The Longterm Solution To All Of Our Problems
by YaHeard on Mar 22, 2011 7:07 PM PDT
Email
PrintTo my dear friends at GSoM and Warriors' employees (maybe?), I've come up with the longterm solution to all of our problems. It's really simple.
Eventually, it will help take care of all of our problems. It's not a short-term fix, it could take years. But it's a surefire way to make ourselves a respectable franchise once again. It only involves following one single, powerful idea...
STOP SIGNING BAD CONTRACTS!
That's it. That's all it takes. Everything else will take care of itself.
All of the bad things that have happened to our franchise are the result of these terrible, shackling contracts. There are widespread repercussions for every single bad contract we sign:
1. They prevent us from using large chunks of salary cap space to acquire better talent.
2. They drastically reduce the trade value of the player.
3. They prevent us from being under the salary cap which would allow us more flexibility in trade scenarios.
4. They have forced us to bring D-Leaguer after D-Leaguer up to the NBA in order to fill up our roster cheaply.
5. They force us to play that player heavy minutes to produce meaningless stats in order to somehow try to justify paying that terrible contract.
6. These heavy minutes going to overpaid veterans are taking away from minutes we should be giving to the youngsters especially when the season is already lost. We should be thinking of rookie contracts as "trial periods" where we give them maximum exposure when possible and the biggest evaluation sample size to see what they are worth for their next contract.
7. They force us into perpetual mediocrity by paying top dollar for only marginal veteran talent, which usually leaves us with a non-impact draft position annually.
Take a minute and think about this scenario: What is the absolute worst that could have happened if we never signed Monta, Lee, Biedrins, Maggette, Jackson to large contracts?
Maybe we don't re-sign Monta, Biedrins, and Jackson in 2008. Maybe we do have a terrible year in 2008. And then, maybe we do land Blake Griffin in the 2009 draft with $30M in salary cap space for Lebron, or Wade, or Bosh, or Deron Williams, or Carmelo. Would we really be worse off in the longterm?
When we don't cripple ourselves with poor contract decisions, our opportunities are limitless. What we're now trying to do every year is grasping at whatever mediocre talent we can afford today just for a long shot at the 8th seed. And when that doesn't work, we trade our bad contracts for other bad contracts and try to make the pieces fit that way. We need to stop thinking about the short term and focus on the longterm.
STOP SIGNING BAD CONTRACTS!
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!
76 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
100% agree
I think you have to be patient and try building through the draft… can’t rush it. Look where the draft got OKC. I know our draft history hasn’t been very good but I think you have to keep going back to it until you strike gold.
i disagree
the current iteration of the celtics are not a team built from the draft, at lest not exclusively. of the starters, i think only pierce was a boston draftee, the rest were acquired in trades.
what the draft potentially allows is an inexpensive way to strike gold with a player. duncan, ewing, jordan; all superstars as rookies, and each played most of their careers as the cornerstone for their respective clubs. once you have that one piece, then you build around them with other stars, and some solid role players. nearly every nba championship team, with the exception of the 2004 detroit pistons, has had a legit hall of famer on their roster, and in many cases two hof’ers. i don’t think we have that one outstanding player, yet. i think curry, with better coaching, has the potential to be a very good player, but i don’t think he’ll be a hof’er. the rest of the team…they should all be fodder for offseason trades.
by fuller over bryant on Mar 23, 2011 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Rondo, Perkins, Allen, and Garnett were all essentially acquired as Boston draft picks. Boston traded the 5th pick in the 2007 draft for Ray Allen (there was filler included but those were the main pieces). Al Jefferson was the centerpiece of the trade for Garnett, and he was an in house, drafted and developed young player for the Celtics. Rondo and Perkins were both traded for on draft day, which is basically drafting them. They might have “traded” for all of those guys, but they also essentially built through the draft.
