Guaranteed Contracts

[Fafnir]

Nothing sad here.

If GM's would learn to evaluate talent ; this would be a non-issue.  You don't see Riley or Presti signing below average players to long term deals.

Didn't Miami end up with a bad contract in Shaq? 

They got a title and then unloaded him.  Not sure I could call it a bad contract given that.

They ended up with Marion though, who was a bad contract at his performance level, and then they got O'Neal for him at a similar pay level.

But two years of being serious title threats was worth it, especially given that they won it all one of those times.

[wdleehi]

Nothing sad here.

If GM's would learn to evaluate talent ; this would be a non-issue.  You don't see Riley or Presti signing below average players to long term deals.

Didn't Miami end up with a bad contract in Shaq? 

They got a title and then unloaded him.  Not sure I could call it a bad contract given that.

They ended up with Marion though, who was a bad contract at his performance level, and then they got O'Neal for him at a similar pay level.

But two years of being serious title threats was worth it, especially given that they won it all one of those times.

It was a good contract that went bad. 


If Miami could have gotten out of clean on their cap, they might have been able to get a better player around Wade sooner.  (not that they are complaining)

[LooseCannon]

As for GMs giving out bad contract, not every bad contract started out that way.  Some players do play to a level that they earn that type of contract, only to get hurt or lazy, thus becoming over payed. 

It's bad for a GM to hand out contracts that assume that a player will not decline, whether due to age, injury, or another reason. It's a failure in the area of evaluating risk.  I think that Ainge in above average in that area. I point to his negotiations with Posey, Powe, and Tony Allen as evidence.

[LooseCannon]

I have less of a problem with punishing teams who give out dumb contracts, and the players don't perform.  But, when there is a serious injury involved, they should be able to either cut them loose (and pay them), to free up cap room, or have an injured reserve type situation, where they can work with that money to fill the hole.

Sometimes, it's a dumb contract if you give too much money or too many years to a player who is a clear injury risk.  Teams that do that should have some punishment for their folly.

[wdleehi]

I have less of a problem with punishing teams who give out dumb contracts, and the players don't perform.  But, when there is a serious injury involved, they should be able to either cut them loose (and pay them), to free up cap room, or have an injured reserve type situation, where they can work with that money to fill the hole.

Sometimes, it's a dumb contract if you give too much money or too many years to a player who is a clear injury risk.  Teams that do that should have some punishment for their folly.

Punish the team by allowing them to cut the player off their cap but still have to pay the player a buy out.


Don't punish the fans by forcing them through season after season of annoyed pain. 



And punish players who take the money and stop working. 

[LooseCannon]

Don't punish the fans by forcing them through season after season of annoyed pain. 

Someone's got to have a bad team.  Don't think you can turn the NBA into the Special Olympics (where everyone's a "winner").

[wdleehi]

Don't punish the fans by forcing them through season after season of annoyed pain. 

Someone's got to have a bad team.  Don't think you can turn the NBA into the Special Olympics (where everyone's a "winner").

No.


I want a league where fans of bad teams can have hope of improvement. 


Where the deadweight can be removed. 

[LooseCannon]

I want a league where fans of bad teams can have hope of improvement. 


Where the deadweight can be removed. 

Impossible.  You can't force Sterling to sell the Clippers.  You can't ensure that Isaiah Thomas will never be a GM again.  You are always going to have miserable franchises.

[The Walker Wiggle]

I want a league where fans of bad teams can have hope of improvement.

The best five teams in the Eastern Conference at the end of 2009-10 season were, in order, Cleveland, Orlando, Atlanta, Boston and Miami. All five of those teams won fewer than twenty-five games at some point in the decade — Atlanta won as few as thirteen. While at the bottom of the standings were New Jersey, Washington, Philadelphia, Detroit and New York - three of those five were Finalists over the same span. The NBA already has parity.

And anyway I'd argue that it's a star driven league, far more influenced by draft success than F.A. market failure.

[wdleehi]

I want a league where fans of bad teams can have hope of improvement. 


Where the deadweight can be removed. 

Impossible.  You can't force Sterling to sell the Clippers.  You can't ensure that Isaiah Thomas will never be a GM again.  You are always going to have miserable franchises.

In the NFL, even the Bengal have a good season now and again.




Being lucky in the draft is close to the only way to propel yourself towards the top.  Then you have to find a team with some sort of issue to do a one sided trade to become a true contender. 


Meanwhile, teams desperate for improvement have to take big chances and hope they get lucky, but likely end up in no-mans land in the NBA.  The just made the playoff teams.  The non-contender. 



I don't understand why having more fluid rosters is a bad thing.  If a player is an NBA level player, he will get a new contract.  He will be in the league. 

The current system protects only those who should not be in the NBA anymore. 

[LooseCannon]

The current system protects only those who should not be in the NBA anymore. 

The current system is designed to create a middle class of veterans between minimum salary guys and max salary superstars.  It is also designed to avoid those crazy huge contracts given to rookies who never fulfilled their potential.

[wdleehi]

The current system protects only those who should not be in the NBA anymore. 

The current system is designed to create a middle class of veterans between minimum salary guys and max salary superstars.  It is also designed to avoid those crazy huge contracts given to rookies who never fulfilled their potential.

Why would that be destroyed? 

I think teams would be more willing to give mid level contracts if they new they could be more easily moved.

[LooseCannon]

Teams would be more likely to give out bigger contracts, too, resulting in less cap space that can be spent on role players worth more than the minimum.

[wdleehi]

Teams would be more likely to give out bigger contracts, too, resulting in less cap space that can be spent on role players worth more than the minimum.

And will have more ability to clean those out if it doesn't work.

[The Walker Wiggle]

I want a league where fans of bad teams can have hope of improvement.

The best five teams in the Eastern Conference at the end of 2009-10 season were, in order, Cleveland, Orlando, Atlanta, Boston and Miami. All five of those teams won fewer than twenty-five games at some point in the decade — Atlanta won as few as thirteen. While at the bottom of the standings were New Jersey, Washington, Philadelphia, Detroit and New York - three of those five were Finalists over the same span. The NBA already has parity.

And anyway I'd argue that it's a star driven league, far more influenced by draft success than F.A. market failure.

But which teams exactly are we discussing?

Also LooseCannon has a point, how do fans benefit from huge contract offers to the likes of Eddy Curry and or even Rudy Gay? I understand how non-guaranteed contracts benefit owners and - most of all - under-qualified GMs. But I'd far prefer changes that would encourage smarter personnel decisions, rather than more of the same.