[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Is anybody concern about this
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
knicks1248
Posts: 42059
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #582
5/19/2005  12:03 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&id=2063343

I for one totally disagree with the contracts being guarnteed for only 3 to 4 years. That would leave no stabilty whats so ever. It's bad enough already with player movemnt, the league would truley be a joke, and trades would happen like the stock market.

Boy a lockout would be the end of the nba fan base for a good stretch.
ES
AUTOADVERT
Caseloads
Posts: 27725
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/29/2001
Member: #41
5/19/2005  1:27 AM
i think contracts should be 6 years for rookies, 5 for vets and 4 years if you are over 30
tapseer
Posts: 20204
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/13/2004
Member: #698
5/19/2005  1:41 AM
Posted by knicks1248:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&id=2063343

I for one totally disagree with the contracts being guarnteed for only 3 to 4 years. That would leave no stabilty whats so ever. It's bad enough already with player movemnt, the league would truley be a joke, and trades would happen like the stock market.

Boy a lockout would be the end of the nba fan base for a good stretch.

First, you bought up a great point. That's the perfect length for contract. It keeps the pressure on the player to perform to the contract. If the player performs you re-sign them to the 3-4 year max and keep it moving. If the don't, their contracts doesn't have to be such a burden for so long. We would only have to deal with players such as Allan Houston, TT, Shandone Anderson, and whoeever else that is on our roster now or in the past for the short term. Even now, I'm sure Dallas wished they hadn't paid Erick Dampier all that money. I bet they would love for the contract to be 3-4 years.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
5/19/2005  2:37 AM
I favor as few restrictions as possible in general. If a player and a GM both believe it's in their interests to give a guy a six year contract, then fine. If it doesn't work out, it was a mistake they had chosen themselves. If a player who's 18 thinks he's ready for the NBA, then fine. We don't have to be his parents and be looking out for what's in his best interests or what's going to help him mature and grow as a person.
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
5/19/2005  10:39 AM
I like the shorter contracts, maybe we can give longer term contracts but make the last two or three years partially guaranteed, and not hurt the cap so much. Deals to clowns like Anderson and Eisley and fat spoon, just hurt teams, and when teams are hurting like the knicks, it doesn't help the NBA, thats for sure. Also deals like the one Houston got, should never be given again, too much money, too damn long. the more I think about it the more I like the 4 year deals, with a team option at partially guaranteed money..
Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
Nalod
Posts: 71389
Alba Posts: 155
Joined: 12/24/2003
Member: #508
USA
5/19/2005  11:31 AM
With shorter contracts, good players can get extended, Gazys and injured can be weeded out, and players whom want higher value and want to test the market, can leave too.

Say you have a franchise player like KG, im sure he could be extended at some point if both parties agree. There are some nice bubble players whom get squeezed out becasue of long guarantee contract. Like Penny, he is just taking space a kid could be using to prove himself.
diderotn
Posts: 25657
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/15/2004
Member: #650
USA
5/19/2005  11:37 AM
The NBA needs help...those contracts are very outrageous and something has to be done....I want to pay, but the player has to earn his pay, that is why I advocate incentives in all of the contracts...There are guys in this league (TT) and Houton who are overpaid....TT rebounds only when he wants, assist and blocks are not part of his game....Marb is a great PG, but he rebounds only when he wants, that has to change....
The true Knickabocker..........
Killa4luv
Posts: 27769
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
5/19/2005  11:44 AM
Posted by Nalod:

With shorter contracts, good players can get extended, Gazys and injured can be weeded out, and players whom want higher value and want to test the market, can leave too.

Say you have a franchise player like KG, im sure he could be extended at some point if both parties agree. There are some nice bubble players whom get squeezed out becasue of long guarantee contract. Like Penny, he is just taking space a kid could be using to prove himself.
yeah and thats what the players hate. they want the most money for the longest period of time. i like 3-4 years I think thats fair it puts more pressure on them to perform. it especially doesn't have you signing 30-31 year old players until they're 36-37 years old
rvhoss
Posts: 24943
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/2/2004
Member: #777
Switzerland
5/19/2005  12:10 PM
I want shorter contracts as well.
all kool aid all the time.
jazz74
Posts: 22318
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 12/24/2002
Member: #371
5/19/2005  12:37 PM
we would all like shorter contracts but i can not see that happening. the shortest would be 6 years. the last lockout, the players fought hard to get these long contracts. they are not going to give them up for a five or four year contract. the one thing i do not understand is what are they saying about the salary cap? are they going to increase it? is the luxury tax going to be less? that affects new york more than any other team. i agree that this does not bode well for the nba. i am also concerned that if there is a lockout, like hockey, not enough people will care.
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
5/19/2005  1:02 PM
Posted by Nalod:

With shorter contracts, good players can get extended, Gazys and injured can be weeded out, and players whom want higher value and want to test the market, can leave too.

