Good basic article on shorter contracts being good for the NBA

[coachx]

http://basketball.realgm.com/blog/214747/Joe_Johnson_Childress_And_The_Plight_Of_Long_Term_Contracts

[Diesel]

http://basketball.realgm.com/blog/214747/Joe_Johnson_Childress_And_The_Plight_Of_Long_Term_Contracts

I disagree.

Long contracts help the game more than it hurts the game. Here's why. Your larger market big budget teams will be able to build super teams because they will not be bogged down by a certain player who they may like but may not want. Just think if NY had the ability to have gotten rid of their long term deals and go after Bron when they wanted to. They would have built that super team a long time ago. Right now, all the right cogs have to be in place and a lot of planning has to be done for a team to go from being a bad team to a super team. Teams have to strategize to get rid of contracts. They have to find takers. Sometimes, small market teams get good players virtually free. You make guaranteed contracts smaller and you will have more free agents moving to large market, large budget teams. Basketball is not football. In football a player can barely take his helmet off. It's hard for a player to become a marketing sensation. In basketball, it's very easy. KD was a star before he played one game of basketball. Every player thinks about playing on a larger stage to get more money. You give short contracts and you can expect the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.

The other part of that is that small market teams have some protection on their stars and they have a window to build something. A team needs that window. A lottery team gets a guy like Dwight Howard. If the longest they can sign him for is 3 yrs max... then they can expect to lose in him 3 yrs. They won't have the time to build anything resembling success around him in that time.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Diesel

[coachx]

I disagree.

Long contracts help the game more than it hurts the game. Here's why. Your larger market big budget teams will be able to build super teams because they will not be bogged down by a certain player who they may like but may not want. Just think if NY had the ability to have gotten rid of their long term deals and go after Bron when they wanted to. They would have built that super team a long time ago. Right now, all the right cogs have to be in place and a lot of planning has to be done for a team to go from being a bad team to a super team. Teams have to strategize to get rid of contracts. They have to find takers. Sometimes, small market teams get good players virtually free. You make guaranteed contracts smaller and you will have more free agents moving to large market, large budget teams. Basketball is not football. In football a player can barely take his helmet off. It's hard for a player to become a marketing sensation. In basketball, it's very easy. KD was a star before he played one game of basketball. Every player thinks about playing on a larger stage to get more money. You give short contracts and you can expect the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.

I can't really remember the Celtics, Lakers, Spurs, or Heat being bogged down with unwanted contracts that held them back.

When I think of huge long contracts that were a burden to their franchise I think: (Alan Houston and Eddie Curry with the Knicks, Penny Hardaway & Grant Hill in their Magic days, Redd with the Bucks, G. Arenas with the Wizards, T. McGrady and Y. Ming with the Rockets.) B. Roy may soon in that boat with these guys.

Most on this list become poor contracts after a significant injury that could have happened to any one. If an NBA team has an allstar player with a career threatening injury there should be some salary cap relief in some form or another........more relief then signing a minimum salaried player to fill their franchise player's shoes.

On your NY Knicks / Lebron analogy. With no luxury tax and a hard cap there would be measures that prevent teams from forming "super teams" like the Heat have done. In fact it will force the Heat to trade one of their big 3 for a shorter contract if this plays out the way the owners want with more of a hard cap with fewer expections to exceed it.

The other part of that is that small market teams have some protection on their stars and they have a window to build something. A team needs that window. A lottery team gets a guy like Dwight Howard. If the longest they can sign him for is 3 yrs max... then they can expect to lose in him 3 yrs. They won't have the time to build anything resembling success around him in that time.

I did not read anything indicating that players would become unrestriced free agents after their rookie contracts. That is what you seem to imply with you Howard analogy.

The only difference I see in this regard is that a players max length of their 2nd contract would go from 5 years to 4 years. For the 3rd contract (when a 1st round pick become an unrestricted free agent) it would be a 2 year difference. 6 year max contract length would go down to a 4 year max.

Rookie contract (3 to 4 years for 1st round picks) + 2nd contract ( 4 year max) = 7 or 8 seasons for a franchise to build around any player they draft.

Edited July 18, 2011 by coachx

[dlpin]

I can't really remember the Celtics, Lakers, Spurs, or Heat being bogged down with unwanted contracts that held them back.

When I think of huge long contracts that were a burden to their franchise I think: (Alan Houston and Eddie Curry with the Knicks, Penny Hardaway & Grant Hill in their Magic days, Redd with the Bucks, G. Arenas with the Wizards, T. McGrady and Y. Ming with the Rockets.) B. Roy may soon in that boat with these guys.

Most on this list become poor contracts after a significant injury that could have happened to any one. If an NBA team has an allstar player with a career threatening injury there should be some salary cap relief in some form or another........more relief then signing a minimum salaried player to fill their franchise player's shoes.

On your NY Knicks / Lebron analogy. With no luxury tax and a hard cap there would be measures that prevent teams from forming "super teams" like the Heat have done. In fact it will force the Heat to trade one of their big 3 for a shorter contract if this plays out the way the owners want with more of a hard cap with fewer expections to exceed it.

I did not read anything indicating that players would become unrestriced free agents after their rookie contracts. That is what you seem to imply with you Howard analogy.

The only difference I see in this regard is that a players max length of their 2nd contract would go from 5 years to 4 years. For the 3rd contract (when a 1st round pick become an unrestricted free agent) it would be a 2 year difference. 6 year max contract length would go down to a 4 year max.

Rookie contract (3 to 4 years for 1st round picks) + 2nd contract ( 4 year max) = 7 or 8 seasons for a franchise to build around any player they draft.

not to get into this argument, but at least the celtics got bogged down with long contracts that hurt them. First, the league didn't allow Reggie Lewis' contract to come off the books after his death. So as late as 1995 the celtics were still with his contract in the books (his was the largest contract on the celtics team when Nique signed with the celtics in 94, and one of the reasons Nique left was that the celtics couldnt offer more money or get other FAs due to Lewis' contract still being on the books). Then Rick Pitino killed the celtics with long term deals to Andrew Declerq, Travis Knight and Pervis Ellison. Finally, the celtics eventually got bogged down with the massive contracts of Raef Lafrentz, Vin Baker, and later Theo Ratfliff. Though it must be said that Theo Ratliff's contract came in handy when the Wolves needed a big expiring deal.

But yes, there is a reason the celtics' biggest free agent signing of all time is a one year rental of a 34 year old Dominique WIlkins.