(09-18-2019, 06:47 AM)JackCity Wrote:

(09-18-2019, 06:24 AM)Rico Wrote: Yet they always insist on long-term term contracts.  Who's fault is that if it turns into a bad situation?

Well what do teams do when players no longer serve their purpose? They cut them or trade them, even if there's years left on the deal. 

So when a team no longer serves a player I don't have a problem with them seeking something else. And remember, only valuable players can pursue this method. Nobody will give a damn if a 3rd string guard demands a trade. It only matters if you've performed at a high level.

What do teams do with the signing bonus they paid to a player who doesn't(or cannot, in cases of injury) perform up to past performance? Do the players give a portion back? It's a two-way street.

The contract terms are known by all parties. The team pays a big portion early, as a bonus, that it can spread over the duration of the player's time with the team. The player gets a hefty check right away, and should be able to tell by the structure of the salary, how likely it is they see the end of that deal. Malik was very candid about this, last year. He saw the writing on the wall, and I promise that the money he got at signing softened the blow of that reality.

If you're a third-string guard and demand a trade, I'm sure the team will entertain offers. I don't know how many GMs have ham sandwiches they can spare, though, so that guy is likely just getting released. He's getting what he wants, out of current place, but he is facing an uphill battle of finding another team to sign him, and cut someone in whom they've already invested time and money.

---