Another Lockout looming?

[Final_quest]

Once again you are being ridiculous.

What about KG's next contract from 2003? Can you say the same thing?

Still numbers don't tell the whole story. GMs don't throw numbers into their computer and spit out a salary. Every players salary is based on what they have done in the past. If a GM thinks their past, even if it is 5 points a game, is worth 8 million a year for 7 years because their past also indicates they might blow up in the next 7 years it is still based on their past.

Give me a scenario where a player's past has not influenced their contract? Even a high school player who gets signed has a past that indicates they might perform at a level worthy of what you are paying them.

[AHF]

Sounds like this is boiling down to semantics. You can say that someone like Darko who was signed for 10 million a year next season was signed based on past performance but I think that most people would understand "past" as meaning more than "showing potential." Many NBA players earn big deals based on speculation as to how they will perform in the future with the assumption that it will be demonstrably better than how they performed in the past. You can call that being paid based on past performance but I don't understand the words past performance to have that meaning. I view that as being paid on potential as opposed to past performance, but I see what you are saying.

[Diesel]

To put things into perspective. In his second year after stats that said:

17/8/3... He was awarded a contract larger than Shaq recieved from the Lakers... Shaq had been to the finals and was the most dominant force in the game. KG had not been to the playoffs.

Your statement was that players are rewarded based on what they had done previously...

well, this is just one big case where KG slid through on potential... and Potential alone.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

Give me a scenario where a player's past has not influenced their contract? Even a high school player who gets signed has a past that indicates they might perform at a level worthy of what you are paying them.

---

Comeon...your definition is wrong.. You are defining potential..

For example.

Big Dog was awarded 100 million dollar contract without having played 1 pro minute.

Nobody knew how he would do as a pro.

He was awarded the contract based on POTENTIAL... What people speculate he would do.

That's different than EARNING his contract.

In the case of KG and Big Dog, neither EARNED their contract.

[Final_quest]

Nope, your wrong. The only point I made previously was that contracts were based on something a player has done, if all that player has done is show potential it is still a merit they achieved. The comments prior to mine stated that players are getting paid for doing nothing. My position is still that players have to do something to get a contract. They don't sign 7 footers off the street. You have to show something, and that's what contracts are based on. If you want to twist my words have fun.

[AHF]

Deisel's biggest, and legitimate, point here is that the current length of contracts results in guys who are in fact not doing anything for a team still being paid outrageous sums of money. Dikembe Mutombo was so bad his team cut him but he still gets the $18 million salary from this season based on the contract he signed. He did earn that contract on performance and the nature of the free agent market and the nature of sports markets, but it is tough to argue he is an $18 million player in 2005.

Other players have been paid for doing literally nothing in the past, such as guaranteed payments to Eddie Robinson this season. He was so bad he was cut by the Bulls and hasn't played a single game all year after failing a physical in November with the Knicks (who really needed another overpaid short forward).

[Final_quest]

Hey man, I've never said guys end up doing nothing after they get their contract, but that their contracts are based on something they have done. Risk is inherent with any signing. What's the point?

Dikembe Mutumbo got his contract by being the most dominant defensive center for several years. The team that signed him for that amount thought it was worth the risk. No one forced them to do that.

In two years or less the Phoenix Suns are going to be regretting their signing of Nash. The Heat might regret trading for Shaq if he deteriorates like Mutumbo. The ownership of both the Heat and Suns took a risk and are hoping for a championship. Should these players just give back their money that they signed if they get bogged down with injuries? Everyone seems to be saying yes. I say its the owners fault. They brought in aging players with big contracts trying to win it all. If it doesn't work out, why should the owners be able to cut them?

[AHF]

This is the whole point of why the system should be changed. The amount the owners are paying to the players is basically a fixed percentage of basketball revenue. Why should it goto Nash in 5 years instead of a more productive player? That is the question at the heart of the owner's proposal to raise the % of income that goes to the players but limit the length of contracts.

In my mind, the question isn't why should Mutombo give his money back this year it is why shouldn't we design a system where owners don't give people like Mutombo such long deals that they are paying him $18 million after they have already cut him.

Owners are in the dilemma under the current system of being forced to (1) forego singing a star or (2) sign him for years beyond when he is projected to be productive. Under the new system they would sign him for a shorter period of time. If he is still productive he'll still get paid in a new deal. If he is no longer productive that $$ will go to a player that is productive.

