Byron Scott advocates nonguarenteed contracts

[coloradosun]

Nice to hear a coach advocate such a concept. I think a lot of the players from the 80's are feed up with the performance of the new generation of "ballers". The players of the 80's are now the coaches of the 00's and are having a hard time accepting the money that these "pampered" players are making. This would obviously give the coach more authority over their teams and make the players accountable for their performance just like the NFL.

I think this would be a great thing for the league to enhance the quality of play on the court.

 

[SweetD]

I would so be down for that. But you get alot more players demanding trades and it could get real ugly. The PA will never agree to this one.

 

[George O'Brien]

I would so be down for that. But you get alot more players demanding trades and it could get real ugly. The PA will never agree to this one.

I expect the number of years being guaranteed will be reduced to 4 from the current six or seven. This will lead to some players getting more per year than before and top performers making a lot more over their careers. But injury prone guys will lose out.

 

[F-Dog]

I bet every coach in the league would be for non-guaranteed contracts--for players, that is. Coaches want to be dictators, and big guaranteed contracts are emasculating for them.


Now, if Byron Scott was advocating non-guaranteed contracts for coaches, I'd be impressed.

 

[Lars the Red]

I bet every coach in the league would be for non-guaranteed contracts--for players, that is. Coaches want to be dictators, and big guaranteed contracts are emasculating for them.


Now, if Byron Scott was advocating non-guaranteed contracts for coaches, I'd be impressed.

Hell, coaches just want to be able to be coaches. Simply put:
-they want to be able to put the best group of players on the floor at any given time, regardless of salaries or endorsements.

-they want to be able to discipline players that lack motivation to improve their games, or work as a unit with the rest of the team.

-they want to be able to explain the lapses offensively or defensively to players without having them walk off, throw towels in their faces, throw punches, grab their throats, or demand they be fired.

I guess that's being a dictator in some peoples mind.

 

[George O'Brien]

Some coaches have more authority than others. In the case of Mo Cheeks, he had a GM telling him to play SAR at SF even though that's not a good position for him just to showcase him - and still doesn't trade him. This is even though Cheeks has had some success over the past few years.

 

[F-Dog]

Hell, coaches just want to be able to be coaches. Simply put:
-they want to be able to put the best group of players on the floor at any given time, regardless of salaries or endorsements.

-they want to be able to discipline players that lack motivation to improve their games, or work as a unit with the rest of the team.

-they want to be able to explain the lapses offensively or defensively to players without having them walk off, throw towels in their faces, throw punches, grab their throats, or demand they be fired.

Byron Scott has every one of those things already. If that's all Byron Scott wants, what's he complaining about? And, why does his team suck?

Maybe it's because you left one item off your list:

--they want to have players who are talented enough to put their wonderful coaching to good use.


Do you know what it means when people say the NBA is a "player's league"? It means that good players are the difference between winning and losing. There's no rule that states that a team has to cater to its players, or offer fully guaranteed contracts. Most teams do things that way of their own volition, because that's the method that has been proven to be successful.

If coaches don't like it, they can go coach somewhere else. Nobody in New Orleans is going to miss Byron Scott when his ass finally hits that door.

 

[Lars the Red]

Byron Scott has every one of those things already. If that's all Byron Scott wants, what's he complaining about? And, why does his team suck?

Maybe it's because you left one item off your list:

--they want to have players who are talented enough to put their wonderful coaching to good use.


Do you know what it means when people say the NBA is a "player's league"? It means that good players are the difference between winning and losing. There's no rule that states that a team has to cater to its players, or offer fully guaranteed contracts. Most teams do things that way of their own volition, because that's the method that has been proven to be successful.

If coaches don't like it, they can go coach somewhere else. Nobody in New Orleans is going to miss Byron Scott when his ass finally hits that door.

Oh please! You can't be that naive to really believe that coaches have all that authority. One other thing that you brought up is talent. I many circles the Blazers were considered a wealth of talent over the last several years, only to implode from a team standpoint. Why? Because they played like selfish individuals. If a coach had the ability to discipline pricks like that, he could either create a cohesive unit or force the problem children out. With the contracts completely favoring the players, he can't do his job.

The only guys that I find so supportive of the players are the one's that either never played much in a quality team situation, or have a serious case of hero worship with the modern players. I have always advocated the idea of some type of strict 'attitude clause' in a players contract, basically giving a team the ability to hack a player loose if he refuses to act like a quality team player. Organizations aren't going to be using it constantly to gut themselves of minor distractions, but you at least allow teams not to be held financially hostage by selfish pricks that know they have a lifetime of cash sitting in the bank and can't be forced to change their ways.

Oh, and your comment about 'players league' is a clear indication of the downfall of the league. No one player has ever been larger than the league. The comic display, and subsequent scorn of the world and American people toward the NBA 'superstars' that got exposed in the Olympics shows how the masses find the NBA lacking in substance. Until we get a handle on the enormous egoed and minimally skilled players that populate the league, we will continue to see the erosion of skills and dominance that once was the norm for the US in basketball.