by Missing Barry on Mar 23, 2011 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
maybe i need to clearer
i understand your point that rondo, perkins, allen, and garnett were all gotten via draft day trades. perhaps what i should have made clearer is that boston was not in the appropriate position to be able to originally acquire said players when they were themselves on the draft clock. for example, in 1996, when allen was drafted 5th overall by the then seattle supersonics, the celtics were drafting sixth and and used their pick to select antoine walker. that some years later the c’s were able to trade for allen on draft day is not the same as actually drafting him in 1996, which is my point. when the c’s were assembling their championship team, they didn’t do so exclusively through the draft, rather thy got creative and traded away some nice pieces on draft day.
by fuller over bryant on Mar 23, 2011 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think this has been one of the primary reasons why the Warriors have perpetually sucked
At any given time in their recent and not so recent history, the Warriors have had to try to perform with a crippled roster due to having a player (or players) who are remarkably overpaid. From Troy Murphy to Dunleavy to Jason Richardson (although I liked him a lot) to David Lee, Biedrins, Monta, Maggette. It’s like the organization wants to string the fans along and keep everyone feeling like things are going to change each time they give an average player a big contract but it’s been a recipe for disaster.
by Throw up the Dub on Mar 23, 2011 12:11 AM PDT reply actions
Yep, gotta agree. None of the guys you listed are the kind of guys that can carry a good team. They’re all complementary players. You don’t win with complementary players, you need to find really good players and then once you have them, that’s when you start acquiring the complementary guys. We have yet to find top caliber talent, and that we continue to pay a lot to complementary guys gets in the way of us doing that. It prevents us from having max money in free agency. It keeps us just a little too good to get a high enough draft pick to land a top guy. It’s a vicious cycle of mediocrity. Being mediocre gets you nowhere in the NBA.
by Missing Barry on Mar 23, 2011 6:49 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
the unfortunate truth.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
"He's chicken curry right now. He'll become beef curry a little later on."
-Keith Smart
The problem is that bad contracts aren't so easy to identify in advance.
Well, sometimes they are.
But as we’ve pointed out many times, Biedrins’ contract is reasonable if his game doesn’t fall off a cliff. I don’t know if Monta’s contract is reasonable if he continues being a very good efficient offensive player, but it’s possible.
The funny thing is, too, that some things invariably happen if a team doesn’t sign big contracts:
1) First, the fans revolt, calling the team “cheap.” Anybody who was around during the Gilbert Arenas fiasco will remember that – despite the fact that the team couldn’t resign him under the CBA rules at the time.
2) Second, you don’t have a decent core, so a top FA isn’t interested in signing with you.
The simple fact is that you have to spend money in order to improve, and some contracts (like Biedrins) end up backfiring.
That’s a big part of the reason the owners wanted shorter maximum contracts in the next CBA.
In a sense both biedrins and monta were bad contracts
Because no one was trying to sign them for near that amount. Look at Biedrins production pre-contract. Nothing indicated he was worth 54-62 million on the open market, considering Noah and Horford got 5 year 60 mil contracts after proving much more than Biedrins had at that point. Infact look at LMA, David west, Nene etc. These all point to Mullin overpaying Biedrins. While he produced at a level of 9 million per season his first year+, it’s clear Mullin showed no fiscal responsibility. He could have had Andris at a more reasonable figure.
Same with Monta will his 66 mil. Perhaps even more so.
Weren’t Biedrins and Monta both extended before they even became RFA’s? In that case of course nobody was trying to sign them for near that amount – nobody else could sign them….
by Missing Barry on Mar 23, 2011 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions
By the way, am I missing something here about all those guys you listed. They’re all paid a decent amount more than Biedrins, I’m just unclear what you’re getting at.
by Missing Barry on Mar 23, 2011 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions
Not a lot more actually
Horford/Noah- 5years/60 mil. That’s really not a lot more.
but my point is that Mullin gave them more than he had to. Which is poor for franchise, a GM should do better
Biedrins at 6/53 at his production then was a very good deal.
Not so much now.
"Of course, these people couldn’t really have predicted...the joke of a mockery of a sham of a circus of Keith Smart’s nightly rotations. " - Sleepy Freud
Steph Curry and Reggie Williams all day baby!
by GovernorStephCurry on Mar 23, 2011 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions
looks like Monta was extended 7/24/2008 and Andris 4 days later. so both hit the RFA market.
