# Has Rashhed found his niche?



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Has Rasheed been a 12 and 7 kind of guy all along? Is it his best fit? I think it is his comfort zone for sure, yeah he averages more per game typically, but was that a stretch of him, and what he felt comfortable doing?

I know he has all the physical tool in the world and all and he does have the occasional massive game, but IMO Sheed looks far far more comfortable and relaxed with the expectations being laidon Zachs shoulders.


----------



## DirtMcMoses (Aug 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> Has Rasheed been a 12 and 7 kind of guy all along? Is it his best fit? I think it is his comfort zone for sure, yeah he averages more per game typically, but was that a stretch of him, and what he felt comfortable doing?
> 
> I know he has all the physical tool in the world and all and he does have the occasional massive game, but IMO Sheed looks far far more comfortable and relaxed with the expectations being laidon Zachs shoulders.


Yeah baby! 12 points and 7 rebounds, he is definately one of the top power forwards in the game. We are so lucky to have a guy with such a good personality that puts up monster numbers like that. And we only pay him 18 million a year. Sheed is great. lol, what a joke.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

You may be right, Schilly, but what a waste. It's sort of like going to a Jack Nicholson movie and finding out he's only in 3 scenes.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

It has always bugged me that there is so much pressure on Rasheed to be the team leader...top scorer etc. 

He has made it clear that he wants to be part of the supporting cast. I see nothing wrong with that. Just what is wrong with that?

He has been encouraging to his team mates and truly stepped up his effort. His defense is strong and has anyone noticed his passing? Seems to me that it is SHEED that is feeding Zach more than anyone else!

The guys aren't complaining. In fact, they are applauding him.

Zach is now showing that he will be the leading scorer-he wants it, he's going after it....that is wonderful and from what I can tell, Sheed is all for it and willing to let him. What is wrong with that?

Everyone knows there are things that happen on the floor that do not show up in the box score-that is where Rasheed makes the difference. He is unselfish and a team player. 

A peace seems to settling over the team as they adjust to their new roles. The pressure is off Rasheed and Zach is flourishing-it's natural-it's right. Let it happen.

Just because everyone wanted and expected Rasheed to be the top guy doesn't mean he ever wanted to or should have-why force the issue? Leave him be!

Yeah-Rasheed has found his niche, so has Zach and so will the Blazers...

You know-there is such a thing as the "power behind the throne"..perhaps Rasheed is the power behind Zach's throne.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

I agree, Schilly. Not only that, but it seems to be bringing the leader in him out, too. I've noticed him during breaks in the action telling his team-mates what he thinks they should have done, or should do. And when he's on the bench for a breather, he's still shouting out strategy to his team-mates on the floor.

But to tell you the truth, CTC is just playing the game the same way he has since coming to Portland. He's never been comfortable in the spotlight and never wanted to be "the guy". But because the Blazers have never had a better #1 option, he had been forced into that role - and we (fans & media) heaped a lot of expectations on him in response.

So I wouldn't say CTC has found his niche. If anything, CTC's niche has finally found him. With Zach emerging as the Blazers' #1 scoring option, CTC can play the game the way he prefers to play it (and I love the way he plays it, BTW) without all the expectations. Should make for a happier (and more productive) CTC and a more cohesive team all-around.

Still think Sheed and T-Mac together would be the most dangerous twosome in the game, for this very reason.

PBF


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

if you want to point the finger at why we are only 4-3, Sheed's lack of scoring is the wrong place to look. 

if Bonzi were playing like he did two seasons ago, we'd probably be unbeaten right now. 

if Bonzi, McInnis, Damon and Cheeks had some aptitude at reliably delivering the ball into the post, we'd have at least two more wins. 

who knows, if DA and Ruben were healthy and playing right now we might have one of the better benches in the league, and again have pulled off another win or two. 

I was disappointed that Sheed didn't thoroughly dominate Carter last night, but overall I'd consider him and Zach to be the only reasons we have a winning record right now.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I have no problem with it, so long as Rasheed recognizes the flip side and is willing to re-sign for "supporting cast" dollars this summer. He can be a great player in that role, but he can't demand a contract that continues to cripple the organization financially unless he's willing to play at that level night in and night out. And I don't think any of us really knows one way or the other what sort of contract Rasheed expects after this year...

