I get that players want to make the most money they possibly can, and in sports free agency lets you do that, but NBA basketball is weird that way, because teams have hard salary caps, big name players like LeBron don't necessarily make more money when they play for different teams.
On the Heat this year LeBron actually made LESS money than a lot of other players. I remember reading somewhere that his salary this season is less than Joe Mauer's Twins contract. Those two contracts are close either way.
And that got me thinking, should players be ALLOWED to switch teams IF their current team can match their new team's new contract?
In other words, should someone like Kevin Love be allowed to leave the Wolves if Minnesota could match the contract offer of any other team?
Free agency came about (the Curt Flood case in baseball) to give players economic leverage to earn the most their skills would allow. It's done that. BUT what about a team or a fan's right to build a winner over time?
Free agency now lets players actually determine which teams will be the champions (as demonstrated by the Heat's Big Three) and THAT is just as bad as rich teams always getting to be the winners.
My proposal in the NBA? IF a team agrees to match their current player's new contract with another team, the old team will retain the services of that player. It's a right of first refusal that the original team should always have.
It forces players to be loyal to their current team instead of always allowing them to think of greener pastures that may or may not be elsewhere.
It's best for fans, it's best for teams. and it still gives players the economic advantage and leverage they deserve and fought for.
It's what's best for business.
No comments:
Post a Comment