July 9, 2008 was the moratorium. so other teams could sign them. it may have been better to match offers since i’m skeptical of what either would have received… plus, wouldn’t teams only be able to offer them 5 yrs max?
by homer simpson on Mar 23, 2011 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Exactly
I can’t find articles but I have strong memory. Neither received offers in this realm.
It was just Mullin attempted to award them. Not to justify teams low balling players but let’s be honest, NBA minimum contract is more than any of us will ever make in a single year. I don’t know what would be reasonable, but I doubt anyone tops 5 years/40 mil for Biedrins. In fact I’d imagine 35 mil is more realistic. Monta something similar, probably a bit higher
Terrible, terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE GM.
I think it usually pays to not completely cheap out on your players.
Yes, you can hardball players, save a few million bucks over the life of a contact.
But if you piss them off, well, even an RFA can sign a one-year deal with someone else, you can match it – but then they’re unrestricted. And you have a reputation for being cheap, which hurts your ability to get players.
If you look at comparable contracts to Biedrins’, based on his performance the previous (and, it must be said, following) season, his contract looks very reasonable, especially given it’s non-escalating nature. (Mullin made his share of mistakes – but signing guys to non-escalating contracts was brilliant, and nobody else was doing it and nobody else seems to have picked up on how smart it is). A similar, or even slightly cheaper contract which was escalating would be more expensive from here going forward.
If Biedrins was still performing at that level, he’d be a major asset.
even an RFA can sign a one-year deal with someone else
not true, it must be at least 2 yrs, and if a max QO was made, it must be 3 yrs.
by homer simpson on Mar 23, 2011 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions
signing guys to non-escalating contracts was brilliant
Maybe Mullin was just not that good at math beyond simple division.
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Mar 23, 2011 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Not to justify teams low balling players
and it’s not like there wasn’t precedent for this with Kelenna Azubuike the same exact year.
Monta and Andris were my favorites at the time, but even then i was taken aback by the money they got. i had expected Monta to be closer to Barbosa and was surprised at Andris’ figure. both had the stigma of being undersized for their positions and the stigma of being products of Nellie’s system…
how much better would they look if they had 2 years left and were both making about $3 mill less per year…
every team makes mistakes, but with this team (on the big issues) it’s like mistake after mistake after mistake…
basically overriding the nice little things they did like Azubuike, Turiaf, DWright and finding CJ, Morrow, Tolliver, etc.,.
by homer simpson on Mar 23, 2011 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Back then people thought Monta might be able to play point. And be a high-efficiency scorer.
If he can play point, masking a lot of his defensive liabilities, and is scoring a lot of points at .580TS%, then he’s worth his contract.
He’s only overpaid when you realize he can’t play point and his efficiency has gone down the tubes.
yeah, but have people looked at Barbosa’s #’s before his extension?
he got his 5 yr $33 deal after his 3rd season. he posted a .595 TS% and had a 1.8 asst:tov ratio to Monta’s 1.85. he was also the better player in his 1st two seasons… whereas Monta sputtered in the playoffs, Barbosa was coming off his big postseason run where he posted 14 pts on a 57.9% TS%.
the difference? Monta played more minutes, making his per game averages much better. but still is that the difference between 1 more yr and 33 million more dollars???
maybe it was just me, but i was really shocked at how much he got considering he was an undersized, “Nellie-ball” two with no demonstrative statistical signs that he’d be able to play PG. if Nellie’s comments are true, it would seem the organization knew that Monta had no willingness to play the 1 at that time as well.
the whole Nellie/D’Antoni system factor is something that gets underplayed—whether it’s real or not, i think we can agree that the perception of it exists. they didn’t use that to their advantage.
pure conjecture on my part, but what i think happened is that either Rowell or Mullin panicked when Baron was lost—they threw offers at Arenas, Brand then Maggette 7/9/2008, Monta and Andris’s agents saw this… and took advantage of it.
by homer simpson on Mar 23, 2011 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Does that timing work out?