Dan


----------



## DirtMcMoses (Aug 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> I have no problem with it, so long as Rasheed recognizes the flip side and is willing to re-sign for "supporting cast" dollars this summer. He can be a great player in that role, but he can't demand a contract that continues to cripple the organization financially unless he's willing to play at that level night in and night out. And I don't think any of us really knows one way or the other what sort of contract Rasheed expects after this year...
> 
> Dan


You know CTC is not gonna do that.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> He has made it clear that he wants to be part of the supporting cast. I see nothing wrong with that. Just what is wrong with that?


Nothing. I think there are two main reasons people have been unhappy with CTC's play up to this season:

1. The Blazers have had no better #1 option than CTC for the past several years. This, to most fans, automatically casts CTC into the "#1 guy" role, fairly or unfairly.

2. The money he makes. $17M per year is a marquis player's salary. His salary is the 4th largest in ALL the NBA. And with a salary of that size comes expectations. "#1 guy" expectations.

When CTC finally signs a contract this summer (no matter who he signs with), I think his salary will drop a little. Probably to the $12M-$13M range, which seems about right for a highly talented "supporting cast" player of his experience/stature. And I think the Blazers would LOVE to re-sign him at that price, assuming he ends his feud with the local media.

Would YOU re-sign CTC for $12M-$13M if you knew he was going to be your #2 or #3 guy and wasn't going to cause you any embarrassment, PR-wise? I most definately would.

PBF


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

CTC?


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

CTC = "Cut The Check". It's how I refer to Rasheed these days. I don't mean anything derogotory by it, I just picked it up the night he said it, and it's easier to type than Rasheed or 'Sheed.

PBF


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> CTC?


Sheed's new handle: Cut The Check. (from a recent interview)


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

Actually, I don't know that Sheed is money hungry. When he last resigned, there were no prolonged salary negotiations, and he accepted somewhat less than the max back then. Some time later, rules changed and average league salaries have dropped. He clearly looks overpaid now, but that is due to both his lack of production and a change in league salary structure. 

Tell me, what does everyone think would be a reasonable annual salary for Sheed, if he continues to play as he is currently (including the "occasional" technical??


----------



## DirtMcMoses (Aug 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ProudBFan</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You would seriously pay 12-13 million a year for a supporting cast member. Man I'm glad you're not running the team.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "I don't think any of us really knows one way or the other what sort of contract Rasheed expects after this year...


Oh really? If you think Wallace is going to take a pay cut, I've got some swamp land I'd like to sell you.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

*...*

I do agree that Sheed should be paid accordingly but I do not agree that since he is being paid more now means his game should be any different. I personally think he is doing the best he can...not my hopes/or expectations, but the best he can-there is a difference.

Blazer org decided what to pay him knowing full well what he was, but hoping for more. They didn't get what they had hoped for but what they got is good. When the time comes-yes-this should all be taken into account and Sheed should be paid according to what he brings to the floor.

What he does bring isn't chump change either...he is a very good player and doesn't deserve to be underpaid either. I won't venture to guess what those numbers are or will be but they should be within league standards.


----------



## DirtMcMoses (Aug 25, 2003)

I would say a reasonable salary for Sheed is about 6-7 million a year. For what he brings to the table combined with the bad publicity he bring to the team, thats about right. If he agreed to a contract like that I would be satisfied with his play and shut my mouth. Your know hell is gonna freeze over before CTC agrees to that though. he'll probably want 15-18 million.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

Dirt, does this mean that you think that Bonzi is more productive and less of a PR negative than Rasheed??


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> DirtMcMoses wrote:
> You know CTC is not gonna do that.


I just knew one of the super negative Sheed bashers would say that and reference the "cut the check" statement as some sort of supporting evidence. Can we please stop this nonsense?! It has been explained in other threads how thoroughly out of context that statement has been taken. He answered a question about a trade scenario, to which he gave his version of a common response to trade questions ... it's just a business.

Never, to my knowledge, has Rasheed complained about pay, demanding a certain amount of money, or anything even remotely along those lines. So, like I said, none of us knows how much Rasheed expects after this year. Try letting go of your obvious hatred of the guy enough to think clearly for at least a minute or two.



