jrodmc wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Markji wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Markji wrote:Eddy Curry is the poster-boy for the owners on wanting to change guaranteed contracts. It's too bad because I am more for the players, but in looking at Eddy's (and Jerome James') situations these past few years, the owners do have a few valid points. Not enough though to postpone the season.

What points are those? Dolan deserves to pay every penny he stupidly guaranteed those guys.

I don't agree. If the fault is in the player not being in shape to play; i.e., 50+ pounds overweight, the player should be held accountable. Eddy was never held accountable and received his $10 million salary/yr for 2 years.

That was a risk Dolan knew going into both contracts. You shouldn't be bailed out if the risks you are aware of going into a contract occur. The only occurs in a risk free fairy land.

Or in EddyCurryville where you get 1120 million for being fat and injured, and then 3 million for being unwanted by the Wolves.

That's what Dolan signed. No one held a gun to his head. He chose to give Eddy a contract that would remain in effect regardless of Eddy's weight.

Dolan the Idiot Owner/Isaiah the Supreme Moron GM point conceded. I was just commenting on the risk free fairy land that someone like Eddy Curry must live in. I suppose if the man had turned out to be a faster, better shooting version of Shaq that had managed to lead us to the playoffs year after year, we'd get to experience the upside of contractural risk. But even if that happens, where's the risk in EddyCurryville? The outside possibility that he wouldn't have gotten a max contract? Just sayin.

Ahhh, send closk. This is just a working stiff pus-relief rant. Money for nothing. Get your chicks for free.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Markji wrote:Both sides are obliged legally and morally to fulfill a contract. Dolan did. Eddy didn't.

If there was a breach of contract, Dolan can argue it in court. (I highly doubt he'd win though.) We already have a legal system that protects employers and employees from genuine contract breaches. Performing way below expectations or being fat is not a contract breach unless it's a stated requirement of the contract (and even then you'd have to establish that it was a substantive breach of contract).

I agree with you on the morality comment but the CBA is not about moral rights and wrongs.

And that's why the owners(reasonably on this point) want non-guaranteed contracts.