I thought the Baron and Monta extensions came a year before that – but the first year after Baron was when they kicked in.
all the same offseason: 2008.
i listed Maggette’s, Monta’s and Andris’s deals above. at least those were the earliest reports i could find through a search. anyway, for timeline’s sake:
Baron’s Clips deal reported on 7/7/2008
(after reports of failed attempts to get Arenas/Brand)
Maggette deal is reported on 7/9/2008
Monta’s deal is reported on 7/24/2008
Andris’s deal is reported on 7/28/2008
by homer simpson on Mar 23, 2011 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions
That was a pretty bad month.
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Mar 23, 2011 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions
And all of it was done by Rowell.
"Of course, these people couldn’t really have predicted...the joke of a mockery of a sham of a circus of Keith Smart’s nightly rotations. " - Sleepy Freud
Steph Curry and Reggie Williams all day baby!
by GovernorStephCurry on Mar 23, 2011 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions
NBA minimum contract is more than any of us will ever make in a single year.
Some players are overpaid but this is only relative to their competition. Please keep in mind that a minimum wage applies to you also but unlike the NBA a maximum wage does not.
Would you prefer more money go to someone behind the seens or the one on the court more directly providing you with entertainment?
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Mar 23, 2011 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Would you prefer more money go to someone behind the seens or the one on the court more directly providing you with entertainment?
I would be more entertained with winning. Therefor paying them less, means we have more money to sign players to help us win…… More
It’s just poor financial planning is all.
Therefor paying them less, means we have more money to sign players
Keep in mind there is a cap and a limited number of roster spots. So you want of more money only allows us to overpay the next free agent. This thinking is what got us where we are. Ultimately if all the players are earning a fare market price for their skills then wanting to “sign more players” would be arguing against parity for the league. We should at least get to 500 before we want this.
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Mar 23, 2011 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions
So you want of more money only allows us to overpay the next free agent. This thinking is what got us where we are
Depends. If that free agent is Corey Maggette, sure. If it helps us acquire a sueprstar, then I gotta disagree.
by Missing Barry on Mar 23, 2011 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions
If it helps us acquire a superstar
I think you forgot to add:
Assuming we have a team build for a title run.
Otherwise you could just perpetuate mediocrity.
Ideally for me the ability to pursue a Superstar should be dependent on your teams strategic plan to concentrate talent/pay at one position vs spreading it more evenly over more players.
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Mar 23, 2011 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions
But that’s just the thing, you don’t perpetuate mediocrity if you don’t get one and you aren’t overpaying middle tier talents. You’re worse than mediocre. You’re straight up bad, and that’s a good thing. Top draft picks give you a real chance to get a top talent. The 10th pick in the draft? Not so much.
your teams strategic plan to concentrate talent/pay at one position vs spreading it more evenly over more players
This is exactly the point, the strategic plan should be to concentrate talent/pay at one position. Your top talent wins you games. A team of average players is going nowhere. Spending all your money on complementary players is a bad strategy.
by Missing Barry on Mar 23, 2011 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions
You’re straight up bad, and that’s a good thing. Top draft picks give you a real chance to get a top talent.
This leads me to my next point which is I think the draft is bad. Why reward teams for being bad. We see it this time every year or earlier as teams go into tank mode. I would rather reward teams with the lower roster costs with the higher picks. Better yet just let rookies enter the NBA market as free agents. Nobody should want to get drafted and that word should only have a negative connotation: As in I got drafted to go to war and die.
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Mar 23, 2011 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I do not object to a system that tries to achieve some parity by giving better draft order to weaker teams. I don’t object to a lottery system either. I don’t think that the current lottery system does a very good job of this though. It hasn’t solved the problem of tanking and it still leaves plenty of room for teams to be trapped in cycles of just below mediocre results.