Say you have a franchise player like KG, im sure he could be extended at some point if both parties agree. There are some nice bubble players whom get squeezed out becasue of long guarantee contract. Like Penny, he is just taking space a kid could be using to prove himself.

my point exactly, how is the league being helped with teams burdened down with these huge long term deals, and we all know that GM's need to be smarter when it comes to giving out contracts, but what about guys who get big deals then get hurt, guys like Penny, Googs, Derek Anderson, etc. And really should a team suffer long term because of the incompetence of previous GM's who are long gone, I could understand having to suffer ramifications in the short term, but 6 or 7 years is ridiculous... I think these shorter deals will mean better basketball, and better basketball franchises league wide...
Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
5/19/2005  1:23 PM
my point exactly, how is the league being helped with teams burdened down with these huge long term deals, and we all know that GM's need to be smarter when it comes to giving out contracts, but what about guys who get big deals then get hurt,
The league already gives teams trade exemptions if a player has such an injury. I'd have no problem with an exception that allows teams to get out of contracts if a player has a career-altering injury also. That's not a reason to limit all contracts to four years, though. That's a reason to directly address the issue by allowing teams to get out of contracts in that type of circumstance.
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
5/19/2005  2:56 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
my point exactly, how is the league being helped with teams burdened down with these huge long term deals, and we all know that GM's need to be smarter when it comes to giving out contracts, but what about guys who get big deals then get hurt,
The league already gives teams trade exemptions if a player has such an injury. I'd have no problem with an exception that allows teams to get out of contracts if a player has a career-altering injury also. That's not a reason to limit all contracts to four years, though. That's a reason to directly address the issue by allowing teams to get out of contracts in that type of circumstance.

The leagues current trade exemption seems to only work for that current year in which the player misses all or most of the season, even if he retires we still are on the hook for that money. And there still is a time limit to use that exemption. I don't see why there is a need for 7 year deals.. I just don't. give them a max of 4 years guaranteed with the last two or 3 partially guaranteed, thats if the players insist on these ridiculously long deals..
Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
5/19/2005  4:11 PM
The leagues current trade exemption seems to only work for that current year
I realize that. I was talking about having a clause in the new CBA that allows contracts to be voided beyond year four if a player has a career ending injury.
don't see why there is a need for 7 year deals.. I just don't. give them a max of 4 years guaranteed
What's so magical about the # 4 that you chose it? If it's 4 years this time, next time the owners are gonna want it reduced to 2 or 3 years. Why not just have everyone get a 1 year deal and then at the end of that one year, they negotiate a new contract based on their performance during the previous year?

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 05/19/2005 16:13:55]
Rich
Posts: 27410
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 12/30/2003
Member: #511
USA
5/19/2005  4:48 PM
The real problem is the soft cap.
knicks1248
Posts: 42059
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #582
5/19/2005  9:50 PM
You guys are only looking at the players that suck like eis, and shannon, but what about a play on your team like say...L james, being traded in the second year of his contract for three role players( hypothetically). There are a lot of over paid players in the league, but they all became over pd because they all played above and beyond in there contract year.

ES
newyorknewyork
Posts: 30172
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #541
5/20/2005  12:01 AM
Maybe they should have a system where every team chooses its franchise players. Up to 3 for each and they are the only ones on that team that are able to get 6yr contracts max. The last 2yrs will be T.O. And everyone else gets 3yrs with the 4th yr T.O. Up to 3 franchise players at most to accomdate a situation like Suns who have Nash-Marion-Stoud but they don't have to choose 3. They could have only 2 or 1 or even none.

They should also have role player status where role players(whoever isn't claimed franchise players) can get at most 7mil per yr.

https://vote.nba.com/en Vote for your Knicks.
Killa4luv
Posts: 27769
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
5/20/2005  2:27 AM
Posted by newyorknewyork:

Maybe they should have a system where every team chooses its franchise players. Up to 3 for each and they are the only ones on that team that are able to get 6yr contracts max. The last 2yrs will be T.O. And everyone else gets 3yrs with the 4th yr T.O. Up to 3 franchise players at most to accomdate a situation like Suns who have Nash-Marion-Stoud but they don't have to choose 3. They could have only 2 or 1 or even none.

They should also have role player status where role players(whoever isn't claimed franchise players) can get at most 7mil per yr.
Interesting idea that the players will never agree to. It sucks for the league and the fans too. But the players want to be able to play good in one year and get a stupid contract. And there are more role players than stars so they will control the voting.
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
5/20/2005  10:20 AM
Posted by Bonn1997:
The leagues current trade exemption seems to only work for that current year
I realize that. I was talking about having a clause in the new CBA that allows contracts to be voided beyond year four if a player has a career ending injury.
don't see why there is a need for 7 year deals.. I just don't. give them a max of 4 years guaranteed
What's so magical about the # 4 that you chose it? If it's 4 years this time, next time the owners are gonna want it reduced to 2 or 3 years. Why not just have everyone get a 1 year deal and then at the end of that one year, they negotiate a new contract based on their performance during the previous year?

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 05/19/2005 16:13:55]

4 seems like a good fair number,1 or 2 years is unreasonable and 6 and 7 are ridiculous. We have seen the effects, mostly bad, of the long 6 and 7 year deals. 4 years seems like a reasonable and fair amount of years..
Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
Killa4luv
Posts: 27769
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
5/20/2005  12:53 PM
Posted by tkf:
Posted by Bonn1997:
The leagues current trade exemption seems to only work for that current year
I realize that. I was talking about having a clause in the new CBA that allows contracts to be voided beyond year four if a player has a career ending injury.
don't see why there is a need for 7 year deals.. I just don't. give them a max of 4 years guaranteed
What's so magical about the # 4 that you chose it? If it's 4 years this time, next time the owners are gonna want it reduced to 2 or 3 years. Why not just have everyone get a 1 year deal and then at the end of that one year, they negotiate a new contract based on their performance during the previous year?

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 05/19/2005 16:13:55]

4 seems like a good fair number,1 or 2 years is unreasonable and 6 and 7 are ridiculous. We have seen the effects, mostly bad, of the long 6 and 7 year deals. 4 years seems like a reasonable and fair amount of years..

I have to agre with you, 4 years seems fairest, 5 years tops! The one year suggestion could have only worked if they were forming as league and guys wanted to play. The players have way too much power now and there is a 0% chance of them agreeing to that. 0%. The league wouldn't even mention it.
« Reply To Topic
Is anybody concern about this
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy