- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Messages
- 26,226
- Likes
- 14,407
- Points
- 113
Since we are wool-gathering:
Let's say the owners get exactly what they want in the new CBA - nonguaranteed contracts, made retroactive.
In that scenario, the Blazers could save a big chunk of change by just releasing Roy outright. How would people respond to that? If the team had the option of saying "you are no longer worth your contract - good-bye" would people be outraged, or would they understand?
I'm pretty sure you cannot legally retroactively void binding contracts (unless there were shenanigans that suggest it was not mutually consensual at the time of signing). I'd say that would be pretty unethical, since it's not what the two parties agreed to.
If a player and team agreed to mutual options and the team said "Sorry, you're not worth it--goodbye," that would be perfectly fine. I don't believe either player or team owe the other sentiment. I do believe that both sides owe sticking to a binding contract that both agreed to.


