Hunters Fault?

[Chris]

I'd love to see wages be determined on performance+plus a small base pay. This would make players play 100% all year, and it would limit tanking.

Me too.  But it would never happen.

[indeedproceed]

I'd love to see wages be determined on performance+plus a small base pay. This would make players play 100% all year, and it would limit tanking.

Me too.  But it would never happen.

With a built in injury settlement, I don't see why it wouldn't go on the table.

[angryguy77]

I'd love to see wages be determined on performance+plus a small base pay. This would make players play 100% all year, and it would limit tanking.

Me too.  But it would never happen.

I know, it's like dreaming of winning the lottery

[Roy H.]

I'd love to see wages be determined on performance+plus a small base pay. This would make players play 100% all year, and it would limit tanking.

Me too.  But it would never happen.

With a built in injury settlement, I don't see why it wouldn't go on the table.

The flaw with a system like that is that it encourages guys to act like clones of Ricky Davis, favoring numbers and stats over winning.

[thirstyboots18]

And some "intangibles" are hard to quantify.

[indeedproceed]

I'd love to see wages be determined on performance+plus a small base pay. This would make players play 100% all year, and it would limit tanking.

Me too.  But it would never happen.

With a built in injury settlement, I don't see why it wouldn't go on the table.

The flaw with a system like that is that it encourages guys to act like clones of Ricky Davis, favoring numbers and stats over winning.

Jason Kidd said something similar actually when performance based contracts were brought up during the last lockout.

[Moranis]

I'd love to see wages be determined on performance+plus a small base pay. This would make players play 100% all year, and it would limit tanking.

Me too.  But it would never happen.

With a built in injury settlement, I don't see why it wouldn't go on the table.

The flaw with a system like that is that it encourages guys to act like clones of Ricky Davis, favoring numbers and stats over winning.

But aren't all contracts in all sports the same way.  I realize a player can be cut in the NFL (though they still get whatever was guaranteed), but that just seems to be the nature of sport. 

[Chris]

I'd love to see wages be determined on performance+plus a small base pay. This would make players play 100% all year, and it would limit tanking.

Me too.  But it would never happen.

With a built in injury settlement, I don't see why it wouldn't go on the table.

The flaw with a system like that is that it encourages guys to act like clones of Ricky Davis, favoring numbers and stats over winning.

But aren't all contracts in all sports the same way.  I realize a player can be cut in the NFL (though they still get whatever was guaranteed), but that just seems to be the nature of sport. 

Well, there is a big difference is that the current system allows some discretion to look at "intangibles", and things that might not show up in stats, while a system where the pay is based on merit, really would have to be a slave to some sort of quantitative measure, which would lead to even more selfishness.

Ultimately, I think the best option is short contracts.  Make guys constantly be earning their next contract by performing.