A better system would be to have a draft lottery that assigns lottery weights according to the number of consecutive years a team has missed the playoffs. It removes all incentive to tank, unless you believe a team in the think of a race to the playoffs would tank in order to add another year to their lottery odds.
draft lottery that assigns lottery weights according to the number of consecutive years a team has missed the playoffs.
This would clump a lot of teams together, but still is better than the current system. I would prefer a system that rewarded teams in a way such that the best non playoff team got the best pick(no lottery involved). The worst team should get contracted/moved.
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Mar 23, 2011 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Is there a problem with clumping teams together in terms of lottery odds? Is there an issue with all teams that are in there first year of missing the playoffs having equal number of combinations in a draw for draft position?
No and No, except it still rewards bad teams. Also I just do not like the idea of a lottery. Involving luck just gives one more thing for people to whine about when it goes bad.
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Mar 23, 2011 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions
I will say I’ve never understood why organizations hire players into a GM role. The skillset of a GM is quite different from that of someone who’s good at basketball.
by Missing Barry on Mar 23, 2011 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Free the market
I totally agree with the original post and you have taken the correct logical step to identify the root problem is a bad CBA.
owners wanted shorter maximum contracts in the next CBA
It is a bit ironic that that owners want this now as I am sure that originally Owners liked long contracts as a way to hold title to what they considered their property. Property to hold against their will or trade on their whim.
I hope there is no such thing as guaranteed contracts(Multi year) in the next CBA. If the league and players value team stability, then just include a clause to allow a team to match the market value for a given # of years. Then no contract should really be signed above market value. This would prevent overpaying and underpaying players. Instead of trading players contracts, teams could trade the right to re-sign at market value.
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Mar 23, 2011 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions
If the league and players value team stability, then just include a clause to allow a team to match the market value for a given # of years.
THe problem is, what’s market value?
Look, the reality is that when decent players hit the FA market, somebody’s willing to pay a lot of money for them. It’s really not hard to find a slightly worse player who got a big payday, claim that’s market value, and demand adjustments accordingly.
You seem to be implying that there’s some sort of objective definition of market value. How would we arrive at such a thing? Is Monta’s value that of a near-all star, as some seem to think, or is it of a guy who wouldn’t be starting on most teams?
It’s not “market value” if it’s being determined by something other than the market.
The real issue here isn’t the “market value” of these contracts – by definition, every player who becomes a free agent is getting a market-value contract – the issue is the difference in market value and value produced on the floor in terms of wins. There is a weak correlation between those two things, which the market overvaluing some traits (points per game being the most obvious example) and undervaluing other.
You can’t give the team unilateral right to slash a contract because then every team would say, “We think you’re worht all-star money,” sign the player, and then the next season say, “well, if you were really all-star level, you’d have gotten us further in the playoffs. We’re slashing your pay to roll-player salary.”
Market value is whatever someone is willing to pay (assuming that free agent accepts that offer). If you do not agree with that value then you do not have to pay. In the case of Biedrins, Monta, and now Lee this would not have been such a bad result for us? The reason many players remain overpaid is that guaranteed contracts prevent players salaries from adjusting back down to market value.
every player who becomes a free agent is getting a market-value contract
This is incorrect as there is a maximum limit on what teams can offer.
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Mar 23, 2011 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions
good point.
Max players may not be getting a market-value contract.
I don’t think it’s at all clear that Biedrins and Monta would have ended up with cheaper contracts (especially cheaper per annum from this point forward).
Somebody always seems willing to shell out a ridiculous amount of cash for big men, and Monta’s strength is the one part of the game that is consistently over-valued by GMs when it comes time to open the cash register.
Somebody always seems willing to shell out a ridiculous amount of cash
This should be its own punishment. The GMs that are clever or lucky enough to avoid these mistakes should be rewarded.
The NBA makes a great case study as to why imposing barriers to free trade in an economy is a bad idea.
Monta’s strength is the one part of the game that is consistently over-valued by GMs when it comes time to open the cash register
If this is true then Monta’s contract is not as untradable as some think.
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Mar 23, 2011 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Bleh. Economic dogma.
