The Longest Contract in NBA History - Tool or Joke?

by warriorsvictim on Mar 23, 2009 12:19 PM PDT

In 1981 Magic Johnson was awarded a 25 year contract worth $1 Million per year by the Lakers. As far as I know this still stands as the longest contract ever signed in the NBA.

Looking at that in today's terms, that is only $1 million applied to your cap space per year while guaranteeing one of the best players ever will play for your team forever and your team will have cap room for other high profile/high impact players. That player should be happy because he is getting a ton of money, he just has to wait for it to accumulate over a longer period of time.

Considering that NBA money is guaranteed unlike NFL, why hasnt this tactic been used more often? I doubt anyone here is a collective bargaining agreement expert, but I wouldnt expect there to be any language barring this type of contract.

A player like LeBron who is going to make a ton of money off endorsements now shouldnt have any problem taking a long view approach to his NBA contract in order to make sure he gets A)in the city he wants, B)with the coach he wants, C)with the ownership he wants, and D)other players around him.

Considering the current situation, the Warriors should use a tactic like this to go after a series of players available in 2010 and just pay them for a really long time. If you arent paying them too much in any given year the team would not have to worry about Cap restrictions down the line (like the 49ers) and any negative financial fallout from a long contract would be well overshadowed by the legacy the team builds during the prime playing years of the team.

Imagine if the Warriors went after two amazing players who agreed to take long contracts like Magic....They would likely win multiple championships, entice other players to want to be here, and when they moved on a new crop of great players would be in place. The ownership would have to make a lot of good decisions as time passed to ensure they dont screw things up (something our current front office is likely to do) but it doesnt seem impossible.

So hoops experts, any idea why this doesnt happen or wouldnt work?

This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!

Tweet Comment 26 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

By The Way

The Lakers won the finals 4 times during the Magic era while losing 4 times.
8 visits to the finals in 12 years!

by warriorsvictim on Mar 23, 2009 12:20 PM PDT reply actions

Ummm...

The NBA salary cap started in 1984 and was $3.6M. Giving Magic $1M then is like giving KG $18M now. Doing it for 25 years is ridiculous… though factoring in inflation, it’ll be a much lower salary 25 years from now.

So, basically you’re advocating hiring LBJ for $18M/year for 25 years even though he’ll only be able to play another 10 at best. Great plan, even ignoring the fact that the CBA restricts contract lengths. If you sign a free agent, he can only sign for 5 years. If you’re extending your own player, you can only extend for 6 years from the date on which he signs.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 23, 2009 12:44 PM PDT reply actions

jesus... 3.6 mil cap?!

now the cap is 58 mil…. a 16,100% increase…. if we had that increase in another 25 years the cap would be 934.4 mil. I dont see that happening

by tafkasam on Mar 23, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions

you unerestimate our country, sir!

in another 25 years this country is going to be one giant montana: a bunch of unemployed, backwards rednecks wandering a baren wasteland…

introducing the teensey-tiniest, itty-bitty backcourt in nba history: monta ellis and brandon jennings! 80-win season here we come!

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Mar 23, 2009 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions

Why is everyone so doom and gloom about the economy?

There was this thing called the Great Depression after WWI. We recovered from that. There was around 25% national unemployment. Now its something like 8%. Not even close. Everyone needs to quit their bitching and realize something. We are the United States of America. We are the ONLY superpower. We’ll be fine.

by Calamity on Mar 23, 2009 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions

We’ll be fine.

And if not mother nature wins anyway. Drop the notion that people are the center of the universe and everything looks rosy. There’s no depression for rocks and energy, they just spin on in their own little world. However from a people point of view remember that there were a leck of a lot less of us in 1929 and a lot more low hanging resources to pick from. One way or other we’re gonna have population control , I just hope it is by human plan and design and not by the laws of nature.

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 24, 2009 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: One way or other we’re gonna have population control , I just hope it is by human plan and design and not by the laws of nature.

You sure about that? Population control by human plan? If that were the case, they’d probably base it on “Survival of the Fittest” and being that we’re Warriors fans, we’d be the first to go! Now that’s my opinion based on how the league treats and perceives our team.

Then again, I’d rather be able to fend for myself against human attack, then by the laws of nature! That movie 2012 looks insane!

Geeez Louf*ckingweeez!!!

by scottiepimppen on Mar 24, 2009 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions

Easy now

Ever been to Montana? No, I didn’t think so.

by Jeffo on Mar 25, 2009 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions

Yeah ,it's got trees

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 25, 2009 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions

lebron 10 years max???..

unless he gets microfracture surgery gone wrong, dude will be playing til 38 at least. what is he 23??

by IndubitableBayAreaGM on Mar 23, 2009 8:45 PM PDT up reply actions

Meh

Give him 15 years then. He’s 24, by the way. That’s still 10 years you’re paying the guy when he’s not on the roster.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 24, 2009 8:40 AM PDT up reply actions

It's only 12% increase every year

With inflation and the expansion of sports as an entertainment industry, I’m not even remotely surprised. As for it continuing at that rate, it’s not likely to happen. Though, in 25 years, I’m sure the cap will be at least $400M. But then, minimum wage is likely to be ~$20/hr in 2035.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 23, 2009 1:39 PM PDT reply actions

I doubt anyone here is a collective bargaining agreement expert, but I wouldnt expect there to be any language barring this type of contract.

