One thing I am concerned with, and I have no idea how it will play out, is the incentive for players to stay with cold weather /small market teams. There has to be an incentive for players to resign with their current team. I agree that shorter contracts are better for the league, but too much free agency movement hurts a league as well. The owners want to help the small market teams, and they want shorter contracts, and that is all fine, as long as small market teams can keep their young super stars. I am not seeing the incentive being discussed. I saw the percentage for raises being discussed, but the difference between what a current team can offer and a new team, looks to be minor. I think it is imperative for the current team to be able to offer more. A lot more. The "Bird Rights" seem to be something the owners want to down play. Have you guys read anything on this?
If there is a cap, superstars won't be able to sign wherever they want. So when Nolan Smith becomes all world, he won't be able to take his talents to south beach, because they will have no money to offer him.
I am not worried about the Nolan Smith's of the world. I am worried about the superstars of the world. With shorter contracts, big market teams can prepare easier for that year the super star's contract is up. They will make sure they have the cap room. And if the money is equal to what a small market team offers, where is the incentive for the player to stay? Long term security used to be a factor. Who wins now? South Beach/LA ........ or Minny/ Portland/SLC
The way I see it, teams aren't going to be able to have more than two players with max contracts without paying luxury tax, assuming that they have decent players at the other positions. That will help smaller market teams in that the model of the Boston, LA, Heat squads will get broken up. OTH, I think we can assume that the top market teams will continue to attract the best max-contract guys. The ability of a Paul Allen to spend his way into competing with those teams will be pretty much over. In the long haul, I don't see this making a big change in the fact that the major market teams are always going to have an advantage in attracting top talent over small market cities. The small market teams may be able to be a bit more competitive at a more affordable price, and I think that there will be an evening out of the small market talent level so that there's more parity in the second tier teams, but the top dogs are likely to stay top dogs.
A friend of mine suggested to me a month or so ago that instead of shortening contracts, the NBA should lengthen them. Basically something like a 6-8 year contract with each year after 3 or 4 being single year team options.
I like that a lot. You have to give the owners an out if there is a major injury. (Or other issues) But the player still makes enough to compensate for risking his health every night.
Why not lifelong contracts under the guise of a reserve clause? Then we can have the NBA's version of Curt Flood and start the entire process over again!
should be one year contracts with a mutual option every year after, and an incentive to stay with the team
I don't think there is any reason the players would have an issue with longer contracts. Especially if the NBA put in the new CBA that by staying with your current team past the 4 years, your salary could increase faster than if you opt out and go to a new team. See the players would have the option of opting out after the original 3-4 year contract was up, but if they did they would take a salary hit. This would keep stars from flocking to one of a handful of teams.
I can understand why the owners want a hard cap. Aside from that and a couple of other rules, let people negotiate whatever they want. Shorter or Longer contracts, it should not matter.
Yes, this makes sense as well. The only thing the NBA needs to avoid is players holding out until their current contract is renegotiated. Memo to NFL players....No one held a gun to your head and forced you to sign your current contract. Honor it and move along. Please don't bring up that the owners don't have to honor it, so why should the players because that is horse hockey. The owner absolutely has to pay the player every red cent of his guaranteed money. Even if that player is waived....unles otherwise written into the contract.....WHICH THE PLAYER AGREED TO
Hell if I had my way I'd love to see the maximum contract done away with in conjunction with a hard salary cap. That way you let teams figure out just how much money they want to give a guy. Secondly, this way the so-called ultra-mega-stars like Lebron and Brian Cardinal get what the market will truly bear and the team has to figure out how they want to fill out the rest of their roster, in addition I'd like to see one franchise tag usable for each team so guys don't walk without their original team getting any compensation (if a team signs a free agent with the tag, the losing team gets a compensatory pick based on the salary given the signee or the signing team forfeits some kind of pick).
Definitely some good ideas there, but I am not sure how a pick would be much compensation if the team signing the player is good and the pick is a late first round. If it was a high pick and it wasn't from the team signing the player, then it would hurt all the other teams moving down a spot. But I like the overall idea of compensation
