In the past players could sign contracts for 10+ years. What would be the greatest and the most disastrous contracts if that were always allowed?

  • referee-superfan@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’d see players that go crazy for a season probably take like 6-7 year contracts. The opposite of betting on themselves.

  • RROORRYY@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think we might see something like in MLB, Giannis getting 10 years 700m contract

  • HotspurJr@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    So back when you could make a legal longer contract, teams offered the max.

    Generally the guys who were offered the max were the guys one step down from being truly worth it. Someone like David Lee, with his Warriors contract. When he signed it, I mean, okay, maybe he wasn’t really worth it, but no-one in their right mind would have said “we want this guy for 7 years at this price.”

    But deals like Beal’s or Westbrook’s or Wall’s - even if it’s a bad idea, not offering the max length was seen as “we don’t really mean it.”

    It was ownership who was arguing for shorter and shorter contracts until recently. They clearly benefitted players.

    In an era of rapidly rising cap and player empowerment, there’s more incentive for players to take shorter deals, especially at the very top. You can be KD, and even an injury isn’t going to stop you from getting a max deal.

  • BlazeMan1993THC@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    4 year guaranteed contracts are truly the best. Not even 5 years or 6. 4 is the sweet spot for both the organization and the player.