Allanfan20 wrote:

MS wrote:NBA contracts should be structured more like football contracts.

You should be able to void a contract or dismiss players like Eddy Curry, Mo Taylor, Jerome James etc that come into camp overweight. If I can can't find two hours a day in the offseason to workout in between buying rims, clubbing and playing video games you doesn't deserve to be paid.

That's all subjective though. You can't just put him on the scale and say "You're overweight" because he may just be like Ron Artest.... and the players would have a legit beef when it comes to this. They would have to take other measurements such as body mass index and body fat% (Which is VERY hard to calculate).

And that's not the only beef. Shaq is probably the most overweight player in the league right now but he can probably play for any team he wants to until he is ready to retire. The players will be able to point to that easily and get the backing of the Union.

This issue isn't nearly as easy to handle as you may think it is.

Dude, if you're too fat to play, and can't run up and down the court you should be able to be cut. Period.

Panos wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:

MS wrote:NBA contracts should be structured more like football contracts.

You should be able to void a contract or dismiss players like Eddy Curry, Mo Taylor, Jerome James etc that come into camp overweight. If I can can't find two hours a day in the offseason to workout in between buying rims, clubbing and playing video games you doesn't deserve to be paid.

That's all subjective though. You can't just put him on the scale and say "You're overweight" because he may just be like Ron Artest.... and the players would have a legit beef when it comes to this. They would have to take other measurements such as body mass index and body fat% (Which is VERY hard to calculate).

And that's not the only beef. Shaq is probably the most overweight player in the league right now but he can probably play for any team he wants to until he is ready to retire. The players will be able to point to that easily and get the backing of the Union.

This issue isn't nearly as easy to handle as you may think it is.

Dude, if you're too fat to play, and can't run up and down the court you should be able to be cut. Period.

Yes, I agree with you, but again, this is a business. These guys have contracts. What is TOO fat when Shaq is probably the fattest guy in the league yet he's playing?

MS wrote:NBA contracts should be structured more like football contracts.

You should be able to void a contract or dismiss players like Eddy Curry, Mo Taylor, Jerome James etc that come into camp overweight. If I can can't find two hours a day in the offseason to workout in between buying rims, clubbing and playing video games you doesn't deserve to be paid.

I always disagree with this sentiment. it has always been beyond me why fans usually side with the owners in money matters.

The only reason why there are money problems is because the owners hire really really dumb GM's. it happens across all major sports. in basketball, you have meddling owners who like to play toy soldiers with players and just use gm's as the scapegoat and mouthpiece.

For the vast majority of players, getting hurt can be catastrophic. That's why they fight for guaranteed contracts. Think about if you're a player. If you spent the majority of your formative years honing your skills for basketball and really not much else, just to have a chance to get into the NBA, and then you finally make it and poof you're career ends because of some injury.

Owners and GM's should be able to compensate for this by giving out shorter term contracts but they don't. They compensate by guaranteeing longer term deals and by spending more money insuring the contracts. Or in Amare's case, not insuring the contract at all and taking the risk anyway. Every franchise is like any other business. You take risks to compete. For the vast majority of NBA franchises, they grossly underestimate the risks of the business and they've paid and they are now asking the players to pay or restructure it to protect themselves from themselves.

People like to hate on the players but frankly they're the ones who have the marketable skill. If you're Blake Griffin and were given the God-given ability to jump that high and entertain me on a nightly basis and if you're making your team millions of dollars then you deserve millions of dollars as well. Why does Donald Sterling deserve more of that money?

Allanfan20 wrote:

Panos wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:

MS wrote:NBA contracts should be structured more like football contracts.

You should be able to void a contract or dismiss players like Eddy Curry, Mo Taylor, Jerome James etc that come into camp overweight. If I can can't find two hours a day in the offseason to workout in between buying rims, clubbing and playing video games you doesn't deserve to be paid.

That's all subjective though. You can't just put him on the scale and say "You're overweight" because he may just be like Ron Artest.... and the players would have a legit beef when it comes to this. They would have to take other measurements such as body mass index and body fat% (Which is VERY hard to calculate).

And that's not the only beef. Shaq is probably the most overweight player in the league right now but he can probably play for any team he wants to until he is ready to retire. The players will be able to point to that easily and get the backing of the Union.

This issue isn't nearly as easy to handle as you may think it is.

Dude, if you're too fat to play, and can't run up and down the court you should be able to be cut. Period.

Yes, I agree with you, but again, this is a business. These guys have contracts. What is TOO fat when Shaq is probably the fattest guy in the league yet he's playing?

Because Shaq is still effective on the court.
You're 100% correct on that its a business. And in business, I expect that if I can't keep up my end of my contract I expect to get sued or to not get paid. Why are athletes immune to the reprocutions of a failure to deliver? Fine don't do it on weight. Set athletic requirements. Not so hard to do. Ask the athlete to be able to run 5 miles in under some time limit, sprint at some time limit, some strength test, and be able to shoot at a particular rate. It can be somewhat in line with where that athlete is when signed. I mean if you sign someone already out of shape than sure, that's your problem. But you should expect to continue to get some production out of your contracts.

If my team has a cap at $60M and I sign a guy that's in decent shape for $10M, then in 2 years he's too out of shape to play, that's 20% of my possible salary eaten up by somebody that's not delivering on his *business* contract.

Owner are the ones who put up the capital to buy a team and fund salary. They shoulder the losses and are entitled to the profits. If Donald Sterling makes money. His club is crap but he makes money. Fans still come out.

