Stern: Player Salaries to Be Cut By 1/3

No, they would not, the real point was that in a truly free market they would be allowed to put termination performance clauses in the contract - which they are not now.

No, but the no-termination because of performance issues sure does benefit players, at least these specific players.

 

Those contracts wouldn't be guaranteed by collective bargaining, though.

The fact they are guaranteed benefits the players. In most workplaces, the employer can terminate an employee for a lack of performance. In the NBA, this is impossible under the current CBA. I'd say that is a benefit to Curry, Miles, and any other slug who signs a big contract and then stops performing.

 

Eh, I basically parroted your points, but I didn't read your post while I was posting.

 

Hey, attack the post, not the poster buddy!

Maybe I am PapaG too!

 

That's true, they could put in termination clauses. I don't know how widespread that would be in practice (if some teams will do contracts without them, you'd be at a competitive disadvantage in signing players if you insisted on them) but at least notionally I agree with this point.

 

You would be in competitive disadvantage if you do not insist on them and things go sour as well, as the team would not be able to afford replacement players - I suspect that for the super-stars you would not have these clauses - but for the vast majority of the players - they would exist, just like in the real world.

The point is that the NBA being different from the real world is not always an advantage to the owners, it is just as big an advantage to the players, or at least, most of them.

 

I don't necessarily agree that it is just as big an advantage to the players. But there is some advantage to them that they wouldn't have in a non-collectively bargained environment.