[Final_quest]

It definitely makes sense. I have no argument with what you are saying. The players need a bump in pay if that is what the owners want, and the owners want them to shorten their deals and take a cut from 10% raises to 5% raises.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

Hey man, I've never said guys end up doing nothing after they get their contract, but that their contracts are based on something they have done.

---

Again.. AHF brings in a perfect example that contradicts this.. Eddie Robinson. What had Eddie Robinson done? What was his contract based on? It's simple... It's that word you keep ignoring.. Potential.

Eddie Robinson was a Bench Player for the Charlotte Hornets.

FAcy came around and Chicago missed out on Duncan, Tmac, Eddie Jones... and we're coming home empty handed. Krause went out and signed Eddie Robinson and proclaimed him the next great player. All Eddie had ever done was look good in a couple of highlights.

Face the facts... A lot of contracts are not EARNED, but rather teams take risks and hope they pan out. Do their hope have a basis? Sometimes. But more often than not, it's all potential.

[Final_quest]

OK Diesel, where does potential come from? It is not based on nothing, as you say. It is based on past performance. You have to demonstrate something to be dubbed as having potential. I haven't ignored the word, I just refuse to believe that it isn't based on something a person has done. When you say a player has done nothing, what exactly do you mean by that? I will always maintain that potential is based on something that has already occured, if you choose to believe it is based on nothing that's your choice.

As far as the CBA is concerned. The reason players agreed to max contracts in the first place was to get lengthy guaranteed 7 year deals. That was how the owners convinced them to accept a cap. Otherwise players were signing $100 million dollar deals. Now the owners want to lower the length of contracts, and the raises. It's a bad deal for the players.

[AHF]

Tell me the difference between past performance and potential. If there is no difference to you between those words I think that explains why you and Diesel can't agree. If there is a difference, I know I would like to hear you explain the difference because I'm not sure I get it. It seems to me that potential is based on things like a player's age (not past performance), athleticism (not past performance) and basketball skills (based on past performance in games or workouts). I see there being a major distiction between potential - which in my mind is expressly NOT based on past performance because the reason it is called potential is because it has not been demonstrated - and past performance which is based on demonstrated results by a player.

IMO, potential doesn't come out of nothing, but does come out of factors unrelated to demonstrated performance like age and athleticism, IMO, that are only indicators of a guy's potential for future performance. Whereas past performance is a demonstrated ability to do something.

[vonrauss]

This has been mentioned at various times throughout this thread, but I'm sick and tired of people trying to protect the owners. If an owner wants to squander his/her money and sign a "potential"-based player to a lucrative contract (i.e., Eddie Robinson), this is his/her own decision. Nobody stops Ford Motor Co. from overpaying their employees to "protect" them.

During the last labor dispute, I definitely sided with the ownership. However, I think that the players are right this time.

1. Age limit - absurd!!! A more plausible solution is a REAL NBA "minor league". If I'm 18, and I know that I can make millions riding the pine on an NBA team or nothing as a starter on a final four team, and my family is in poverty, is obvious which option I'm going to take. If the players aren't ready, they should be placed in the "minors" (players such as Kwame, Darko, etc).

2. Contracts. If an owner wants to waste their money, that is THEIR problem. I think 7-year guaranteed contracts are fine as they are. Perhaps owners should give themselves more opportunity for wiggle room in the contract. In other words, a system like baseball's where there are OPTIONS for 4th, 5th, 6th years and beyond.

Ugh, I could go on forever. The bottom line is that the age limit opposes everything that we hold dear in a capitalistic country. And I can't emphasize enough that the owners should learn to protect themselves. Actually, I think its funny when a team like the Knicks continues to freefall by making HORRID monetary decisions. Teams that do it the right way, ala Chicago and Washington, will eventually be rewarded!

[AHF]

Quote:

---

This has been mentioned at various times throughout this thread, but I'm sick and tired of people trying to protect the owners. If an owner wants to squander his/her money and sign a "potential"-based player to a lucrative contract (i.e., Eddie Robinson), this is his/her own decision. Nobody stops Ford Motor Co. from overpaying their employees to "protect" them.

