Fine....but I highly doubt any team is going to trade for a supermax player and pay them double.
What if the NBA made a rule that players signed to supermax couldn't be moved?
- Thread starter Professor Emeritus
- Start date
Fine....but I highly doubt any team is going to trade for a supermax player and pay them double.
The team that trades the player like how the clippers did blake or toronto did Demar
They didn’t pay double salary though which is his point.
Much like I doubt any player will accept a deal that gets cut in half for any reason. But there are teams that will gladly hand the likes of Jokic or Steph twice their salary.
If u want to take half for someone asking for a trade. Pay double for trading the player
Was it terrible when it was offered and signed? I think the point is that it would equally put onus on both sides. You want the money, you're locked in here for the duration. You offered them the contract, now you have to live with the decision for the duration.
What does this solve tho? Like why on earth would the owners or the players agree to this? They obviously don't want to be locked in to contracts forever which is why they sign guys and trade them (Blake Griffin). Or what happens if in year 3 of a 5 year supermax your team ages out and you want to rebuild. Or if the previous GM who have out that contract gets fired... The new guy is just stuck with this rule they couldn't even pivot. It makes no sense for either side.
Better yet have the trading team pay half. Player gets a max salary from his former and new team. Old team paying a max salary for nothing. If the player loses money for demanding a trade the team should lose money for trading him against his will. Its wild how people wanna put everything on players and give teams even more power/bail outs when these situations ALWAYS come down to the team's decision.
That could work too.
I get it, but the SnT essentially was the loophole that eliminated what the rule tried to prevent - for players to stay with their teams longer. To put the onus on the organization, why would you give the 5 supermax to a player in which your entire team is going to age out in 3 years? Essentially, you will want to have everything align. If you want to rebuild, you're essentially stuck with the "bad contract" that you still have to move. You want your team to stay together longer to build something substantial, and you cannot do that hitting the reset every 3-4 years. Bottom line, y'all signed him to that deal, now you have to make something happen around said player(s).
Now for the players, we once thought that there'd be no way they would opt for shorter deals over longer, yet here we are. The benefit is that you truly have them control their destiny, without handcuffing the team. If you want to the money from this team, you have to stay the majority of your contract. If you want to leave, that's what FA is for. If you want to stay, but leave quicker, sign a shorter deal.
But everyone knows what they're getting themselves into, and what that have to work with, and how long to see results. Now, would they agree to it? I think they shorter-deal aspect of it would appeal to the players, plus always include an auto player-option. And of course, deadline tiers - 3-yr supermax not eligible to be traded until yr 1.5, for 5-yr - yr 4.