Knicks · CBA..anyone else opposed to getting rid of gauranteed contracts (page 1)

I personally don't see why anyone would oppose to this..As a player you have to think that a guy making 8 mill,and plays like he should be making 500k, is bad for the team, himself, and the franchise.

I also believe that contracts in sports should be lace with incentives, and only be partially gauranteed..A guy like JJ shouldn't be making 7 mill in the finally yr of his contract sitting on the bench (for obvious reasons) then hampers a teams cap, promoting them to either waive him and take a $ hit, or forcing a bad trade altogether.

I just can understand why this wouldn't be a mutual agreement.

knicks1248 wrote:I guess one of the many obstacles surrounding the NEW CBA, is that the Owners wanting to get rid of these gaunranteed contracts.

I personally don't see why anyone would oppose to this..As a player you have to think that a guy making 8 mill,and plays like he should be making 500k, is bad for the team, himself, and the franchise.

I also believe that contracts in sports should be lace with incentives, and only be partially gauranteed..A guy like JJ shouldn't be making 7 mill in the finally yr of his contract sitting on the bench (for obvious reasons) then hampers a teams cap, promoting them to either waive him and take a $ hit, or forcing a bad trade altogether.

I just can understand why this wouldn't be a mutual agreement.

and therein lies the problem as to why it prob won't go that way.

martin wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:I guess one of the many obstacles surrounding the NEW CBA, is that the Owners wanting to get rid of these gaunranteed contracts.

I personally don't see why anyone would oppose to this..As a player you have to think that a guy making 8 mill,and plays like he should be making 500k, is bad for the team, himself, and the franchise.

I also believe that contracts in sports should be lace with incentives, and only be partially gauranteed..A guy like JJ shouldn't be making 7 mill in the finally yr of his contract sitting on the bench (for obvious reasons) then hampers a teams cap, promoting them to either waive him and take a $ hit, or forcing a bad trade altogether.

I just can understand why this wouldn't be a mutual agreement.

and therein lies the problem as to why it prob won't go that way.

can you you remember how many players were completely out of shape after the last lock out..with Shawn Kemp and Vin Baker leading the fat pack..those dudes had monster contracts that couldn't be shed...It was a disgace to everyone associated, including the fans

knicks1248 wrote:

martin wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:I guess one of the many obstacles surrounding the NEW CBA, is that the Owners wanting to get rid of these gaunranteed contracts.

I personally don't see why anyone would oppose to this..As a player you have to think that a guy making 8 mill,and plays like he should be making 500k, is bad for the team, himself, and the franchise.

I also believe that contracts in sports should be lace with incentives, and only be partially gauranteed..A guy like JJ shouldn't be making 7 mill in the finally yr of his contract sitting on the bench (for obvious reasons) then hampers a teams cap, promoting them to either waive him and take a $ hit, or forcing a bad trade altogether.

I just can understand why this wouldn't be a mutual agreement.

and therein lies the problem as to why it prob won't go that way.

can you you remember how many players were completely out of shape after the last lock out..with Shawn Kemp and Vin Baker leading the fat pack..those dudes had monster contracts that couldn't be shed...It was a disgace to everyone associated, including the fans

Ok..So why would the players want this?

holfresh wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

martin wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:I guess one of the many obstacles surrounding the NEW CBA, is that the Owners wanting to get rid of these gaunranteed contracts.

I personally don't see why anyone would oppose to this..As a player you have to think that a guy making 8 mill,and plays like he should be making 500k, is bad for the team, himself, and the franchise.

I also believe that contracts in sports should be lace with incentives, and only be partially gauranteed..A guy like JJ shouldn't be making 7 mill in the finally yr of his contract sitting on the bench (for obvious reasons) then hampers a teams cap, promoting them to either waive him and take a $ hit, or forcing a bad trade altogether.

I just can understand why this wouldn't be a mutual agreement.

and therein lies the problem as to why it prob won't go that way.

can you you remember how many players were completely out of shape after the last lock out..with Shawn Kemp and Vin Baker leading the fat pack..those dudes had monster contracts that couldn't be shed...It was a disgace to everyone associated, including the fans

Ok..So why would the players want this?

exactly. knicks1248 you completely missed my point or something.

As for the guaranteed contracts, maybe a fair compromise would be to have salary adjustments going both directions. For players that vastly overperform, their salary increases, and for players who underperform, their salary decreases. But then, that has the downside of encouraging players to be more selfish, so it may not be good either.

I agree with the concept of eliminating guaranteed contracts, but since it probably won't happen right now, the best bet is to reduce the number of years, I think.

martin wrote:

holfresh wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

martin wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:I guess one of the many obstacles surrounding the NEW CBA, is that the Owners wanting to get rid of these gaunranteed contracts.