When they stop he'll adjust or sell.

I think teams shelling out $400 mil or more for a fanchise and service the debt are entlitled to make money.

Winning produces ratings. Every team wants to win. Problem is how to keep dynasty's from sucking the fun out of the league and for bottom dewllers to rebood faster. NFL teams can go from worst to first. NBA not so fast. Shorter contracts would be one way, but its less guaranteed money for players.

Panos wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:

Panos wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:

MS wrote:NBA contracts should be structured more like football contracts.

You should be able to void a contract or dismiss players like Eddy Curry, Mo Taylor, Jerome James etc that come into camp overweight. If I can can't find two hours a day in the offseason to workout in between buying rims, clubbing and playing video games you doesn't deserve to be paid.

That's all subjective though. You can't just put him on the scale and say "You're overweight" because he may just be like Ron Artest.... and the players would have a legit beef when it comes to this. They would have to take other measurements such as body mass index and body fat% (Which is VERY hard to calculate).

And that's not the only beef. Shaq is probably the most overweight player in the league right now but he can probably play for any team he wants to until he is ready to retire. The players will be able to point to that easily and get the backing of the Union.

This issue isn't nearly as easy to handle as you may think it is.

Dude, if you're too fat to play, and can't run up and down the court you should be able to be cut. Period.

Yes, I agree with you, but again, this is a business. These guys have contracts. What is TOO fat when Shaq is probably the fattest guy in the league yet he's playing?

Because Shaq is still effective on the court.
You're 100% correct on that its a business. And in business, I expect that if I can't keep up my end of my contract I expect to get sued or to not get paid. Why are athletes immune to the reprocutions of a failure to deliver? Fine don't do it on weight. Set athletic requirements. Not so hard to do. Ask the athlete to be able to run 5 miles in under some time limit, sprint at some time limit, some strength test, and be able to shoot at a particular rate. It can be somewhat in line with where that athlete is when signed. I mean if you sign someone already out of shape than sure, that's your problem. But you should expect to continue to get some production out of your contracts.

If my team has a cap at $60M and I sign a guy that's in decent shape for $10M, then in 2 years he's too out of shape to play, that's 20% of my possible salary eaten up by somebody that's not delivering on his *business* contract.

That's fine... I'm saying though.. Just being fat isn't enough of a reason to cut a contract. Like I said, Shaq is the fattest player in the league probably but can still play. Curry probably can't run a mile and a half faster than me.

Like you said, there would have to be very very specific requirements. For example, maybe if they come to camp out of shape and get injuries due to them being overweight during camp. That should be a good reason IMO. If they can't handle training camp, then they definitely can't handle the NBA.

Raymond Felton should be reading this conversation b/c he's famous for coming to camp out of shape.

Nalod wrote:If players want more money they have to take on the risk of the contract and profits.

Owner are the ones who put up the capital to buy a team and fund salary. They shoulder the losses and are entitled to the profits. If Donald Sterling makes money. His club is crap but he makes money. Fans still come out.

When they stop he'll adjust or sell.

I think teams shelling out $400 mil or more for a fanchise and service the debt are entlitled to make money.

Winning produces ratings. Every team wants to win. Problem is how to keep dynasty's from sucking the fun out of the league and for bottom dewllers to rebood faster. NFL teams can go from worst to first. NBA not so fast. Shorter contracts would be one way, but its less guaranteed money for players.

No one's preventing anyone from making money. you don't blame eddy curry for taking 50 mil. you blame the person giving him the money. the owners and gm's want to change the game so that they can still spend irresponsibly but be given do over's on their mistakes. they also want taxpayers to front the bill on new stadiums that they say they need in order to compete. it's reached an absurd level with these guys as far as what their demands have been over the years. how can anyone defend them?

BlueSeats wrote:So how will over the cap teams add FA's? Is the goal to do away with FA, or to make sure the preponderance of teams stay under the cap?

yeah i don't get this either... if the goal is to save owners from their own stupidity, then doing away with guaranteed contracts would be the answer, not in eliminating any way of improving the team if you cap yourself out... obviously the players' union would never stand for them going to an NFL style system... i think the best way of doing this is just to scale back the annual guaranteed amounts that players qualify for in their contracts.

BlueSeats wrote:

efw wrote:

BlueSeats wrote:
The problem is twofold. The league loses luxury tax revenues, and the wealthy clubs are still advantaged by being able to afford tossing money out the window. And then what is the vehicle for other teams to pick up dumped players?

What's wrong with wealthy clubs having an advantage? No need to inject socialism into sports.

I'm not the one who invented the salary cap. But my understanding it is to promote "parity" and increase competition around the league. If you're really interested you might head over to some small-market forum and ask their thoughts.

I'm not against salary cap per se, but I don't think it's a problem when one team can spend more than another. The main criteria for a successful team is management (followed by luck). We spent boatloads of money for a decade with only terrible teams to show for it. And there are many examples of small-market teams outplaying large-market ones. Just look at OKC or Miami now.

fishmike wrote:Max contracts will remain.
MLE will be 2 years an about 40% less money
LLE will be every year and there will be 2 of them
contract lengths will go to 5 years for home team and 4 if a player leaves
No player age limit
Rookie contracts will be extended another year allowing teams that draft well to keep players longer for less money.

Thats my guess.

Typical polarization of wealth. It's the middle class (average veteran contract) that takes the hit.