The CBA doesn't guarantee contracts.  Precedence does.  The only contracts that the CBA forces to be guaranteed at all are rookie scale contracts and those are so loaded with team options in the later years that they are actually the least guaranteed contracts in the NBA.

   As you have noticed a lot of teams get saddled with contracts that don't seem to align well with the ability of the player or the contribution of the player. But I don't think non-guaranteed contracts would be an answer. Not only because I don't think The Players Union or the Players would agree. It's not an answer because of the physical and transitory nature and risk of being a professional basketball player.

   When a player is up for a new contract as an unrestricted, that player and his agent usually look for the best situation for that player. That most often translates into that player looking for the most money for the most number of years that the player can get. Why shouldn't it be that way? In every example you site the original team AGREED to the contract. Plus even if the player was traded the team recieving the player knew about the contract in place. Franchises are not forced to give these players the contracts they get. Nor even in a potential trade is anyone forcing them to accept. It's an agreement.

  I argue that it's an agreement that is fair. Darius Miles is a good example. We signed him to a contract that in retrospect was far too much, for far too long. But only in retrospect. At the time The Blazers signed him to a contract they thought was representitive of fair market value for a player that was at the time showing the potential and talent that Miles was demonstrating. If it was a bad evaluation by Blazer management, too bad. Part of running a franchise.

  Do I blame players like Miles for looking for those contracts? No. Miles is a good example because look at what happened. I'm sure that at the time Miles signed the contract with The Blazers he thought he'd be playing basketball throughout the contract. His knees broke down. You sign the biggest contract you can get to guard against this type of unfortunate reality. Because as a pro-player given the physical nature of play, you never really know when your last play on the court might be.

  It balances out. I think players need the guaranteed contract because for them as players there is no guarantee of tomorrow.

  I also think there already has been an adjustment. Teams that have been burned by huge and lengthy contracts are no longer signing players to such large and long contracts. With exceptions to the elite I see more contracts being for shorter periods of time.

   My bottom line is it's a binding agreement, and not one that an agent or player can force a team into, franchises agree to them of their own free will, using whatever logic and evaluation they think makes sense. If time and unforeseen circumsance reveal they made an error, then too bad.

   Let the Buyer Beware.  

the owners make more.

Guaranteed contracts are simply a matter of respect.  Would you go to work for someone that said when they hired you: "We are not making any commitment to you. We will fire at any time for any reason and there won't be anything you can do. Good luck finding another job"? No!

Do you want a league like Football where noone cares about their team, are only out for themselves, and will ALWAYS jump for more money every time? That's because those contracts aren't guaranteed. Imagine what the NBA would have been like if the Blazers had simply cut Clyde Drexler when he started getting older. Would you have liked that?

Non-guaranteed contracts are the only thing the makes the NBA watchable.