Chandler wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Chandler wrote:fwk00 wrote:The other interpretation of this question is whether or not the NTC even matters. There is a very, very small market for Melo and PJ has taken a lot of heat for his previous trades. Its already been established at the February trade deadline that the Knicks aren't giving Melo away.So a lot of things have to line up for a Melo trade to be viable. The NTC is just one of many.
True and add ego. I think the sad reality for us is that the top teams don't want him, nor do his friends. (Too expensive for his declining skills). This is the artifact of a CAP. Without a cap some team would add. With a more flexible CBA where he could be traded w let's say a current market rate for the cap figure he could be traded. But carrying the cap number of the original deal is killer Makes market inefficient. Not the way it works in the real world.
In the real world, an employer can't even trade you to a different organization anyway! Once they give you a guaranteed contract, they're stuck with you unless you seriously breach the contract.
what point are you trying to make? The issue is if your real market value is let's say 17 million and you're in a world of the current CAP, you create a market inefficiency. One team wants to trade you at 17 and another team would accept you at 17 but the rule prohibit the transfer: rules say transfer has to be 30 million. That's a market inefficiency. Are you disputing that? The disgusting thing about the situation is there are plenty of solutions that could allow this transfer, and still ensure the player gets his original bargain -- e.g., trading team pays the extra 13 million but doesn't count on cap. There are many teams besides the Knicks that have been slammed by this inefficiency. SOmetimes it's because it was a purely bad deal, sometimes the player's game declines for whatever reason including aggregation of injuries, rule changes, whatever.
and regarding your "serious breach" I think you meant material breach. And if you're going to play "lawyer" keep in mint that in the real world there are also specific performance clauses which would specify what the performer is supposed to do, and if he/she doesn't he is liable, e.g., show up and perform at the concert or we can hold you liable for our lost profits/damages. Not sure if you conveniently forgot about that, whether you just didn't know, or whether you're just trying to be antagonistic smarty-pants.
The CBA has problems and it's affecting the NBA's products. Tons of mediocrity, limited ability to change via acquisition (if that's what a team wants to do), creation of super teams because of multi-million players who no longer need/want to chase last dollars and instead want to join a super team for an increasing hollow trophy. Sand-bagging during the season by said super teams etc. And a guaranteed contract structure which is out of touch with the values of its fanbase. Fans are sick and tired of seeing players get the super contract and then turn into somebody else. When they see a person making super money, they don't want to see someone dogging it, undermining coaches and management, or even declining. They know if it were them in their jobs doing the same stuff (making a fraction of the money) they'd be in the soup.
"Real world" analogies go out the window in professional sports. There's a ridiculous number of discrepancies between real world economics and professional sports economics.
Regarding your other point, though, there are performance clauses in NBA contracts. Players are required to do certain things and face penalties if they don't. They also get financial rewards for playing well (e.g., all-star selections). There may or may not be more specific performance clauses in other real-world settings. Teachers just have to meet the minimum requirements of their contracts, for example. A doctor hired by a hospital likely just has to meet the minimum requirements during the duration of the contract.
6/7/2017 3:22 PM