 

[hafey2]

Lars, i think you are missing the point. The idea of non-gaureenteed contracts has much less with "disciplining" the players and much more to do with saving the owners money in the long-term.

 

[George O'Brien]

Lars, i think you are missing the point. The idea of non-gaureenteed contracts has much less with "disciplining" the players and much more to do with saving the owners money in the long-term.

I'm sure the owners would like to save money, but the cliche about it being easier to fire the coach than to fire the players is hardly irrelevant here. The sad truth is that when a team is playing badly is when the players most need to listen to their coach, but it is also the time when the coach loses authority because he is much more likely to be fired than the players.

The Suns have worked hard to get "character" guys on their team and it is paying off. The Blazers are a good example of team that failed in that area.

 

[carey]

= Nobody in New Orleans is going to miss Byron Scott when his ass finally hits that door.

Wrong. Take it from someone that lives here. The problems with the Hornets are as follows: 1. Owner who doesn't want to spend money. 2. Tons of injuries this season to their best players. and 3. Baron Davis is a baby.

 

[F-Dog]

Oh please! You can't be that naive to really believe that coaches have all that authority.

I didn't say that "coaches" have all that authority. I said "Byron Scott" has that authority. There isn't a single player on his team right now that he can't discipline or bury whenever he feels like it.

One other thing that you brought up is talent. I many circles the Blazers were considered a wealth of talent over the last several years, only to implode from a team standpoint. Why? Because they played like selfish individuals. If a coach had the ability to discipline pricks like that, he could either create a cohesive unit or force the problem children out. With the contracts completely favoring the players, he can't do his job.

Obviously, talent isn't the only thing teams need to win (although the Blazers don't have nearly as much of it as they used to). However, you're not going to win without talent.

Every other team in the league has the same contract structure that the Blazers have, and yet many of them have no problem playing team basketball. Perhaps guaranteed contracts aren't the real problem in Portland.

The only guys that I find so supportive of the players are the one's that either never played much in a quality team situation, or have a serious case of hero worship with the modern players.

Well, now you know somebody who's different.

I have always advocated the idea of some type of strict 'attitude clause' in a players contract, basically giving a team the ability to hack a player loose if he refuses to act like a quality team player. Organizations aren't going to be using it constantly to gut themselves of minor distractions, but you at least allow teams not to be held financially hostage by selfish pricks that know they have a lifetime of cash sitting in the bank and can't be forced to change their ways.

Teams already have the ability to "not be held financially hostage by selfish pricks". They can not sign these players in the first place. Nobody is preventing teams from inserting "attitude clauses" in the contracts they offer, either.

I don't see any reason the league needs to step in and protect bad teams from their own incompetence. They can lie in the beds they made, and act as examples for others to avoid.

Oh, and your comment about 'players league' is a clear indication of the downfall of the league. No one player has ever been larger than the league. The comic display, and subsequent scorn of the world and American people toward the NBA 'superstars' that got exposed in the Olympics shows how the masses find the NBA lacking in substance. Until we get a handle on the enormous egoed and minimally skilled players that populate the league, we will continue to see the erosion of skills and dominance that once was the norm for the US in basketball.

Let me guess, the FIBA leagues in Europe will soon dominate. After all, they don't have any guaranteed contracts in those leagues...

 

[F-Dog]

Wrong. Take it from someone that lives here. The problems with the Hornets are as follows: 1. Owner who doesn't want to spend money. 2. Tons of injuries this season to their best players. and 3. Baron Davis is a baby.

I didn't say that Byron Scott was the problem with the Hornets. I said that nobody will miss him when he gets canned.

I seem to be having a problem with communication in this thread...

 

[Lars the Red]

Lars, i think you are missing the point. The idea of non-gaureenteed contracts has much less with "disciplining" the players and much more to do with saving the owners money in the long-term.

The point is if you have a player at this time that is a problem, your basically stuck with him, unless you choose to take a bath on a trade. If you could cut them loose without financial implications, you could better control the behavior issues. Why behave if financially you don't have incentive to?

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Teams already have the ability to "not be held financially hostage by selfish pricks". They can not sign these players in the first place. Nobody is preventing teams from inserting "attitude clauses" in the contracts they offer, either.

Often times attitudes come into play long after a contract is signed. Several players have slacked off once they get the big money. Some times you can see it coming, some times you can't.

And I am pretty sure that they cannot insert an "attitude" clause. It is was to subjective, the NBAPA would never allow it to go in. In fact, most NBA contracts don't contain strict moral clauses. The only way contracts can get terminated due to behavior are felony convictions (usually would have to result in jail time though), and drug ordeals.

What they can do is suspend players without pay for poor attitudes.