|
Gives them enough time to build something around the player, and it makes an exit easy for everyone if it doesn't work out.
The financial incentives do not seem to work at all IMO. Players will sign their extension, and demand a trade right after.
So much of the rules are built to exercise as much control over player movement as possible, and whether or not the teams like it, it comes back to bite them in the ass time and again.
Relaxing that a bit would eliminate much of those headaches.
It doesn't do anything for the Ben Simmons' of the world, signing a deal and demanding a trade with four years left, and something like that is problematic for the stability of a team.
But if Blake Griffin can sign a deal with a team of his choosing, and get traded by mid season, I have no problems with a guy also being able to demand a trade within that same time frame.
If they can create punitive measures that would impact both the team, and the players, for doing things like that, on a relatively even scale, perhaps that's the way to go, if the goal is TRULY to create greater stability. But as far as I can tell, the biggest motive still seems to be about control.
The details are neither here nor there, because I'm not building a new CBA in the few minutes it takes to write this post.
The overarching point though, is I think a looser structure, with greater player freedom, would ultimately hurt teams less overall, and actually benefit them to some degree.
|