> Talkhard wrote:
> Oh really? If you think Wallace is going to take a pay cut, I've got some swamp land I'd like to sell you.


And super negative Sheed basher #2 rings in, as expected... You guys really need to step back and realize how silly your comments make you look.



> Bwatcher wrote:
> Actually, I don't know that Sheed is money hungry. When he last resigned, there were no prolonged salary negotiations, and he accepted somewhat less than the max back then.


Thank you! See, it's not so hard to use your brain when posting.  



> bfan1 wrote:
> I do agree that Sheed should be paid accordingly but I do not agree that since he is being paid more now means his game should be any different.


Agreed. I was looking at how his current, and apparently comfortable level of, production fits in the team scheme beyond this year.

Dan


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Sheed wants to make $12 mil next year and so do I. Doesn't mean either of us are going to get it though. 

So which team in the NBA happens to have $12 million in salary cap room and is going to happily write that check to Sheed? I defy you to come up with a single team who'd do it. 

Teams with cap room are typically younger teams looking to add more young talent or at least proven veteran leadership and consistency. Sheed doesn't really offer a lot of either. 

Also, some of the teams with cap room may not be terribly good (ie, Utah) and so aren't going to be very attractive to a guy who's used to winning. 

He'll have a dozen takers at $4.5 mil exception, so we'll have to be higher than that. At $7 mil, we'll probably be offering as much or more than anybody with cap room, and we'll probably be a more favorable destination. 

The one exception to this are the Spurs. I'm not sure how much cap room they will have, but if they position themselves to be close to our offer, he's probably gone. It's tough to predict what the Spurs will do, though. I thought for sure they were going to go after Payton last year and they drecked up Rasho instead.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DirtMcMoses</b>!
> 
> 
> You would seriously pay 12-13 million a year for a supporting cast member. Man I'm glad you're not running the team.


Assuming the following:

1. CTC steps up to the PR responsibilities that come with being an NBA player of his stature, and...

2. CTC accepts the decrease in pay...

Yes, whole-heartedly. The dude is not a marquis player (and, frankly, doesn't want to be). So he should not make marquis player money. However, he IS a starter (and a damn fine starter at that) and so he should make the kind of money a damn fine starter - but not a marquis starter - should make. And $12M-$13M is probably about right. Assuming he steps up to his off-court responsibilities, I would have no problems paying him that kind of money (as if I'd ever see that kind of money in my lifetime).

But, truthfully, I really don't expect him to change his tune WRT the media OR agree to a $4M paycut just to stay in Portland, so it's probably a moot point.

PBF


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Sheed wants to make $12 mil next year


Where's that info coming from?

Dan


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

Wanker, I think you are taking a good angle on this. 



> Sept 25, 2003: InsideHoops.com projects that only Utah, Denver and the LA Clippers will have $9 or $10 (or more) million in salary cap room in the summer of 2004.


I also suspect that some teams such as the Wizards could get below the cap.

I think Denver is a possibility, but it appears that right now, there aren't many options for the good free agents this summer. Sheed might be happy with an offer of $10-11 million from Portland. I suspect his agent would try to drum up and force some sign and trade, but Portland wouldn't have to agree. Might be interesting to see how this plays out.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I'll try getting this point across again... If we're in agreement that $17 million is too much for Rasheed in terms of end-of-contract dollars -- and I think that is pretty much unanymous -- then we need to stop looking at it in terms of current salary -> pay cut -> next year's start of contract salary. As I recall, Rasheed's current contract started at around $10 or $11 million. Offering him another $10 million starting salary next year *is not a pay cut*, it's just the same overpaid salary once again. Remember, the yearly average of the contract is what matters most, not the starting vs. ending dollars.

Dan


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

Some good points have been made in this thread. Last night while watching the Raptor game, I was thinking to myself that with the double and even triple teams Zach is now requiring, Sheed, Bonzi and even Damon could really benefit. I'm a nay-sayer when it comes to this team, but I still love hoops, and what I realized last night is this team has potential to be very good. Sheed, Bonzi and Damon need to use the defensive attention given to Z-Bo, AND the team needs to play way better interior defense. If that can happen, this Blazers team could win a lot of games and surprise the league.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Doesn't matter where Wallace plays next season, he is not going to see the kind of money that he is getting now. If Portland did re-sign him it is going to be for a lot less, like 7 to 9 million. My guess is he is going to be traded by the deadline for a decent player and maybe a pick.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> So which team in the NBA happens to have $12 million in salary cap room and is going to happily write that check to Sheed? I defy you to come up with a single team who'd do it.


