And I'm sure that would be fine with the players as well, as long as you make it that way day 1, and eliminate the draft which allows a team to have your rights for 5 seasons. So as long as that's fine by you as well.... And you still have yet to answer my question. Why should a team be entitled to anything when a player decides to leave? Especially one who spent 7 seasons there.
No, stop adding conditions. Keep the draft.....let players sign 1 year deals, with team or player options as negotiated...and go from there. DD
Look the draft is no different than a company like IBM going, well I know you want to work for us, but we only have openings for you in Minnesota, then you have to make that choice. Same thing for the NBA, players are not forced to play basketball, they can go flip burgers if they like..... DD
The bird right raises are in exchange for the team receiving something back. Eliminate that and what right does the team have to receive something back? You don't get something for nothing.
Ice, the total freedom you are wanting would KILL the NBA as a competitive league. Not sure where you are coming from in all of this......but certainly you are NOT on the side of the fans. DD
That Carmelo Anthony example wasn't the best example and i'm not sure why DD keeps harping about it. The sign and trade in that particular example worked out well for melo and denver because the nuggets were able to get some compensation. It worked out for Melo because he was able to get the MAX contract via Sign and Trade. Imagine if he would have stayed with the nuggers and now he would be in a lockout with no team and new CBA rules that would have probably given him way less money.
I'm not adding conditions. I'm matching your conditions. If your solution is dudes taking 1 year deals then it should work both ways, not just the teams way. You seem to be fine with the team taking advantage of a locked in deal but not with the player. If you want to eliminate the risks of guaranteed deals then do it entirely.
So the NBA wasn't competitive last year? It wasn't competitive in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's? You are the one calling for 1 year deals, not me. But if you want them it can't be 1-sided. I keep asking you how many years should a team have the right to a player. You still haven't answered that question.
I am fine with teams having the upper hand in the company as they created the league and it is better for the fans. However, I would love to get rid of guaranteed contracts. I think the NFL system is by far and away the best there is in sports, and should be implemented in the NBA, if possible. DD
Again, WTF? You are so confused on this. MELO ALREADY WAS A MAX PLAYER. If Melo is traded, he doesn't take a pay cut. WTF? are you talking about. The Knicks did not need Bird Rights. Plus, you seem to not remember the Knicks had cleared enough cap space to afford two max players. The Knicks had enough cap space to give Melo the max. THEY DID NOT NEED BIRD RIGHTS. Why can't the Knicks use cap space to pay Melo the max.
The current system does give teams the upper hand. They get to draft a player and hold their rights for 5 years. If they aren't satisfied with the player they have the right to trade him for another asset. When that player is a free agent that can pay him more than anyone else, and exceed the cap to do so. They also are the only team that can negotiate with that player while he is under contract. If that player decides to leave they can parlay that right to pay him more than anyone else into compensation from his new team. This should be enough of an advantage. The NFL system involves real revenue sharing, and the NBA owners don't want that.
Again, that is in exchange for receiving compensation for a free agent. Why should the teams get something for nothing? Why should they have the rights to receive anything for a free agent?
The NFL system is great, but I do agree that I can't see NBA owners embracing this idea. Some might as DD suggested above, but it's a hard sell for owners.
WTF are you talking about, if they let him walk at the end of the season then clearly they would get no compensation. DD
So your entire argument is you want to abolition all SnTs, so players get less % of raises? That is very weak. And, guess what? The Knicks still get Melo. The % difference was not going to stop Melo from going to NY in the Summer, had the extension and trade not happened.
WTF are you talking about? Didn't the Raptors get compensation for Bosh, and the Cavs for LeBron? Didn't those two complete their deals and weren't they S&T in the offseason? There is a reason it's called sign and trade.
