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

Shadow King

Shadow King

Quiet N***a Loud Choppa
Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
39,391
Reputation
2,875
Daps
80,895
Reppin
Hometown of Cherokee at Law
Rhakim said:
I thought of this idea due to this exchange about Zion:






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.
Click to expand...
That's on these teams for not doing the right thing in regards to who they sign.

Harden and Morey had a basketball love affair, but really Sixers ownership did the right thing in not giving him the long term deal.

The Nets sold their souls to have a KD-Kyrie duo and eventually Big 3 with Harden. They never had much organization integrity from the beginning, depending on an elite talent who doesn't care to be the team leader and letting your #2/1B player be the biggest team distraction we've seen until you have to dole out heavy-handed punishment. The Nets deserved for that to blow up in their face.

Zion has had injuries and weight management issues since he got to the league. The Pelicans still didn't let him finish his rookie deal before extending him. He showed who he was and they said "shut up and take my money".

I can't cosign a rule giving extra control of a player's career. That's breeding ground for a Minny KG/Cleveland Bron 1.0 type of situation.

But what you said it fair, though I wouldn't say the NTC can't be waived. I'd say if it is waived before the player finishes 50% of the deal, the player's salary gets cut for the remainder of the contract, effective in the next season.

Demand a trade in Year 1 of the deal? 30% cut. Year 2: 25%. Year 3 of a 5 year deal: 20%.

The extra money that's been cut away does under the Stretch Provision for the original team. Also, if you demand a trade, your final year option is automatically activated by the new team. You can't opt out of Year 4 or 5.
 
NoMorePie

NoMorePie

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Messages
55,980
Reputation
9,907
Daps
203,032
Reppin
Mississauga
Maybe something like, if both parties agree to supermax. Then the first 2 years must be honored by both parties?

I dunno
 
b. woods

b. woods

Peace
Joined
May 5, 2012
Messages
39,944
Reputation
12,388
Daps
149,513
FTBS said:
The advantage is you dont have to trade them. No player is gonna sit for 4 or 5 years.

Everything pre KD was from a time when you could make more money in certain markets. That time has passed. Pre Bron it was a yearly tradition of the Lakers pursuing a star and getting curved. Knicks got Melo to show for this century.

KD is on his 4th team and none were tradiotinal glamour franchises. He went to GSW because of how good they were. And he is just a different type of dude. Harden is a straight up flake. Kawhi actually doesnt fit your point as he was traded to a place he didn't want to go in the last year of his deal and left as a FA and chose the lesser LA squad.

All that said, I personally dont see players staying as a big issue. In any other field if you are at the absolute top of your profession you go where you want. Athletes are already limited in this regard. I aint mad if they flex the little bit of control they have in comparison to their peers.

Imagine saying the best lawyer in the world gotta stay at the firm he started at...that he aint even pick. Imagine saying the best singer had to stay at this one label that, again, they didnt pick. Only in sports to we cling to these long abondoned notions of loyalty and staying in one place.
Click to expand...

0nyKLfy.png
would have no problem doing it. :pachaha:
 
tremonthustler1

tremonthustler1

aka bx_representer
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
79,647
Reputation
8,412
Daps
195,115
Reppin
Uptown and the Bronx
with the supermax you can't trade someone until a year after the deal is signed.

The loophole players would attempt is to sign for $1 less and say "see it's not the supermax, it's just close"
 
nieman

nieman

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
17,178
Reputation
2,350
Daps
33,685
Reppin
Philly
Rhakim said:
I thought of this idea due to this exchange about Zion:






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.
Click to expand...
There would probably be a loophole that would eventually be exploited a la sign and trade eliminating the rule about resigning own players for longer.

Prob one exception would be able to be traded month of trade deadline of final year.

But you're right. These players need to stay, and these teams also need to be more mindful about the deals they give out. You can't build anything with a new core every 4 yrs
 
CarltonJunior

CarltonJunior

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Feb 21, 2014
Messages
46,337
Reputation
5,534
Daps
127,710
Reppin
Duval County
I don't think this is necessary. I think teams have to just have more accountability and not sign unworthy players to supermaxes or big 2nd contracts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top