http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110618/ap_on_sp_bk_ne/bkn_nba_labor I don't know if the NBA can take another half season like it did in 99. It isn't the juggernaut that the NFL is in terms of popularity and money. I guess this maybe a step towards a positive outcome?
Combining hard cap, which the owners still seek, with guaranteed contracts will mean (a) teams who signed bad deals will be truly screwed since there are no exceptions to work with, and (b) the Eddy Currys of the world will be stealing money directly from players who actually perform.
It's good news because it indicates the sides are closer together. But we don't know yet if it's the first step towards a fairly quick agreement. Without non-guaranteed contracts, I don't see how a true hard cap can be implemented. With those two items tossed aside, maybe the NBA is now ready to drop the "non-starters", stop posturing and finally get down to business with the players union.
Perhaps they'll "meet in the middle," with the first 2 or 3 years guaranteed, and remaining years a team option. Player options disappear, as do hard contracts over 2/3 years. The players would see that as a huge concession, IMO. Heck, it would be.
how about . . . For every Mid Level Exception . .they get an ALAN Houston Option One allows you to go over the cap . . one helps you get under it. I think I like the 3 yrs guaranteed and then team options. I can deal with that . . . Rocket River
Guaranteed contracts and free agency have given players too much power, and both should be scaled back.
I'm in favor of whatever gives the Rockets a competitive advantage. If that means hard cap and guaranteed contracts, then by all means get that done!
Simple. Teams just have to be non-idiots. I guess there could be provisions where players with major injuries can be cut with limited cap ramifications. i.e. Yao with the Rockets past two seasons. But in general, teams have overpaid simply because the risk is little beyond the owner's pocketbook. A hard cap would change that. I don't think guaranteed contracts is a bad thing. I mean, one huge reason the Bulls dominated was because Pippen signed for like $1-2 mil/yr in order to get long term security. It can work out if you use it well. The reason why teams are losing money isn't because of guaranteed contracts, but because they don't seem to take them into account when handing out deals.
This is what I sent to the league office in so many words. Say a guy signs 6 yrs 36m contract. Let's say after yr 2 he has a very bad injury and misses yr 3. Since he has made half of the guaranteed contract, he can now be cut and the team not penalized. If the player is on the opening day of yr 4, he gets half of the salary. If he on the roster after the 41 game, he gets the other half. That could work for the reamaining yrs on the deal.
Yeah, that really is a bit of "non-news". If you have a hard cap then you'll eventually end up with non-guarenteed deals. The system will dictate the type of contracts. Both the NFL and current NBA CBAs allow either guarenteed or non guarenteed deals. The NBA is soft cap so the contracts tend to be guarenteed and the NFL is a hard cap so the contracts are non-guarenteed. That sounds like a contrived concession by the owners. They aren't really giving up anything. If they end up with a hard cap then they'll end up with non-guarenteed deals. They don't need a rule to specify that contracts will be non-guarenteed.
