What if the NBA made a rule that players signed to supermax couldn't be moved?

[Professor Emeritus]

I thought of this idea due to this exchange about Zion:

I can't stand this fat lazy motherfukker.

and if he wanted out why did he sign that contract

Because people like KD and Harden (probably leaving some others out) have made it standard to take the money then force your way out in Year 1/2.

He's over. Comfortably.

The whole reason teams can resign their own player for more than another team can offer was in order to improve player loyalty. But if the players can resign for extra money and then just force their way out, what's the point?


Harden signed a 4-year, $171 million extension, then forced his way out to Philly after just a year. Exercised a $36 million player option in Philly, then forced his way out to the Clippers a few games later.

Durant signed a 4-year, $194 million contract with the Nets, then forced his way out the very first year.

Zion signed for 5-yeard, $197 million, and caring so little that folks say he just trying to force a trade cause he doesn't want to be there.



So if you really have the home team advantage for contracts cause you want the home team to retain their players.....why not make it a rule?

Every player signed for extra money due to retaining team's advantage has an automatic no-trade clause that can't be waived. The team can't trade him, the player can't force a trade. If a player wants to hold onto the option of being traded, then they have to sign for the normal amount that any other team can sign them for. This goes for sign-and-trade too. Can't play the advantage and sign a player for extra just to facilitate an advantage, that violates the whole point of the rule.

Feel like it's the only legitimate way to end this idiocy of players dogging it to force their way to new teams.

 

[concise]

They need it ASAP.

 

[SadimirPutin]

Interesting....I have to mull it over

 

[Shogun]

Seems a move that strengthens ownership’s control over players.

 

[Thavoiceofthevoiceless]

So what happens if it's scenario of where that contract ages terribly a la Griffin, Beal or Lavine currently? You're essentially wanting it that the team can't move the player even if there's someone else willing to take on the contract.

The only extra money involved is the 5th year, which the majority of players aren't eligible for anyways considering they've been traded before and aren't or hitting the 10 max with the same time. Look at someone like D Mitchell coming up whose lost about $90 million dollars already with the trade from Cleveland to Utah as he isn't eligible for that 5th year like Tatum is.

The problem is already solving itself as it's putting a delay on when those players can be traded?

I get the concept, but it’s overlooking the fact that are multiple players with max contracts on NBA rosters these days.

 

[Mr Hate Coffee]

Well in the case of Zion, I don't think it would help. I'm not sure he's pressed to be moved to another team. He's perfectly fine collecting a check, eating beignets, and playing 30% of the time.

Pelicans would be mad af they can't move him for another 4+ years.

 

[Thavoiceofthevoiceless]

Well in the case of Zion, I don't think it would help. I'm not sure he's pressed to be moved to another team. He's perfectly fine collecting a check, eating beignets, and playing 30% of the time.

Pelicans would be mad af they can't move him for another 4+ years.

It's hamstringing both the team and player when it some instances it's mutually beneficial for both parties to move on.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Seems a move that strengthens ownership’s control over players.

Ownership doesn't have control over him though because they can't trade him. They have to do everything possible to make it work just like the player does. It means a player that wants to stay in a city, gets to stay in that city.

If you don't want to stay and/or don't want the ownership to have that "control", then just don't take the extra money.

It's hamstringing both the team and player when it some instances it's mutually beneficial for both parties to move on.

But that usually happens either because the player acts like a POS and stops trying, or the ownership gives up on the team and stops trying.

This would force both the team and the player to keep doing their best with their situation for the length of the contract, rather than giving up.

So what happens if it's scenario of where that contract ages terribly a la Griffin, Beal or Lavine currently? You're essentially wanting it that the team can't move the player even if there's someone else willing to take on the contract.

Beal's contract didn't "age terribly", it was just as bad when he signed it as it was the very next year when they dumped him to the Suns.

If they didn't want 5 years of Beal, then they shouldn't have signed 5 years of Beal just to dump him the very next season. Wouldn't the NBA be a better product if players like Beal, Dame, Harden, etc. weren't just trying to get themselves dumped to contenders for cheap?

The only extra money involved is the 5th year, which the majority of players aren't eligible for anyways considering they've been traded before and aren't or hitting the 10 max with the same time. Look at someone like D Mitchell coming up whose lost about $90 million dollars already with the trade from Cleveland to Utah as he isn't eligible for that 5th year like Tatum is.