*BWatcher* started discussion on this, I know, but I'll add my :twocents:

Utah will have amazing amounts of cap room next summer - perhaps something like $30 million (depending on what they do with Stevenson). The most that they could offer Rasheed would be about $13 million to start. I don't see that happening. But I have to believe that they would be very interested in offering him $8-9 million. Would Rasheed want to play in Utah? Who knows. But it's a definite possibility.

Denver will probably have close to $14 million in space. But with Nene already entrenched at PF and Anthony at SF, the only way that I see them making a big offer to Rasheed is if they are convinced that he can put in big minutes at center. Or maybe if Nene can play center. Either way, Sheed doesn't seem to fit. They've got the money, but.......

I'm not sure why InsideHoops is projecting the Clippers to have that kind of space. Yeah, it's possible - if they let both Dooling and Richardson walk away as UFA's. Maybe they let Dooling walk, but not Richardson. Personally, I think that they'll make qualifying offers to Quentin and Keyon and have $4-5 million in cap space. But even if they cleared up the maximum possible room, I don't see them going after Rasheed, not with Brand, Wilcox, Ely and Kaman all under contract.

The Spurs are an interesting prospect. They have to deal with re-signing Ginobili and make a decision on Turkoglu. If they decide not to bring Horry back (they hold a team option), they'll have some cap room, but not anywhere near $9-10 million. Perhaps $5-6 million.

Washington could let Etan Thomas walk away as an UFA and have about $3 million in space. No more than that.

I think everybody else will be over the cap or perhaps just under (a million or two). The only way that one of these "fringe" teams (Miami, Golden State, etc.) could get significantly under the cap would require a trade for a large expiring contract, like Toni Kukoc or Greg Ostertag or Wesley Person.


In other words, I find it extremely unlikely that Rasheed will get a Max offer from any other team next summer. I think, therefore, that the Blazers could easily re-sign him for a new deal starting at $8 million - give him 4 years and $38 million (ie, he'd make $8 then $9 then $10 then $11 million). That would put the Blazers at about $63 million for their team salary next year [12 players including a 1st round pick].

Who's going to give him more than that? The most likely candidate is Utah. They need a PF next season and they'll have plenty of cap space. But I don't see them offering him $13 million.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

great analysis, So Cal. if we lost Sheed to Utah, I would consider it worth the price just to see him and Jerry Sloan try to make it through a season together. 

i'm guessing his value drops down a little lower to $7 mil (starting), though, because he's not taking as many shots this year, Zach is going to steal some of his rebounding numbers, and there's always the "what the hell did he just say" factor. but even at $8 mil, he's worth the price.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> 4 years and $38 million (ie, he'd make $8 then $9 then $10 then $11 million).


Those look like very reasonable numbers, although I suspect Rasheed and his agent won't want to settle for a 4 year contract at this stage of his career.

If they can be talked into a $7 million starting salary, as theWanker suggested -- right in line with what I think is appropriate -- that makes it roughly $7, $8, $9, and $10 for the proposed 4 years, which equals a not so bad sounding $34 million.

The key is how good Nash and Patterson are in negotiations. We haven't seen anything yet to indicate how they'll do, but they'll hopefully be able to convince Sheed and his agent that he's still an important piece of this team, the above offer is more than he'll probably get from anyone but Utah (I _guarantee_ he won't be playing there!), it's in line with his productivity, it's not far below where his current contract began (probably higher when compared to the overall league economics), and it will make the team's finances much healthier, thus allowing them to re-build a championship contending team. Should be a good test of their abilities.

Dan


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> great analysis, So Cal. if we lost Sheed to Utah, I would consider it worth the price just to see him and Jerry Sloan try to make it through a season together.


Even a Sheed fan I can see the humor in this! :laugh: 
It would never work


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

I guess my only question is "Sheed, what part of $17 million dollars do you not understand?"


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> Has Rasheed been a 12 and 7 kind of guy all along?


He's averaging 15.7 and 7.6 so far this year so I'd say no.

STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Has Rashhed found his niche?*



> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> He's averaging 15.7 and 7.6 so far this year so I'd say no.


All right... let me ask you another question: has he been a 6'7" power forward all along?

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

OK 15 and 7.

He's down about 3pts from last year, which with the added emphasis on Zach is expected. He seems to me to be more comfortable out there.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> OK 15 and 7.


Actually, 16 and 8, unless you need to round down for some reason 

His career averages? Not including the last game (which NBA.com hasn't integrated for some reason): 16.0 and 6.7.



> He's down about 3pts from last year, which with the added emphasis on Zach is expected. He seems to me to be more comfortable out there.


He's still the focus of the offense, but people on the board are just laying off of him because Zach's putting up such good numbers. Wallace actually hasn't shot the ball that well, and I expect him to get better as the season goes on.

Another thing that might change is the number of minutes Wallace is playing: 39 is a lot for any Blazer and it will be interesting to see if Cheeks keeps playing him of if he reduces his minutes as Stepania gets more comfortable and DA and RP return (reducing the need to play Rasheed huge minutes at the 5 and 3, respectively).

To answer the main question (has he found his niche): I think that he's playing the same way he always has, and I think that some people might just be willing to accept him as a player and his production when there's a guy in the lineup who's getting the sexy numbers.

Ed O.


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> Offering him another $10 million starting salary next year *is not a pay cut*, it's just the same overpaid salary once again. Remember, the yearly average of the contract is what matters most, not the starting vs. ending dollars.
> 
> Dan


What!!

I understand what you're saying but to try and say going from $17mil to $10mil isn't a paycut is stretching it.

Having said that, myself and many others have long said that Sheed is a great second option. Really, apart from the way IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII feel he treats fans (mainly through the media), I have no problem with him staying on this team. Actually, I'd prefer it.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> I understand what you're saying but to try and say going from $17mil to $10mil isn't a paycut is stretching it.


How's that a stretch when it's the exact same contract? I would counter that construing it as a paycut is the actual stretch. Let's change the situation a bit:

Scenario 1) I pay you $10 this week to mow the lawn and $5 next week.

Scenario 2) I pay you $5 this week to mow the lawn and $10 next week.

Is scenario 2 a paycut just because it starts at a lower amount? Same net value...

It's the GM's job to explain to the player and agent in a non-hostile manner the way these things work. I get the impression not too many fans or GMs have a good grasp of monetary planning, so a premium must be placed on being able to put it into layman's terms without offending. Again, re-wording the situation a bit:

Sheed is making $17 million this year on a contract that started at, say, $10 million. If he were to sign a new contract of the same length that started at $12 million, that would be a pay *raise*, despite starting out lower than the end of year salary on the current contract. The only way for it to be even, given the standard rising salary structure, is for the new contract to start out at the same dollar amount as the previous contract. It's only a pay *cut* if it starts out at a lower amount than did the previous one. This isn't even a case of playing fast and loose with the numbers or the terminology, just a straight 1:1 comparison.

I'll reiterate a point I raised over the summer, and that is my disdain for the NBA's preferred structuring of salaries. The only two industries I can think of with similar salary levels are Hollywood and major corporations' CEOs. As far as I know, neither of those have gone down the silly road of rising contracts each year or each movie. There's no cost of living factor here. From time to time, the industry dictates raising the flat rates and salaries are adjusted accordingly. Otherwise, they are fairly static each time out for each person. There's no reason the NBA should not be set up the same way, other than some perversion of player and agent ego. Flat rates make everything easier to visualize and plan out and would help avoid many of these major binds teams are finding themselves in with end of contract players. If Rasheed's contract were written up as $13 million per year for 7 years (is that right?), it would be easy to renegotiate on that basis.

"I want $13 million again for 5 more years."
"We'll give you $11 million for 3 years."
"How about $12 million for 4 years?"
"Deal."

Very clear cut situation with little area for confusion or compounding of mistakes a few years down the road.

Dan


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*Let's put it this way.*

If you saw him play,and didn't know him,
Your jaw would drop if I told you he makes 270,000 a game.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

If I made 40 grand one year, 50 grand the next and 25 grand the year after that, I'd call it a pay cut regardless if I get a big raise the next year...


