Yeah, I disagree pretty solidly. A contract should be (a) negotiated before being signed, and (b) binding afterwards unless there is some kind of unusual or unexpected circumstance.
Again, fine, teams should be held to the same standard. If it's binding, then a player shouldn't be allowed to be traded without their consent. Do you agree?
If you don't want to be traded, negotiate a no-trade clause (or at least a trade kicker) or sign shorter contracts.
No trade clauses have stipulations: eight years experience and four years with the same team (doesn't have to be consecutive). Anthony Davis was ineligible. More importantly, no trade clauses are extremely rare. Steph Curry wasn't even able to negotiate a no trade clause or an option on his final year. Yes,
that Steph Curry.
Getting traded against your will might earn some sympathy, but a superstar who simply decides not to honor a massive contract with the team that originally signed him, and then forcing his way out like what happened with Davis only makes NBA players look bad.
Getting a trade demand against your will might earn some sympathy, but a team that simply decides not to honor a
massive contract with a player who originally wanted to sign, and then forcing him out like what happened with [Demar Derozan, Blake Griffin, Chris Paul etc. etc.) only makes NBA teams look bad.
There are certainly some unfair and unreasonable things that players have to ensure, but this specific situation with Davis is clearly not one of them.
Why not? Kerr said, "When you sign on that dotted line, you owe your effort and your play to that team, to that city, to the fans." What does a team owe the player, city, and fans? Davis originally wanted to be in New Orleans; the Pelicans failed to build a winning team around him
for seven years. He got tired of it. Davis could have played out his contract and left the Pelicans with nothing. Then, owners and people like Kerr who forgot they used to be players would complain about that. Instead, Davis got to the team he wanted to play for, the Lakers got the player they wanted, and the Pelicans got young players and draft assets. Both the Lakers and Pelicans are going to be good next year. How is that not good for the NBA? (And yes, it sucks for Ingram, Ball, and Hart because they didn't choose to be traded)
It's so weird that y'all are dunking on players while giving teams a pass. You're a Raptors fan. Demar Derozan thought about going home to California then
chose to stay in Toronto, and the Raptors rightly upgraded to Kawhi Leonard
and Danny Green. If it's fair for a team not to honor a contract, it should be fair for a player as well.