If the only extra money is the 5th year, then how would D-Mitchell lost $90 million? There's a bump every year.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

For those who don't like the option, just get rid of the supermax/retaining team advantage then?

Because the whole point of it existing was to allow teams to have a better chance to keep their stars. What's the point if a player signs it and then just forces his way out the next year?

 

[Shogun]

The idea of player empowerment is what got us here.
Now they’re empowered.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

The idea of player empowerment is what got us here.
Now they’re empowered.

Nah, that's nonsense.

Wilt did the exact same thing twice, to the Warriors and the Sixers in the 1960s, before "player empowerment" ever existed. He demanded they trade him for a contender or he wouldn't play at all.

Kareem quit on the Bucks and forced them to trade him to the Lakers. Earl Monroe demanded a trade out of Baltimore. Rick Barry refused to play for Washington after he was traded there. Dominique Wilkins refused to play for Utah. Chris Webber forced his way out of Golden State after just one year. Steve Francis refused to play for Vancouver. Kobe refused to play for anyone not named LA. Tracy McGrady asked to leave Orlando. Vince Carter demanded a trade out of Toronto. Alonzo Mourning refused to play for Toronto too.

Dennis Rodman did it twice too - demanded a trade out of Detroit, then quit on San Antonio and forced them to dump him for nothing.


Players refusing to honor contracts in order to get to their preferred destination has always been a thing. "Player empowerment" is about being free to make decisions about your own contracts, not about refusing to fulfill the terms of your contract.

 

[Thavoiceofthevoiceless]

But that usually happens either because the player acts like a POS and stops trying, or the ownership gives up on the team and stops trying.

This would force both the team and the player to keep doing their best with their situation for the length of the contract, rather than giving up.





Beal's contract didn't "age terribly", it was just as bad when he signed it as it was the very next year when they dumped him to the Suns.

If they didn't want 5 years of Beal, then they shouldn't have signed 5 years of Beal just to dump him the very next season. Wouldn't the NBA be a better product if players like Beal, Dame, Harden, etc. weren't just trying to get themselves dumped to contenders for cheap?





If the only extra money is the 5th year, then how would D-Mitchell lost $90 million? There's a bump every year.

I don't know how to quote each comment so I'll answer them directly from here:

We've seen multiple instances of where those contracts have aged terribly as time has went on. If a team has a chance to get out of that contract, then they should be able to do so as the player will still get his bread regardless. That's the exact point of the player taking the money and worrying about the rest later. If a team wants you bad enough, then they'll give up the assets to get you.

That Beal contract was going to age terribly and everyone knew it the moment that he signed it, so both parties benefitted from the trade. Beal still got all of his money and Washington was able to move off the contract, while getting some assets in the process.

Mitchell isn't eligible for the same 5 year max extension that Tatum is by extension of the trade from Utah to Cleveland. So as it stands currently Mitchell can sign for around 4 years $250 next season, while Tatum can get 5 years and $330+ million depending on the cap shakes out even with both making All NBA.

Also, the upcoming CBA changes makes this topic of discussion null and void anyways because if you're going to hamstring both the team and player by forcing them to make it work, then those parameters shouldn't be in place hurting them for paying said players.

 

[Supa]

Interesting

Maybe if you sign a supermax you have to play out a percentage of the deal before you can be traded. So both sides would have to honor 75% or 3 out of a 4 year extension. If the player is traded he forfeits the extra money on the supermax.

If I was an owner I'd trade a player before he was up for a supermax if I didn't think he was worth it. If you're not a Curry, LeBron, KD, or Giannis, Jokic level guy it's a mistake. Jaylen Brown would've been a no for me.

 

[Thavoiceofthevoiceless]

Interesting

Maybe if you sign a supermax you have to play out a percentage of the deal before you can be traded. So both sides would have to honor 75% or 3 out of a 4 year extension. If the player is traded he forfeits the extra money on the supermax.

I

The new CBA doesn't really make that option because depending on who you pay and how much, the longer you keep them on the roster the more of a bind it puts you in long term. Teams are going to have to make hard decisions anyways and if you don't believe that, then look at Minnesota and how expensive they're about to get.

 

[Lil Bape the PostGod]

It has to be agreed on by the union and all them

And it wouldn’t be lol

But theoretically it’s a good idea