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> If I made 40 grand one year, 50 grand the next and 25 grand the year after that, I'd call it a pay cut regardless if I get a big raise the next year...


Well then, you'd fare very poorly in fiscally responsible salary negotiations.

If you're still sitting on the fence or missing the "pay cut" point, read my flat rate salary proposal again... It is an incredibly simple and effective system that does away with all this confusion and potential for damaging misunderstanding. It makes it easier for teams to plan for the future, as well as to retain free agents without breaking the bank worse with each contract. And from a player's perspective, it is actually more rewarding financially because they get more of their money up front. Looks like a win-win scenario to me.

Dan


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Trifecta and Ringbearer are just looking at year to year salaries instead of looking at the contract as a whole. Most of us don't have written out contracts that guarantee how much money we're going to be making every year so I can understand how it might be a little hard for them to think of the contract as a whole. We also barely care about the contract as a whole because the salary cap ramifications of what a player makes are based on their salary that year and not on their total contract. 

In order to really get why Sheed getting a contract starting at 12 mil would actually be a raise you can't look at it in year by year terms. You have to look at it in overall contract terms. Sheed's contract, as I got from Patricia's site, is 6 years for 80 million dollars. Used to be that teams did contracts in any number of whacky ways instead of the normal start at X and add .12*X every year. Balloon payments (Shawn Kemp) are the best example of this. But what really matters when you're making X million dollars every year is the total amount of the contract and how you get it is fairly inconsiquential. If we give him a contract starting at 12 this year with the normal raises for 6 years his total amount is about 97 million dollars. So he would then be getting a 17 million dollar raise for the next 6 years.

Now on the real topic. I don't care if Sheed has found his niche or not. If he has then whoop-tee-doo we found out that he's Cliff Robinson. That's just fantastic. Now he just needs to shave his head and switch to a red headband. Except Cliff could actually guard small forwards one on one. Then again Cliff played on teams with much better point guards, Porter/Strickland, so maybe his numbers are artificially inflated.

I'm done with Sheed. I want to see him traded. Granted, I want Pau Gasol in return so it's much easier said than done. But I don't want him on the team next year. Sheed has never had the work ethic or the toughness it takes to be a top notch player. I'm worried that it is eventually going to rub off on Randolph and then we'll have yet another player with "potential" that he never lives up to and unfortunately that means we'll continue being mediocre for a long time.

The other thing that annoys me about this thread is that we're not winning games. If Sheed's found his niche so well and it's pretty obvious that Zach's breakin out, shouldn't we be winning? That's kind of the point of all this. To win games. This is the easy part of the season too!!! We didn't make any big changes, Zach's having a break out year and Sheed's supposedly found his niche. We should be winning games and winning them big instead of losing to Utah, Philly and Seattle and getting single digit wins against the likes of Toronto, Atlanta and Memphis. 

It seems pretty obvious to me that Sheed has not found his niche. I don't care how happy he looks on the court. Sheed usually looks happy on the court anyway, unless he gets some bad calls. Even when we're losing badly you see him out there smilin and laughin. Not that I think this is a bad thing as much as I'm stating that it's no real indicator of anything.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> 
> How's that a stretch when it's the exact same contract? I would counter that construing it as a paycut is the actual stretch. Let's change the situation a bit:
> 
> ...


Yes, scenario 1 is definitely preferable. Present value of money says that money now is worth more than money later. 

Let's say I can loan money out at 50% interest per week (I'm a loan shark). Then in scenario 1, I get $10 immediately, loan it out, and get $15 back in a week, plus another $5 for mowing your lawn a second time. That gives me $20 bucks. 
In scenario 2, I loan out $5, get $7.50 back, and another $10 for the second mow. In this case I have only $17.50 at the end.

Of course, Sheed is not a loan shark so he only gets maybe 4% per year on his money instead of 50% per week. But then, he's not mowing your yard, either. 

Money now is always better than money later. 

barfo


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

*...*



> Zach's having a break out year and Sheed's supposedly found his niche. We should be winning games and winning them big instead of losing to Utah, Philly and Seattle and getting single digit wins against the likes of Toronto, Atlanta and Memphis.


you have missed the entire point of this thread.


