AP: Stern says owners want relief from bad contracts

These owners are idiots. They only have themselves to blame for bad contracts. If you do not want to sign someone long-term, don't sign him long term.

I can't stand when players/owners whine about contracts they signed. You lie in the bed you make.

 

exactly.

who were the brain-trusts that signed guys like okur and dampier to 8+ mil a season?!? skip-to-my-lou make 6 mil a season?!? these owners did it to themselves.

now the whole trend of players demanding where they go and the like needs to come to an end. these guys are getting way too greedy.

 

Does anyone know when we are off the hook with Maloney!???

 

That brings up an interesting point. Because if this goes into effect, then the top echelon guys would have more leverage in forcing trades and stuff, because they would be eligible for Free Agency earlier than it is now. So instead of Baron Davis trying to force a trade with 4 years left on his deal, you'd have him trying to force a trade with 2 years left, and the last season probably being a player option. It would be much different as T-Mac has shown us.

This also means that the Free Agency landscape would change drastically because guys would be going back into the FA mix more quickly and more often. Just about every other year would have a strong free agent pool, because even the top players would have expiring contracts or opt out clauses at 3-4 year intervals. And since teams can't get as locked down by longterm contracts, you'd have more teams getting capspace freed up.

It might make it more like football in terms of turnover. But I'm guessing that the NBA will provide some provisions that (like the Bird exception, and restricted free agency) give teams a better chance to sign their own free agents. Either way, if this thing goes through, it will have a pretty big impact on the sport. I think it is a good thing. I just don't like the idea of these longterm guaranteed contracts. For both sides.

 

Because he's old and he only has 4 good years left in the tank. He gets his money. The team gets the player they want. Then the fans gripe for 2 years about what a waste that player has become. He becomes trade fodder to help match salaries when the team rebuilds.

 

i have no pity for dumb owners signing dumb contracts, especially after this offseason. they created this market, let them deal with it...

 

I agree w/ dugtzu.

These stupid owners and GM's are the ones signing players to these ridiculous contracts and then whining about their bad luck. They should have shown more fiscal responsibility before signing these guys.

on the flip side if other teams are offering that much money and guaranteed years it would be hard to compete. As a player I would want to be locked up long term and not have to worry money ever again.

- tough decision...

J

 

What was the story with Maloney?

 

STOP GIVING BAD CONTRACTS. Risk/Reward - you give the big contract because you want to have the player for a long time - but you take the shot that it might backfire and he might turn out to be a bum. On the flip-side, you sign a guy short-term you might have to re-up in a few years, or he might leave - but if he turns out to be a bum, you aren't on the hook for very long with him.

If you don't want to get stuck with an albatross contract - get better at offering contracts.

 

The problem is its all guaranteed money regardless of productivity. It should be incentive based and pay the players who put up the numbers with bonuses instead of giving them guranteed money. The current system builds the NBA as we currently know it... The other problem is the players union threatening lock outs if they don't get thier way but they still get paid .....lol

Its all F@#$%d Up!!!

 

Then what's the point of having contracts at all, if it's all incentive based? Players almost always get screwed when it comes to incentive laden contracts, and they are impossible to calculate for the salary cap. In the NFL players get cut or benched to avoid hitting incentive levels.

What I don't understand is that the owners are the ones choosing to agree to these contracts, and now they're complaining about it.

Professional sports is a big money, big risk business. The players are the talent that keeps the league going. They deseved to get their piece of the pie. Long term contracts, given a salary cap, are in the best interests of a lot of mid-level players. Sure, there need to be checks and balances.

Contracts like KG's and Shaq's hurt the league. But I wouldn't blindly take the owners' side on these issues. A team of twelve players brings in enough money to fund huge organizations with hundreds of people, and still brings in enough profit per year to make team ownership worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

Maybe I am old school. I think too much player movement is bad for the sport. My interest in baseball and football dropped significantly mainly because of the increased player movement. It not just screws up team chemistry, it also screws up team loyalty. How am I supposed to root for a team when half of it (including some major components, even franchise type players) is different every year?