lot of folx seem to feel that the Players would play better with incentive based contracts I'm not one of them I think we would see more ball hoggin more disruption etc Also I think problems with management will increase some [See 8 men out] I just want to put this on the table . . Which do you think works best. . . and why Rocket RIver
I think that short term contracts is the best answer. One year, two max. Incentive based contracts are all about the numbers, period. You average 20+ you get X. That leads to the selfish play that you refered to RR. Now, with a short term contract the player knows that he going to be re-evaluated for his whole game, not just the stats. Teamwork, heart and leadership don't show up on a stat sheet.
The only incentive I would like to see is one where they get more money for TEAM WINS !! That way they would be motivated to help the team. DD
me too I beleive plays should be paid on percentages and per games i.e. SHAQ's yearly salary is 35% of team income from wins this is a salary cap already in that there is only 100% So the lakers would be shaq 35% Kobe 25% etc and the Teams get 1 mill per game and a BONUS Mil for winning Salary Cap is never lower than 82 Mill and Never higher than 164 mil Rocket River
How about unlimited length of contract that allowed, for example, even years for the team to opt out and odd years allow the player to opt out. This would keep it balanced and prevent every player rewriting a contract every two years unless one agrees to terminate the contract. Allow clauses in the contracts to allow players and teams to negotiate the amount each year. Anything over 4 years is way too long.
this would work in football I dislike how they seem to drop older players who still got miles on them Owners have too much power in football Players have too much power in baseball Rocket River
Players would never agree to that because you'd have situations like '01-'02 where Cuttino and Moochie had good years but the team sucked due to injury.
From a fan's perspective, I partly agree, and have always wondered that part of a player's contract couldn't be keyed on team wins. However, from a realistic POV, you can totally see the players' objections; Much of there salary would be determined by factors beyond their control, and what is more, directly under the control of those who will be paying them. Take Garnett. Everyone agrees, the hardest working player in the league, right? But if his ownership is cheap, or his management incompetent, or if his team gets hit with injuries, or if another player quites, etc.; all would affect his take. Is that fair? He would be doing the exact same thing, but get substantially more money if his team signs T-Mac than if they traded for Darius Miles. Also, team related contracts would be a nightmare when it comes to trades. And if your team is, say, going to fall short of the playoffs, you're playing your butt off, and the team decides to play the kids for the last 10-15 games to see what they've got, you've got a situation where the team is making a deicsion which will also allow them to pay you less money for doing the same work; a definite conflict of interest.
something would have to be done to protect the players in incentive based contracts . . the owners have too much control . . .in that they can let u run the ball to the goal line. . then pull you so someone with a lesser incentive can score the touchdown [see ricky williams] I must say . . it would cut back on the players tanking but if management decides to tank . . .what are the reprocussions? Rocket River