NEW YORK -- In a somewhat conciliatory gesture, NBA owners relaxed their stance on guaranteed contracts Friday during the latest round of collective bargaining negotiations to replace the labor agreement that expires at the end of this month. The players welcomed the move but cautioned there was still a wide gulf to be bridged. The sides are still hundreds of millions of dollars apart on how to split revenues, and the owners are still asking for a hard salary cap system. Another labor meeting is set for next Tuesday, and commissioner David Stern said the onus will be on the players to make a new economic proposal. "The time to have an optimistic or pessimistic view is at the close of the day Tuesday. That's an important day," Stern said after the sides met for nearly five hours. "Time is running out, but both parties seem, at least to me, intent to make a deal by June 30." The question of guaranteed contracts has been called a "blood issue" in the past by union director Billy Hunter, and the owners had earlier proposed a new system in which all contracts would contain only partial guarantees. But that proposal was taken off the table Tuesday, with the owners agreeing to continue with the current system in which guarantees on individual contracts are a negotiable issue on a case-by-case basis. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=6673181
It was never realistic to un-guarantee contracts. Once you open that can of worms you can never go back. The owners know the players would never agree to that and most likely only brought it up so that later on they can say "well we compromised on the guaranteed contracts, now you have to compromise on..."
Actually, the problem is how the salary cap treats guaranteed contracts. If you could buy a guy out and have him immediately come off the cap - as opposed to being forced to carry him for at least another 2 years, it wouldn't be that big a deal. That way, a guy like Roy who suffers a legit, basketball related injury would have his financial security, without being poison to the team's salary cap.
Very true. And I have no problem with this. I also agree with the old grouch: "Actually, the problem is how the salary cap treats guaranteed contracts. If you could buy a guy out and have him immediately come off the cap - as opposed to being forced to carry him for at least another 2 years, it wouldn't be that big a deal. That way, a guy like Roy who suffers a legit, basketball related injury would have his financial security, without being poison to the team's salary cap."I] Salaries IMO need to come down, but they need to be guaranteed in case of injurries. Otherwise they will not play if they have any kind of minor injury. Why take the chance? But like the old grouch proposes, there needs to be a buy out that will not hamper a teams future. If a guy gets hurt it is no ones fault. Not the player nor the team. Why penalize either.
I don't see any reason why salaries should go down. Several teams have been sold recently and there was no shortage of suitors to buy them. Teams are still doling out stupid ass contracts left and right the last few seasons as they simultaneously cry about how broke they are. I believe this past season and these playoffs set NBA records for viewers. The owners can talk all they want but I would have to see financial records to believe any of this BS.
Not buy out, but waivers and other teams can snag the player's rights. So a Paul Allen $billionaire type can't just sign the top 30 players and have a 15 deep injured reserve list. The problem is that a team might end up with an ungodly amount of debt to guys not playing (for them or anywhere) anymore and would hurt the active players' ability to get paid. I think the guarantees should be for no more than half the contract life or amount. And renegotiable.
The owners won't show the financial statements to the Union. If they were telling the truth about losing money, they'd be flooding the Union and the media with details.
Teams and players can already agree to buyouts, the problem is players who the team wants to buy out, like Roy or Raef LaFrentz, have no incentive to give up substaintial amounts of their guaranteed money. Maybe you're suggesting when a team cuts a player they get total salary cap relieft but continue to pay him? That would screw smaller market teams and teams with less wealthy owners. The Knicks and Lakers could try to sign all the best free agents every offseason like LeBron, Dwight Howard, Chris Paul. They could cut all their players but the top couple on their roster. It would reward the rich Mark Cuban's who could continually gamble on huge contracts but get complete salary relief on their bad picks. Well I think we should have some sort of system in the middle of the two extremes, maybe thats really what you meant as well. I think there should be some penalty for giving out a bad overpaid contract but there should be some relief so the team isn't hamstrung by these deals for half a decade. I am disappointed to hear the owners gave up on non-guaranteed contracts. I think it would be more than fair to the players to have contracts half guaranteed. If Michael Redd signs a $100million dollar deal, he'd still get at least $50 million, even if he never has to play a single basketball game. How is that rough on the players?
I'm not so certain, private companies are always extremely weary of releasing detailed financial figures to the public. Would you post the details of your tax return publicly on the internet or on your front door? Wouldn’t you be even more leery if you had hundreds of millions of dollars going through your business?
I don't understand why it matters, anyway. I don't think any players are losing money in the current agreement... I don't see why the owners should have to claim (let alone PROVE) that they are... Ed O.