I personally don't see why anyone would oppose to this..As a player you have to think that a guy making 8 mill,and plays like he should be making 500k, is bad for the team, himself, and the franchise.

I also believe that contracts in sports should be lace with incentives, and only be partially gauranteed..A guy like JJ shouldn't be making 7 mill in the finally yr of his contract sitting on the bench (for obvious reasons) then hampers a teams cap, promoting them to either waive him and take a $ hit, or forcing a bad trade altogether.

I just can understand why this wouldn't be a mutual agreement.

and therein lies the problem as to why it prob won't go that way.

can you you remember how many players were completely out of shape after the last lock out..with Shawn Kemp and Vin Baker leading the fat pack..those dudes had monster contracts that couldn't be shed...It was a disgace to everyone associated, including the fans

Ok..So why would the players want this?

exactly. knicks1248 you completely missed my point or something.

No..I got what your saying, but what other sport has fully gauranteed contracts..

I can't believe any player on the knicks Roster (if they were the owner) would want to continue paying eddy curry..certain thing are a no brainer.. Then you send overpaid role players to rep them..instaed of guys like kobe and melo..

I certainly disagree with the salary roll backs, but going FWD, there has to be solution to the madness..

AnubisADL wrote:The problem with incentives is you start having guys looking out for numero uno and not the team.

Not when your adding in assist a wins..Obviously you can't say just go avg 25 5 and 5 win or lose..

knicks1248 wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:The problem with incentives is you start having guys looking out for numero uno and not the team.

Not when your adding in assist a wins..Obviously you can't say just go avg 25 5 and 5 win or lose..

Well yes, but then think about it this way. Rebounds count too. We've seen guys like Kevin Love take rebounds away from teammates in order to increase his numbers. If a rebound might help him in this way, maybe guys stop trying to run the fast break, because the rebound is more valuable. Stuff like that; I agree it's a dangerous precedent to set.

Solace wrote:What scares me more is the talk of making it even harder for players to go to different cities. It's kinda ridiculous. If small market teams can't provide good incentives to keep their stars, then that's their problem.

As for the guaranteed contracts, maybe a fair compromise would be to have salary adjustments going both directions. For players that vastly overperform, their salary increases, and for players who underperform, their salary decreases. But then, that has the downside of encouraging players to be more selfish, so it may not be good either.

I agree with the concept of eliminating guaranteed contracts, but since it probably won't happen right now, the best bet is to reduce the number of years, I think.

reducing the years basically takes away fan loyalty..that doesn't help much, unless the resign is enormous, then the owner ties himself into a guy who may just start playing strickly for the money.

Ther's so many was to look at it. Not to mention that what ever agreement, the onwers want a 10 yr pack..thats crazy.

An alternate view on incentives.

NYKBocker wrote:NFL Contracts are incentive laden. This is the way to go. I think for players, a partial guaranteee should be easier to swallow.

Harder to be a ball hog in football.

AnubisADL wrote:The problem with incentives is you start having guys looking out for numero uno and not the team.

Make it tied to the +/- in some way as well. As well ad number of wins produced per minutes plied or something like that.

loweyecue wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:The problem with incentives is you start having guys looking out for numero uno and not the team.

Make it tied to the +/- in some way as well. As well ad number of wins produced per minutes plied or something like that.

anything beats paying a fat lard 10 mill to $10 work

Its crazy that someone can sign a $20 MM per year contract and then not play.

Solace wrote:What scares me more is the talk of making it even harder for players to go to different cities. It's kinda ridiculous. If small market teams can't provide good incentives to keep their stars, then that's their problem.

...So said the fan from the large market team which wins as a business even when they suck as a team.

This will never happen because players want that extra money. Sure there's Eddy Curry, but there are also guys who are worth more than the max deal out there (like LeBron James or Kobe) and can only get it by having extra years on the contract's back end when maybe they aren't so physically gifted anymore.

AnubisADL wrote:The problem with incentives is you start having guys looking out for numero uno and not the team.

It's all smoke and mirrors anyways. Let's tie the incentives to the playoffs. Making it gets you 20K each player. Winner first round gets 50k/player 2nd round winners get 250k/player, Champs get a mill per/player MVP's voted by team and coaches get extra's. Now you have team oriented goals and lavish money on those 4th quarter free throws. Get to see whose knees buckle ;-)

Cut back top money to 12 mill per/player Heavily fund the retirement fund and medical for former players.

While wishing add a heavy investment by owners into sports medicine with special emphasis on concussions and spinal injuries.