I’m also confused. You don’t want guaranteed contracts, but you say:
This should be its own punishment. The GMs that are clever or lucky enough to avoid these mistakes should be rewarded
That seems like a contradiction to me?
by Missing Barry on Mar 23, 2011 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions
This should be its own punishment.
To clarify, I meant In the current system.
Ideally, I think this punishment should be limited to one year by eliminating the multi-year guaranteed contract.
Bleh. Economic dogma.
Sounds like you are burnt out.
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Mar 23, 2011 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Not so much burnt out as just sick of economists who’s beliefs are based on faith, rather than reality. There are positives to free markets. There are negatives. It’s an objective fact that the free market does not always provide the best outcomes. I don’t understand why some people have this belief that it solves all problems, and I’m sick of people who look at economic issues that way (and a way too large group of “economists” do think like that). I’m not even saying you’re wrong in this particular case, just that it’s not good to start with a belief first, and try to use it to fix the problem second.
by Missing Barry on Mar 23, 2011 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions
(I actualy think you have some interesting thoughts on this subject, by the way. It was mostly the free trade rhetoric I found objectionable.)
by Missing Barry on Mar 23, 2011 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions
beliefs are based on faith
You are way off if you think this is me. David Stern is not my sky daddy.
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Mar 23, 2011 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions
The real problem is that the player's union is not a real union...
Any other union has a pay scheduled which defines pay for all people who perform the same duties. If the union pulled its head out of its butt and decided to operate like the rest of the world, this discussion about bad contracts would disappear and we would just evaluate talent. Yes, some players would make less money, but they would make it up in endorsements, and other players would actually make more money.
The previous comments about an inability to predict which contracts will be bad and the fact that you have to award bad contracts sometimes to lure players are both right on track.
When a team has been this bad for this long, there are few choices on the road back to success.
One road that can be travelled is development of young talent (i.e. Oklahoma City). That is the road we thought we were on both with the Murphy/Dunleavy contracts and the Biedrins/Monta contracts. The first was a bust, the second is just about there, but we may yet see some creative thinking turn it around.
by warriorsvictim on Mar 23, 2011 12:44 PM PDT reply actions
Huh. That's funny.
Because I’m in a union, and we don’t all get the same pay for the same work.
That may be how most unions work, but it’s not how unions which represent high-value employees with unique skillsets work. It’s not how my union works and we have nothing to do with professional sports.
I don’t see where the union is a problem?
by Missing Barry on Mar 23, 2011 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions
If the union insists on guaranteed contracts based on speculation of the future player value then this creates a barrier to the free market adjustment of the player salary. This is a problem if you do not want overpaid players. Or under pay players for that matter.
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Mar 23, 2011 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Guaranteed contracts are here to stay. Nobody wants to go down with a season ending injury and have their paycheck taken away for it. Have you also considered that by guaranteeing a contract (so the owners take a risk the player does not live up to it), the players are taking a discount…? I’m really not seeing a problem with the notion of guaranteed contracts.
by Missing Barry on Mar 23, 2011 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions
(Guaranteed contracts can come about in a free market setting, by the way)
by Missing Barry on Mar 23, 2011 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions
season ending injury
Players should worry more about a career ending injury.
This should be handled with insurance, just like the rest of the world does it. They can afford it.
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Mar 23, 2011 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions
the players are taking a discount
I consider players getting underpaid equally as bad if not worse than players getting paid too much.
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Mar 23, 2011 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions
You are free to not argue economics.
You seam to prefer to argue about what I should write.
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Mar 23, 2011 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions
You seem to miss my point
Your comment adds nothing to a discussion of basketball.
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Mar 23, 2011 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions
We can’t dis-agree if we don’t even get each others original point. I can understand how some of my other rants on other posts may have gotten off topic, but on a post with “Longterm” in the title and discussing the value of contracts in the body, I fail to see how discussing some of the economics leading to those contracts is off topic. I think you are just disappointed, that when you saw this post title, you did not find another trade machine link.
