Derrick Rose against NBA salary cap

[97Bulls]

It is not about whether an athlete is "doing fine" or not. They don't work pro bono or for reduced amounts. However, you can't say how much Rose is worth without looking at how much Garnett and Baron Davis are worth comparable to their pay. Nobody complains about that and the players don't have a problem with it either, because they are getting paid.

By the way, the current system was set up at the demand of the players...after Kevin Garnett's big contract...

Garnett wasn't a rookie when he got his first big contract. In fact, I don't see what's wrong with their contracts during the first 3-4 years of their careers.

 

[97Bulls]

How about you suggest a payment system that would work?

Not so easy, is it...

Life is certainly not fair. But these superstar athletes are not the ones who deserve most of our pity. They are making a shit load of money from their commercial deals. Even the last pick of the second round is making a very decent some of money. If they got rid of the rookie pay scale (based on how high you are as a draft pick) then that would put teams who are trying to rebuild at a key disadvantage. You would essentially need to eliminate guaranteed contracts and lower the minimum NBA salary then as well.

These players are making way too much money before they've earned it. Michael Jordan said it himself.

Neither deserve our pity. The owners rob the players on the frontend, the players return the favor on the backend. I'm just sick of hearing how the players are overpaid.

And I'm not trying to say its easy to create a fair system because both sides are tying to get over on each other. But ill try

Rookies get a 3 year contract and are paid based on their draft position. The fiirst year is guaranteed. The owners have the option on the seecond year, the players has the option on the third. This way. If the player is a bust, the owner can get out of the deal eearly. But if the player pans out, then he has the option to maximize on his earning potential.

But the regular (non-rookie) contracts can only be for 3 years if they're guaranteed. And it would be capped at a set amount. And 5 years unguaranteed with both the owner and player being able to opt out. But if the player opts out, there is a fine (for lack of a better term) if he does opt out. And there is no cap on unguaranteed contracts. And there must be an escrow account to cover career ending injuries. That both the owner and player pay into.

This is a vague interpretation but I think it covers the concerns of both sides.

 

[clonetrooper264]

You know what? Screw the players and the owners. You know who should get more money? Us. Lower those dang ticket prices and parking prices.

:elephant:

 

[houheffna]

Garnett wasn't a rookie when he got his first big contract. In fact, I don't see what's wrong with their contracts during the first 3-4 years of their careers.

Garnett wasn't a rookie...but he wasn't good enough to deserve the contract he got...and other veterans were upset about it. Rookie players, and players like Garnett at the time were paid based on potential and not achievement. So they changed the system.

But as have been pointed out...no system is perfect.

 

[Glide2keva]

This is where we differ 97.

I think the rookie scale is fine, but it needs to have some exceptions. For a player like Rose (ROY, MVP, Top 10 player, All-NBA), there should be an exception to the rule. He should get the max, but 20 Million?

That's a little high. Base salaries should come down a little bit. Jordan didn't get 30 Million until he was in his last 3 seasons, and there isn't another player on his level in the league to deserve that much money per season. So I think 15-17 Million would be fine. His endorsements will cover the rest.

Also, I'm for abolishing the salary cap altogether. It doesn't help teams. Look at baseball. They have no salary cap, yet the Rangers and Cardinals are in the World Series and neither of them are one of the leagues' biggest spenders. Teams like the Yankess, the Red Sox, etc. all spend money like crazy, yet the aren't always there and it's more smaller market teams that are the ones winning it mostly. Granted the Yanks won in the late 90's and early 2000's and 2009. The Red Sox won in 2004 and 07. Other than those years it's been smaller marker teams winning, save the White Sox in 05.

So an NBA with no salary cap wouldn't be too bad, you just need the owners to spend wisely and for scouts to do their jobs.

 

[Glide2keva]

Garnett wasn't a rookie...but he wasn't good enough to deserve the contract he got...and other veterans were upset about it. Rookie players, and players like Garnett at the time were paid based on potential and not achievement. So they changed the system.

But as have been pointed out...no system is perfect.

This.

Look at Glen Robinson. He was saying he wanted a 10 year $100 Million contract, before he ever played a minute of NBA ball. When vets weren't getting big deals like that. He wound up getting 10 years $70 million and the Bucks traded away the rights to a player who turned out to be Dirk Nowitzki and look where they both are now. Big Dog is out of the league a long time ago and Dirk is a NBA champion.

 

[Glide2keva]

Neither deserve our pity. The owners rob the players on the frontend, the players return the favor on the backend. I'm just sick of hearing how the players are overpaid.

And I'm not trying to say its easy to create a fair system because both sides are tying to get over on each other. But ill try

Rookies get a 3 year contract and are paid based on their draft position. The fiirst year is guaranteed. The owners have the option on the seecond year, the players has the option on the third. This way. If the player is a bust, the owner can get out of the deal eearly. But if the player pans out, then he has the option to maximize on his earning potential.

But the regular (non-rookie) contracts can only be for 3 years if they're guaranteed. And it would be capped at a set amount. And 5 years unguaranteed with both the owner and player being able to opt out. But if the player opts out, there is a fine (for lack of a better term) if he does opt out. And there is no cap on unguaranteed contracts. And there must be an escrow account to cover career ending injuries. That both the owner and player pay into.

This is a vague interpretation but I think it covers the concerns of both sides.

That would be akin to the NFL system where the players are treated cattle and once they show any sign of not being able to perform, they are cut with no penalty. But let him hold out for more money based on his production and then he is painted as greedy.

Perfect example is Matt Forte. No explanation needed.

 

[97Bulls]

That would be akin to the NFL system where the players are treated cattle and once they show any sign of not being able to perform, they are cut with no penalty. But let him hold out for more money based on his production and then he is painted as greedy.

Perfect example is Matt Forte. No explanation needed.

This isn't neccesarily true. Notice I said the player has the option after the second year year to re-up or get out of his contract. This is based on his performance. The team has the option after the first. And I like the rookie scale. It should stay intact.

 

[Diddy1122]

Oh Derrick

It's great that he is recognizing he's a face of the NBA, but dude really needs to stick to what he knows best. Ball in hoop=Good.

 

[shenglu]

I think most of the team, rookie scale provides a real good thing. Just from a common point of view, if you are a ridiculous money to pay the draft bust.