust by sticking around". Nothing wrong with that. Can benefit both player and team, and give them both predictability and security about their futures.

As for the open ended one, I'm being hyperbolic on the "day-to-day", that's of course not practical, but for a single season, that's in in fact already done fairly often. It's basically the 1yr deals LeBron would sign. At the time he valued the freedom of being able to move freely every year more than the security of term, so he was basically a perpetual free agent. At the end of the season, the team didn't owe him any money, and he didn't owe any service. The team would get his talents on the court for the season, and at the end of the season he would negotiate another one for the following year. Nothing wrong with that either. Like the double-no trade, both parties knew exactly what they were getting into when signed the deal.

[DanH]

Disagree. Double no-trade clauses are very reasonable, especially if you keep the term small. "Trae Young, we believe in you, let's work together for 2 years. We won't trade you so you have the security of knowing where you'll be while you develop, and you reciprocate that trust by sticking around". Nothing wrong with that. Can benefit both player and team, and give them both predictability and security about their futures.

As for the open ended one, I'm being hyperbolic on the "day-to-day", that's of course not practical, but for a single season, that's in in fact already done fairly often. It's basically the 1yr deals LeBron would sign. At the time he valued the freedom of being able to move freely every year more than the security of term, so he was basically a perpetual free agent. At the end of the season, the team didn't owe him any money, and he didn't owe any service. The team would get his talents on the court for the season, and at the end of the season he would negotiate another one for the following year. Nothing wrong with that either. Like the double-no trade, both parties knew exactly what they were getting into when signed the deal.

Yes, but you are saying those should be the only types of contracts. When in reality both team and players would far prefer the current system for the vast majority of contracts.

You think any player or team wants to sign up to a 5 year deal where the player absolutely cannot be traded no matter what?

[inthepaint]

Yes, but you are saying those should be the only types of contracts. When in reality both team and players would far prefer the current system for the vast majority of contracts.

You think any player or team wants to sign up to a 5 year deal where the player absolutely cannot be traded no matter what?

Yeah this type of contracts don't lend themselves well to longer deals, they'd be better suited for shorter 2-3 year deals. 5 years is too long in the life of an athlete and too long in the NBA landscape, especially the way the league is trending with player movement. Even on the current setup, on these 5 yrs deals there's usually some soul-searching by the team and/or player midway through, questioning if the fit is ideal, which is sometimes awkward when one of the parties is happy but the other is not, and the trade-block talks start. Having a shorter deal with a meaningful term would just put on paper the time and place (~2-3 year mark), to have that re-assessment and conversation to see if everyone is happy.

It would also be a chance to ascribe the better $ value to the player. Sometimes on these longer deals, players get shortchanged because they're worth a lot more, but the money is somewhat fixed until the 5 yrs is up, and sometimes it's the other way around and the team is paying for an albatross contract. Shortening that up would mitigate that downside of these artificially long deals that are signed today, even though no party has a true intention of seeing it through. There's a trend in the league now (which is a trend in society in general too), and that is people don't stick around in the same place for too long anymore. And that's ok. Seeing a Conley & Gasol stay on the same team for 10 years like we saw in the past decade will become very very rare, and that's alright.

But ultimately, all these suggestions I made don't matter, not because they're unreasonable, but because it probably takes too much freedom away that players already have. And in fairness to top 10 players, maybe they should have some perks. They're the face of the league after all, and promote the NBA worldwide well beyond their teams. I have no issue with players having some control, but I do have a soft spot for the smaller franchise sitting on their hands after their top 10 player asks out before their term, always to LA/NY/Miami.

Maybe the solution is not to penalize the player, but to have something to make up for the smaller market franchise that has a non-free agent top 10 player asking out. I don't know much about the NBA cap system (unlike you), but someone here suggested having something in the way allowing/creating more cap space long term for the franchise losing a big fish, like they have it in Europe. I have no idea if it's possible, practical or what would be involved, but the spirit of the change, regardless of what it is, would be to make the smaller franchise up for their loss, without hurting the player.

[thead]

One issue I noticed in the current structure is that many teams end up paying top dollar in years the player is declining.

Chris Paul should have made the money he is making now 5 years ago. Contracts, and players prime years don't reflect each other.

I don't have an answer for that but it puts teams in a position of saying, if we take this guy now, only 2 out of these 5 years are going to be optimal....then 2 sub obtimal, then 1 year of, someone please take this contract for a pick

[thead]

Wait I do have a solution


A player could take a 6 year Contract for 20% of the cap, 5 years for 25%, 4 years for 30% 3 years for 35% and 1 and 2 year deals at 40%


I am some kind of stable genius :P

[Quirk]

Honestly, I don't know what a "two-way" trade clause even means legally, a player can't trade themselves.Would the contract say that the player is not allowed to be unhappy and let the team know they would prefer to be elsewhere?

[slaw]

One issue I noticed in the current structure is that many teams end up paying top dollar in years the player is declining.

Chris Paul should have made the money he is making now 5 years ago. Contracts, and players prime years don't reflect each other.

I don't have an answer for that but it puts teams in a position of saying, if we take this guy now, only 2 out of these 5 years are going to be optimal....then 2 sub obtimal, then 1 year of, someone please take this contract for a pick

That's a result of the early years of control teams have. Teams often end up paying for past performance and not future production. MLB has a much tougher time with this but the problem isn't as pronounced in the NBA cause players are younger coming in and become free agents 'faster'.

[golden]

So, this whole thread started a judgement of the league due to Kawhi recruiting PG and then PG so-called breaking his contract. Sounds more like OKC was quite happy with their good fortune....

when George's agent, Aaron Mintz, informed Thunder general manager Sam Presti of his client's wishes -- more a request than a demand -- it came as a shock, but it also was seen in some ways as a gift.

So as Kawhi Leonard put the full-court press on George, and with Westbrook not breaking character to re-recruit his star teammate, the Thunder had little to counter it. Presti wasn't as heartbroken by George's request as some might believe, having experienced plenty of star departures before. If anything, there was pragmatic relief.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...market-miracle

[slaw]

Equating the way NBA contracts work within a franchised system with its own set of rules, with the free market is the biggest fallacy you are pushing. There are all sorts of everyday rules that don't apply to sports contracts. You just don't like how this specific one doesn't.

Come on, try writing out your verbal exchange there, but make up a real world discussion that reflects the way a trade would work in the NBA. It would seem just as ridiculous.

What I am arguing is that there are all sorts of ordinary rules (legal and ethical) that should apply to sports contracts...... The reason that these basic legal and ethical rules should apply is that they have been developed over hundreds of years to ensure transactions work effectively. Throwing aside these rules because muh sports is different has, and will continue to, lead to all sorts of problems for pro sports leagues.