Players can already negotiate a buyout. You think the team won't want to pay a disgruntled player less money? The instances are just very rare because like any rational beings players don't want to waste guaranteed money. In fact, losers like Stephen Jackson bamboozle the owner to signing a massive contract then started torpedoing his play and demanding a trade. If he really wanted out he would have negotiated a buyout with GS and they would have been more than happy to save some dough. No team requires a player to play through injuries, those Grant Hill/Isiah Thomas moments were 100% their decision. Tmac got villified last season for essentially playing injured, the doctors were telling him to sit down. Guaranteed contract certainly didn't toughen up Boozer the loozer's backbone, he sat out for 4 months due to a "pinky strain", Kobe's playing with bruised fingers.
Of course they can jump ship. Its called a buyout, any player can negotiate for it. Like I said players just don't do it because no matter how "miserable" they are, they're still earning millions of dollars. Its like saying you can quit anytime, but no one wants to do it because then you'd have to find another job as good as the one you have now. They CAN do it, but they won't cuz they're not crazy. A lot of the skills are non-transferrable, that's the way specialists work. If you're a farmer all you know is farming, if you're a fisherman all you know is fishing. What's your point? They're making a lot more in a year out of their "non-transferrable" work than most people their entire lives. The fact that they're top 0.001% of bball players doesn't disprove my point, they are still making millions of dollars. Disregarding their ridiculous pay these guys have a charmed life: charter jets, massages before and after games, amazing meals, all of these are taken care of by their team. Treating them like the common worker and saying stuff like "what about their rights?" is ludicrous because their pay should already account for whatever injury or discomfort they might experience.
First, I'm not talking about players like Stephen Jackson. I'm talking about players that are underpaid in their current capacity, like maybe a Scola. After his performance last year, he might feel that he can get at least $6M this year. So instead of playing for $3M, he buys himself out for $600K (the same amount teams would pay for cutting him) and then sign with some one else for $6M. The same can go for rookies that out perform their rookie contract. Lebron after his first season buys him self out for $4 M and sign for a max contract right there and then. Boozer's situation is exactly what I was talking about. Last year could've been a contract year for him (you know he'd be a FA this year if his stock was higher and the NBA economics wasn't the way it is with teams saving up for next year) which is exactly why he didn't want to risk future prospects. If every year could be a contract year (your future earnings will be cut if injuries get worse), you can bet players would take smaller injuries a lot more seriously than they do now.
Replied in my last post. How much revenue does a farmer generate? How much does a NBA game/ players generate? So maybe we should be socialists? Their value in the revenue they generate proved their worth in a free market economy.
I think you need to re-read my statement if you think I was trying to argue that players should be the ones with the leverage. On the contrary, I was arguing in favor of teams being able to terminate contracts early, but not players.