---

Ford Motor Co. is there to make money. Owners (other than Sterling) are there to win. That makes a huge difference and you absolutely cannot count on owners making economically rationale decisions in sports. That is why there is not a single sports league with a true free market and the closer you get to resembling one, the more problems you have with competitive balance and league finances (see MLB and NHL).

Quote:

---

During the last labor dispute, I definitely sided with the ownership. However, I think that the players are right this time.

1. Age limit - absurd!!! A more plausible solution is a REAL NBA "minor league". If I'm 18, and I know that I can make millions riding the pine on an NBA team or nothing as a starter on a final four team, and my family is in poverty, is obvious which option I'm going to take. If the players aren't ready, they should be placed in the "minors" (players such as Kwame, Darko, etc).

---

I agree that a real minor league is a good option. That does not maximize the marketing ability for these players but would be acceptable to me.

Quote:

---

2. Contracts. If an owner wants to waste their money, that is THEIR problem. I think 7-year guaranteed contracts are fine as they are. Perhaps owners should give themselves more opportunity for wiggle room in the contract. In other words, a system like baseball's where there are OPTIONS for 4th, 5th, 6th years and beyond.

---

The owners would love having options for the 4-7 years on 7 years contracts. They would take that in a heartbeat. That is even more favorable for the owners than 4 year contracts. The 7 year guaranteed contracts can cripple a franchise, though, which is why they hurt not just owners but fans and teams. Look at what Grant Hill did to Orlando as Exhibit A.

Quote:

---

Ugh, I could go on forever. The bottom line is that the age limit opposes everything that we hold dear in a capitalistic country.

---

Do you propose eliminating the current age limit in the NBA and allowing them to draft 16 year olds, etc.? Doesn't that equally violate your capitalistic values?

Quote:

---

And I can't emphasize enough that the owners should learn to protect themselves.

---

The whole problem is that without artificial market constraints in sports that owners either cannot win or cannot protect themselves from serious risk and/or financial problems unless you are willing to absorb the kind of competitive balance issues we see in baseball. Leagues have shown over and over that they will compete for players even when it is not economically rationale - that is because teams are NOT SUPPOSED to have rationale market driven responses. They are supposed to be playing a game and trying to win. A team like the LA Clippers responds rationally to the market. They make a profit every year. They visit the lottery every year. They are your model franchise for a franchise that learns to protect itself.

I prefer a business model where the players and owners get a guaranteed % of the revenues and the system protects everyone to compete at full speed (unlike the difference between the Yankees and Devil Rays for spending $$ for example). The NFL works so much better than the most free market leagues (NHL and MLB) that it is not even funny.

Quote:

---

Actually, I think its funny when a team like the Knicks continues to freefall by making HORRID monetary decisions. Teams that do it the right way, ala Chicago and Washington, will eventually be rewarded!

---

To be fair, the Knicks have had equal success to the Bulls (one playoff appearance post-Jordan that resulted in a first round exit) and Wizards breakthrough seasons (one playoff season in like 10 years that resulted in a second round exit) during their years of terrible, terrible decisionmaking. I agree they are the posterchildren for a franchise that is not well run from any angle (scouting, spending, trading, cap management, etc.) They are fun to laugh at now that we can no longer laugh at Ewing's annual championship prediction.

[Final_quest]

Quote:

---

I see there being a major distiction between potential - which in my mind is expressly NOT based on past performance because the reason it is called potential is because it has not been demonstrated - and past performance which is based on demonstrated results by a player.

IMO, potential doesn't come out of nothing, but does come out of factors unrelated to demonstrated performance like age and athleticism, IMO, that are only indicators of a guy's potential for future performance. Whereas past performance is a demonstrated ability to do something.

---

There is very little point to arguing this difference, but to me potential is always demonstrated. How could it be recognized otherwise? When they hold the draft camps are the players in the draft not demonstrating their potential by performing?

Bottom line you have to perform to get drafted or signed. There's no other way to see it.

[Final_quest]

Quote:

---

Ford Motor Co. is there to make money. Owners (other than Sterling) are there to win. That makes a huge difference and you absolutely cannot count on owners making economically rationale decisions in sports. That is why there is not a single sports league with a true free market and the closer you get to resembling one, the more problems you have with competitive balance and league finances (see MLB and NHL).

