View Single Post
11-24-2012, 03:30 PM
Registered User
SJeasy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I just don't see why you have to limit contracts to 5 years. Teams will know about the added insurance costs and will have to weight that against the benefit of signing that player to a longer term. Players will continue to sacrifice some money per for longterm security. I don't see a huge problem with that.

People are pointing out that the NBA already has that cap, how has that helped them? It looks to me like a lot of their current issues with stars moving teams and the lack of competitive balance stem from this.
You need to incorporate the cost to all entities, owners and players, of spending money that neither will access. I am trying to get you to incorporate that into your cost/benefit analysis. It isn't just teams paying it. Ultimately the players will pay for it as it will make owners less inclined to strike a deal for higher pay knowing that they have to pay out higher insurance costs. Less money in the pool to pay wages. Then you have to add the analysis done on the effects of contract inflation. For some players, going five years at a time will net a higher total dollar value on contracts than signing a single ten year deal.

It is not a simple answer or analysis.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote