TripleThreat wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:that just means players take all the risk and owners take almost none.
Look, you guys can hash this all you want, there are only a finite number of feasible ( yet not perfect ) systems in place for how sports marketplaces operate.
You guys can have the existing NBA system, where the Knicks sign a player like STAT and then have one good year out of him and wait four years for that albatross of a contract expires.
Or
You can have a system where STAT gets signed, he is cut after the first year, but the signing bonus gets prorated against the lifetime of said contract and works against the cap.
If STAT knows he can get cut at any point and lose a majority of his contract, he's going to spend less to no time at his stupid film festivals and wine baths and do things like ACTUALLY TRY ON DEFENSE. You'd see leaguewide shifts in how people behave. Kobe Bryant would be so cavalier about cussing up a storm and running into free agent meetings and ruining the Lakers pitches if he knew he could get cut and bam, get the hell out of my franchise, my locker room and my arena.
You'd have players playing for their jobs and playing hard. Melo would not risk his long term Knicks future by playing in an All Star game for his branding if he thought doing so would likely get his ass cut the last two years of his deal. Or even four years into it.
You'd also have instant market correction. In the NFL model, the best players still get paid the most, except when they stop being the best, they stop getting paid the best. Another issue is if the Knicks were a contender, under the NFL model, a guy like STAT would be out on the market, and at market value, a few million a year, he can actually help a veteran contender team, instead of being stuck on a losing team who can't dump his contract.
It's not like the money burns up. The money not choked up in a STAT contract gets redistributed to players who are actually producing to market value. The NFL model would mean NBA teams would no longer essentially get 7 leveraged years against their players. Free agency would happen much faster, thus players would get a chance to get paid more faster if they PRODUCE to where the market is forced to correct after their rookie contract.
You guys can either have the Knicks have the ability to get better and faster and have actual mechanisms to actually displine/leverage players to play like their jobs count on it ( which they should) or you can have the current system.
More parity under the NFL system means ANY TEAM can compete much better and faster, thus gaining more popularity for the league, thus raising the total revenue pie, thus increasing the total players cut of said pie.
The NFL system is not perfect, however it is more realistic to team building and the reality that franchises and leagues have more competition than ever before to fight for disposable income out there used for entertainment purposes.
Does it make the league and games more competitive?
Does it further suit to balance said league and games with some semblance of parity?
Will fans be more invested in said games and leagues?
The "owners are greedy" narrative doesn't change the reality that siding with the player and NBA Players Union is not actually in the interest of the overall benefit of the game. It's great for said players bank account, his family, his kids, his hangers ons, his agent and maybe people around him who depend on his business directly. But it does nothing to build a better league and a better game for the fans overall.
The "signing bonus" structure operates as guaranteed money, and often works as a limiter to how fast you can cut a player. The proration of dead money against the cap also forms a concern in how you throw contracts around and how fast you can just gut a player from the roster.
The owners are greedy angle is a push by the players union to oversimplify a far more complex issue about how the league is structured for the benefit of all fans, not just the players.
Holfresh, since you are like Melo's 2nd cousin and defend him blindly and you are a traitor to Knicks fandom, I really don't expect any less from you than your normal bile.
So we need a system in place to protect the owners against themselves?..I'm sure STAT didn't show up the negotiation table with a gun..
The owners can't have all the leverage..How about maxing out a contract length to 3 years..Owners wouldn't want that because they want max control over the player..
