Originally Posted by West Coast NBA Fan
I'm saying 2 guys don't get anything. Unlike the last cba where the player not only got paid but got to go to the situation of his choice. That was lame. This cba is trying to make the large markets and players cut back while helping the small market. That rule did the opposite. Big market team got cap relief while the small market got less of a tax kickback.
With my idea, we're only talking 2 players over the course of a 10 year cba having their 3 year out clause exercised. When looking at the history of NBA payrolls, it's usually just 1 or 2 deals that really screw over a team so I'm allowing the owners to get out from those mistakes but they'll have to live up to the rest of the deals they sign on to.
i hear what you are getting at, but it seems grossly unfair to the player. he signed a deal, and the team gets to just opt out of their obligation? that seems odd. it might be more fair if a player or two, over the course of the cba, gets to opt out of their deal if they sign cheap but end up developing into a star. it has to go both ways. but in that case it would just make more sense to have short deals all around.
i dunno, imo, if you enter into a contract with someone you owe it to them to live up to your half of the deal. if it turns out you made a bad deal, that should be your responsibility to manage. otherwise you get a free pass for making stupid mistakes.