I'm all for eliminating guarenteed contracts as long as you eliminate them on both sides. If the team is not satisfied and wants to get out of the deal then why shouldn't a player have the same rights if they sign a deal below their value or sign a deal to play in a specific location and are then shipped to a team they never wanted to play for?
The NBA union has been telling players since 2007, to prepare for lockout. They are well prepaired this time around. Also, there are other ways out of getto, drug dealing, jail or rapping.
I would have to say the owners because i think that the players are being too selfish and the owners are paying the crappy players too much and now no one wants a lower salary.
Id have no problem with allowing holdouts and contract renegotiations for players who think they are underpaid. Although I wouldn't want it allowed for players still on their rookie contracts. And I realize it's fairly hypocritical to want players stuck to their contracts but allow owners to get out from them whenever they want, but it doesn't seem to me that a system that allows players to become free agents whenever they want would work well. (Okay, it's really hypocritical to want contracts only guarunteed one way.) So I guess I definitely see your point about that. I guess in my perfect world if I were commissioner and only making rules to create an even playing field, Id keep 1st round picks on guarunteed contracts, maybe make them a year or two longer, then allow them to become unrestricted free agents. Then I guess make a certain date each year in the offseason by which either side can opt out of the contract. I wouldn't wanna give that ability to players until they've been in the league 4 or 5 years, though, because you've gotta allow a team to try to build around their talent. And maybe as an extra throw in to help franchises to keep their own players, Id allow teams to negotiate fully guarunteed contracts with players they have Bird rights to. I think a system like Im proposing would work awesome for the fans. It would keep rookies where they're drafted for a fair amount of time, it would help allow teams to quickly rebuild rather than going on 4 or 5 or 10 year rebuilding plans, and more roster turnover would probably create alot more variety in the teams we see contending each year. All that being said, Im sure the owners and players would each hate this proposal equally and nothing like it will ever happen.
That seems like it'd be a really nice medium as well. I also wouldn't really have a problem with contracts being fully guarunteed if teams could just cut ties with the player and get them off their books as far as the cap goes. Owners would hate it because it wouldn't save them any money at all, but atleast they wouldn't be stuck putting out a crappy product on the floor.
I am 100% for the owners, players need to understand that the owner of anything will always get more of the profit. I dont understand how a owner is going to make money if they have to split rhe profit amd than on top of that pay players their salries.
I'm surprised that owners like Cuban, and others that typically overspend, would want a hard cap. Seems like the teams with the intent of going over the salary cap would still want a soft cap. How do those owners feel about the new CBA? I also think you can't ignore the influence agents have over this process. Yet, it seems they are ignored (at least here on the BBS). Players' agents are instrumental in driving up contracts and negotiating with owners for the right to showcase their talented chattel in front of a demanding audience. Speaking of demanding audience, fans (like us who always talk about signing real talent) would probably like a soft cap too. We would support Les spending over the cap limit if it meant landing that superstar player we covet so much. So, even though this argument seems like it's between owners and players, there's more cooks in the kitchen stirring the pot.