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Mar 23, 2011 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions
My issue was not with the discussion of economics
I am relatively well-versed in economics. My issue was with you using this topic to go on a polemic about the free market system. If you want to discuss the economics leading to those contracts thats fine, but don’t use this one example to high-light the “brilliance” of the free market. If you want to discuss free market capitalism I would be more than happy to continue the discussion else where. But this relates to basketball only because you want it to relate to basketball.
Also when you pass of your own opinion as fact:
“If the union insists on guaranteed contracts based on speculation of the future player value then this creates a barrier to the free market adjustment of the player salary.”
That is not a discussion. That is lecture.
And one more thing (in animated Jackie Chan Grandpa voice). You do not know me. So please don’t assume you know my motivations, or what I am looking for when I come to this website.
/end rant
by eldingo on Mar 23, 2011 7:41 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
you pass of your own opinion as fact
You seam capable of recognizing that this is my opinion, yet you still have only argued the against the semantics of my argument and not against its content. I welcome you to argue how a guaranteed contract can be adjusted to its current market value?
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Mar 24, 2011 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, we are discussing the economics of the NBA, at least. Seems pretty relevant to a blog about an NBA team.
by Missing Barry on Mar 23, 2011 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Hmm fair point
I guess I took issue to the way he stated it like it was fact, it does not leave much room for discussion.
I’d go so far as to say that the constraints of the collective bargaining agreement (and I use constraints as a term without any value judgment attached in this case) necessitate that any honest discussion of how a team can get better cannot proceed without a discussion of the economics of the situation.
original post is spot on, later comments are close, but...
Without descending into polemics, and without blaming the players, I would add that the league has a seriously distorted pay scale, which could ultimately be its undoing. This has nothing to do with whether or not contracts are guaranteed. In terms of actual value, as in increasing revenue and wins, players like Kobe or Jordan really do “deserve”, or “earn” 30 million per year.
The problem is when guys like Biedrins or Maggette make ten millon per year. Baseball Sabergeeks have a term called something like “performance above replacement player”, which is even more important in basketball as there are only five people playing at a time. The difference between Jordan or Kobe (in their prime) and the average player, when calculated in either wins or revenue generated is exponential, not geometric. They are not three times better, they are the difference between the lottery and contention. There is nothing wrong or even bad business with with Kobe or KG or Shaq in their prime getting 8 figure guaranteed contracts. But, as the original post suggests, there is something very seriously wrong with giving half or even one tenth of that to players like Biedrins, even if he were playing as well as he was two years ago.
by felix botticelli on Mar 23, 2011 10:06 PM PDT reply actions
Why are you using Jordan and Kobe? Why is Kobe included with Jordan?
"Of course, these people couldn’t really have predicted...the joke of a mockery of a sham of a circus of Keith Smart’s nightly rotations. " - Sleepy Freud
Steph Curry and Reggie Williams all day baby!
by GovernorStephCurry on Mar 23, 2011 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions
The point is that guys among the top players in the league should be making a lot more money than they are.
by Missing Barry on Mar 24, 2011 7:58 AM PDT up reply actions
True.
"Of course, these people couldn’t really have predicted...the joke of a mockery of a sham of a circus of Keith Smart’s nightly rotations. " - Sleepy Freud
Steph Curry and Reggie Williams all day baby!
by GovernorStephCurry on Mar 24, 2011 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions
I’ve been thinking about this as well, and like felix said, the superstar players are actually getting paid a lot less than they deserve, but average players are being paid much more than they deserve. This is why the best way for teams to improve significantly in relation to payroll is to either get superstar players (like the Heat or the Celtics) or start a youth movement (OKC), not paying for average veterans or in the Warriors case, below-average veterans.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"
Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)
NBA Playoffs Content Module
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- C-a-C: This is probably as close to LeBron James working with John Waters as we’ll ever get
- Dwyane Wade’s hot pink pants: The kind of thing you can get away with when you drop 41
- Lamar Odom to New York? Dwight Howard on the move? For now, it’s all talk
