Originally Posted by West Coast NBA Fan
In the old cba, teams could only do it once and it had to be done the very first year. Therefore, lots of teams took advantage of it knowing that they would never be able to do it again over the life of the cba.
The problem with that rule was that the player still got paid. The only benefit was to teams who would be paying the luxury tax. The salary of the waived player would not count against the team's lux tax payment but they would still be paying the player on it's regular payroll.
Another problem is that the small market teams that bank on luxury tax windfall payments would now be getting less due to tax payers now kicking in less money as a result of the rule. The whole point of this current lockout is to get small market, low revenue teams on an equal level of the larger market teams but that rule just gave them less money.
If I had it my way, teams would be able to terminate TWO guaranteed contracts over the course of a 10 year cba. The player's deal would not only be eliminated from the lux tax but be eliminated from the entire payroll altogether. That's not a huge dent to the players and they may even go for it when you consider that the 2 contracts being terminated would most likely be overpaid jakes that shouldn't have gotten the contract in the first place and even more importantly, his outgoing salary would create more cap space for free agents, money that woudn't have been available without the contract termination in the first place.
I absolutely disagree on the termination of contracts.... A player could have legitimately gotten injured, and you're going to try and take away that money he was given? Contracts are in place to avoid such arbitrary power.
Freeing a team of that cap pressure is one thing, but contracts still need to be lived up to.....