data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9a5de/9a5de14654e6c5e4879e2ef955bdb1ed8f4940ae" alt=""
The question is whether that is good or bad for the game. The other major sports have contracts that will be paid out whether or not the player even suits up for that particular team. If they sign for $100 Million they will get every dime of the $100 Million. It doesn't matter about injury, illness, unproductiveness, or insubordination. The player will receive all of their money unless they have stipulations in their contract for specific instances. I believe that it is good for the game to have non-guaranteed contracts because it forces the player to uphold their end of the bargain. If a player wants to collect their money then they should also have to produce enough to collect that money. This way the owners are protected from players being busts or failing to live up to expectations.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/063d0/063d0ebb8c62b6c011d0a90791ea60e76b09f08d" alt=""
Without guaranteed contracts it prevents people from pulling a "Derek Rose". Derek rose has been out for the entire NBA season with a torn ACL that he suffered a year ago. He has been cleared 100% by team doctors to return to play but he has held himself back saying "he isn't mentally ready yet". This is absurd. He is sitting back and collecting pay checks for not producing and scoring a single point this year. With a non-guaranteed contract players would have to produce rather than sit out after being medically cleared to play. This is a protection of the owners investment.
No comments:
Post a Comment