I don’t know what you would consider to mean “expertise” but I suspect my understanding is better than most. There is language in the CBA that prohibits such a deal. There’s language that prohibits quite a bit that you might not expect to be prohibited.

So hoops experts, any idea why this doesnt happen or wouldnt work?

Contracts in excess of 6 years are no longer permitted. It is not possible to give someone a 25 year contract anymore. That sort of deal isn’t valid.

by jae on Mar 23, 2009 1:41 PM PDT reply actions

It is not possible to give someone a 25 year contract anymore. That sort of deal isn’t valid.

What about a 6 year deal with a non playing personal services contract on the side? Wouldn’t matter to the guy where his real money came from. After 6 years re-sign him to another NBA contract?

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 23, 2009 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions

Well...

The NBA doesn’t like teams “working around” the CBA. I’m sure if you tried something like this they wouldn’t allow it. There would probably be repercussions too. It would be no different than saying to a guy “Well we know you are looking for 18mil a year but we only have 8mil in cap space. How about we pay you 8mil to play basketball and 10 mil/yr to taste test the hot dogs at the arena?”

I can see Stern stripping a decade of draft picks for something like that.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Mar 23, 2009 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions

Anything beyond player compensation (like play for 6 years and we’ll give you a lifetime job @ $10mil per to be a ‘gravity inspector’) is not legal. The position of “player-coach” was eliminated to avoid that sort of deal when someone is playing and the CBA does specifically say that things to get around the cap can be tossed even if not expressly forbidden (a ‘if you’re too clever, we’ll just nullify it" clause). There’s even a clause about how contracts for guys over 36 cannot be as long because it’s known that they could retire, effectively spreading the cap hit over years when the player wasn’t planning on being on the roster. Signing guys in perpetuity who were past retirement would almost certainly be voided with penalties attached to the team possible as well.

by jae on Mar 23, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions

The position of "player-coach" was eliminated to avoid that sort of deal

I didn’t realize that. I wondered why that never happens anymore. It seems like it wasn’t all that uncommon in the earlier days of the league.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Mar 23, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions

Anything beyond player compensation is not legal.

Isn’t that kinda meddling with privacy and labor law? It doesn’t seem reasonable that the NBA could control someones personal life? Maybe a player needs to test it in court? Sorta a basketball version of Curt Flood.

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 23, 2009 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions

There’s a contract, a collectively bargained contract bargained and agreed to by both parties. Compensation beyond the terms of the contract is in violation of this contract. A team and a player cannot enter into an agreement towards future compensation as a way of circumventing the contract.

The issue with Curt Flood isn’t really applicable. Baseball was not operating under a mutually agreed upon collective bargaining agreement. Basketball is. This contract was not forced upon players any more than it was forced upon ownership.

by jae on Mar 23, 2009 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions

The issue with Curt Flood isn’t really applicable

I was just using him as an example of a player who din’t like the status quo so he took them to court. If Magic couldn’t get his 25 year deal these days maybe he’d do it?

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 23, 2009 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions

JAE how do know the things you know

i dont know where we’d be without you

no homo

by scwarrior24 on Mar 23, 2009 10:13 PM PDT up reply actions

Good knowledge team

As far as testing that in court…union contracts tend to take precedence over the law in a given state, so I have a feeling it would stand up.

I also have a feeling that not only would Stern go after a team for trying to work around the CBA guidelines, but the union would have a problem with it too. Other players would be at a disadvantage if one player was given some special deal. You would be attacked from all sides.

by warriorsvictim on Mar 23, 2009 4:08 PM PDT reply actions

Further thoughts on the subject

So I guess what you are left with is trying to have the best possible:
-ownership
-coaching staff
-roster management
…if you want to have a dominant team. The contract basically stopped any ways to cheat this by paying someone a crazy amount of money.

I keep hoping there is a way around it, but it looks like we are stuck in this rut until we get a new owner. If you dont get the ownership right, nothing will ever be correct below that in the chain of command.

Damn, I dont want the Warriors to suck for another 15 years

by warriorsvictim on Mar 23, 2009 4:11 PM PDT reply actions

Damn, I dont want the Warriors to suck for another 15 years

As sad as it is to say, I have a feeling it’ll be wayyyyyyyy longer than that…although I pray and hope everyday that Cohan will SELL SELL SELL, but I doubt it…

WARRIORS BASKETBALL!!! Patiently waiting for a title...I may be waiting for a long time...

by JustSomeName on Mar 23, 2009 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions

Can't do it because

The current bargaining agreement set a limit to how many years a team give any single player. I think that max is 6 years per contract if i’m not mistaken.

by spacedout on Mar 23, 2009 5:46 PM PDT reply actions