---

Owners are there to do more than win. Perhaps a handful would rather lose money and win than make money and lose. For most I think it's a combination. Sterling is the prime example of an owner who is in it just for the money, but others are limited by what they can spend. You can't just take money out of the equation. Corporations do not always make economically rationale decisions either.

[vonrauss]

I would argue that owners care just as much if not more about making money than they do winning. Take Sterling as a prime example.

The point is, as human beings and organizations we must take accountability for the decisions we make. If I go out and sign a 3-year lease on a Toyota Corolla, then later realize that I made a rash decision and overcommitted on an underachieving vehicle, I have to either live with the decision I made or pay a penalty for ending my lease term early.

On that same note, I think its fair to give the owners an "out" for extreme circumstances. Sort of like the "lemon" laws that many states have enacted with regard to automobiles. Like your reference, the Grant Hill situation would be one such circumstance. So I don't agree with limiting the length of contracts, but rather coming up with alternatives that allow for some flexibility. Then again, I'm not sitting in on the negotiations. That's just one NBA fan's perspective.

[AHF]

Why is nearly the entire NHL bleeding money if owners care as much about making money as they do about winning? To me, the answer is simple. It is because with their sports teams they care more about winning. The rare exceptions to this rule like the LA Clippers are generally losers year in and year out because they won't take on the risk necessary to put them over the top. The rare exceptions on the opposite side of the coin like the NY Rangers and NY Knicks are content to spend recklessly to the point of both financial and competitive self-destruction (it is not a coincidence that both these teams are from NY, IMO).

The whole reason for a salary cap at all is (1) to level the playing field (i.e., the free market leads to gross differences in competitive balance like in MLB) and (2) to stop teams from spending more than they take in (see NHL nearly across the board).

Ford Motor company and other corporations very, very rarely do anything out of a motive other than economic self-interest. Those things are not necessarily evil, they can be doing things like spending money on employees to improve employee-relations or donating money to charity to improve the corporate image. However, they are not a charity. They don't care about gross production. A company like Ford is going to sell 20 cars per year if that will generate the most revenue. They won't work to be the biggest car producer if it will cause them to lose millions in net finances compared to being on par with GM, Chrystler, etc. They will try to meet supply and demand and maximize profits. In constrast, the majority of sports teams' primary goal is to outproduce the other teams not beat them in annual net revenues. They want to win a championship not say they generated more money than Sterling. They do what they can to generate revenue while they do it and they probably will place some limits on what they are willing to spend but those limits are very different from the supply/demand kind of revenue calculas that goes with a private company.

I just don't think the market in the business world is remotely comparable to that in the sports world. They are just fundamentally different.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

OK Diesel, where does potential come from? It is not based on nothing, as you say. It is based on past performance.

---

Of course not....

Sometimes potential is based on performance.. But most of the time it's based on what you see IN a player... A great example are HS players. Anybody can go through HS and put up AWESOME Numbers because of the competition.. Especially if you're a boy amoung men.. Look at the Stats from Al Jefferson and Juanny from HS. Al Jefferson was averaging 50 points a game at one point. Do you consider that something to base potential on.. HELL NO.

However, when you see a guy like D. Howard. 6'10 235 lbs.. Can run the floor like a gazelle, can handle the ball with either hand, can finish strong, can pass well for a big man, A strong defender and good footwork, then you say.. This guy has potential. That's why Scouts make money. They go beyond meaningless stats. You can't base Potential on Meaningless stats...

You have to watch a player.

The problem with Eddie Robinson.. Krause grabbed him because he was an athletic Swingman. He never noticed that Robinson couldn't shoot and was a so-so defender. He probably looked at the stats and said.. Hey, this guy is shooting close to 50% from the 3... But never realized that most of his shots were dunks on a fast break...

That's the problem with trying to build potential from "past performances." Potential is based on the player himself.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

he bottom line is that the age limit opposes everything that we hold dear in a capitalistic country. And I can't emphasize enough that the owners should learn to protect themselves.

---

Von... We finally agree on something.

I think the age limit is just a paper threat that Stern is using to get this CBA passed for the owners. He can't begin to justify it.... Unfortunately, the older players who are in charge of the players union will prolly be accepting of an age limit anyway... All except for Jermaine Oneal.