I don't care about the amount.
I hate the Guarantee part.
I am still a big fan of the NFL model where only the signing bonus is guaranteed allowing teams to waive players that are not playing up to the level they are being payed at.
As for the big salaries being thrown around, I have not doubt that the player salary cut was going on in these owners heads when they threw out the offers.
I'm not necessarily a huge fan of non-guaranteed contracts. If they come with a big bonus, that's fine. Otherwise, if the team can cancel the contract whenever they want, why can't the player?
This is my philosophy, and why I hate people getting so uptight over NFL players holding out. If they can be cut at will, they should be able to quit at will. Of course this would lead to all sorts of problems during the season, but pre-season? They've got every right to try and get as much money as they can, because the only guaranteed paycheck is usually the signing bonus.
In the NBA I'd like to see a compromise - maybe half-guaranteed contracts. You can cut a guy at will, but you're still paying him half his remaining contract, and it stays on your cap. Gives teams the flexibility to save money and chemistry by cutting guys, but they're still partly on the hook for signing guys to terrible contracts.
Lots of people make this argument, and I don't understand it. No owner is breaking any contract. Rather, a typical contract says:
"I, owner, will pay you X amount of dollars, guaranteed, to play for me for the next ____ years. In addition, for every year that you're still with the team, I will pay you Y amount of dollars, at the rate schedule attached."
The player gets the benefit of his bargain in guaranteed money. He knows going in that he has no right or entitlement to the non-guaranteed money.
On the other hand, you have a player saying:
"I have a valid an enforceable contract, where I was paid X dollars to play for the team for the next ___ years. They're also given me Y dollars to play annually, as we agreed. I knew that the contract was non-guaranteed. Despite the owners doing absolutely everything they promised me, I'm going to hold out and attempt to renegotiate my contract, because I made a bad deal".
When owners cut players, everyone is getting the benefit of their agreed-upon scenario. When players on existing contracts hold out, they're breaching their contracts, and not allowing the owners to get the benefit of the bargain.
In other words, its only the owners, and not the hold-outs, that are playing by the rules.