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

deleted because I really don't need to participate in this discussion.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

_edit: I see trifecta deleted the above post while I was typing this reply. Sort of throws off the context..._



> Yes, scenario 1 is definitely preferable. Present value of money says that money now is worth more than money later.


I would agree with that, but that wasn't the point of the particular example. It was merely to show that dollars can be organized in a different fashion without necessarily being less dollars. (Many people would just blow the extra money up front and be worse off, so you can't automatically assume the dollar value is better.)



> it irritates me that you seem to be so proud of yourself and look down on people who choose to look at this from a different angle.


Sorry if I offended, but there's no nice way to say it ... a starting salary next year of $10+ million is a pay raise, regardless of what his salary is this year. To look at it from any other angle is just plain wrong and is suicide to any organization, even one with as deep of pockets as Paul Allen's. If you can explain to me how that _isn't_ wrong, them maybe I won't be so smug (according to your view). If not, then we don't exactly have much common ground to work from...



> I'd like to see the reaction of Sheed and his agent when you walked in with a $10mil initial offer and tell them this isn't a paycut.


Like I said, this will be a good test of how savvy Patterson and Nash are. If they cannot convince Rasheed and his agent of the logic behind it, as I fleshed out in detail above, then they do not deserve their respective jobs. It's not a matter of pulling a fast one on anyone. Frankly, I'm rather shocked that there can even be any disagreement on the matter. The numbers don't lie...

If Rasheed cannot be swayed by the above argument, then it really doesn't matter. The team cannot afford to keep him around at his current salary, let alone a massive raise which is what anything would be that meets your idea of "not a pay cut," i.e. not below this year's salary.



> To address your vailed comments about my lack of understanding


It wasn't aimed at anyone in particular. I said fans and GMs, meaning my impression is very few people have a good grasp of the matter. Outside San Antonio and possibly the Lakers, I can think of very few teams that have done a good job of managing salaries while attempting to field competitive teams. Call me smug if you like, but I'll keep repeating the message until someone either refutes it or until people take heed.

Dan


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> I would agree with that, but that wasn't the point of the particular example. It was merely to show that dollars can be organized in a different fashion without necessarily being less dollars. (Many people would just blow the extra money up front and be worse off, so you can't automatically assume the dollar value is better.)


Uhm. I do think you missed the point. There IS a difference between your two scenarios. Scenario 2 IS less dollars. The present value of future money IS less than the present value of today's dollars. Yes, many people would blow the extra money. That doesn't make the money worth less, it just makes them poor money managers.



> Like I said, this will be a good test of how savvy Patterson and Nash are. If they cannot convince Rasheed and his agent of the logic behind it, as I fleshed out in detail above, then they do not deserve their respective jobs. It's not a matter of pulling a fast one on anyone. Frankly, I'm rather shocked that there can even be any disagreement on the matter. The numbers don't lie...


I think you are vastly underestimating the financial savvy of NBA general managers, owners, agents, and even players. And overestimating your own financial savvy. Not trying to insult you here, but if you really think you've figured something out about player salaries that no one in the NBA has figured out, you are kidding yourself. 



> If Rasheed cannot be swayed by the above argument, then it really doesn't matter. The team cannot afford to keep him around at his current salary, let alone a massive raise which is what anything would be that meets your idea of "not a pay cut," i.e. not below this year's salary.


This I agree with, sort of. The value of Sheed's next contract will be determined by his market value, not by some emotional argument between fans about whether he's taking a pay cut or not.

barfo


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Uhm. I do think you missed the point. There IS a difference between your two scenarios.


No, I fully understand that. In a general sense, at least. I'm talking about a small dollar amount over a period of two weeks -- a very dumbed down situation, to be sure; completely for illustrative purposes. Absolutely no measureable difference in dollar value there.



> if you really think you've figured something out about player salaries that no one in the NBA has figured out, you are kidding yourself.


My response to that is the very fact that we're having this discussion. If it were common knowledge/view, then we wouldn't have anything to disagree about here. As I said, you can dislike my point all you want, but unless you or anyone else can offer something up to refute it, I maintain the alternative and common view is wrong. Maybe I _am_ under-estimating NBA execs, but the evidence at hand says otherwise. Most of them have done a dismal job of managing salaries even after the new CBA took effect.

Dan


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> No, I fully understand that. In a general sense, at least. I'm talking about a small dollar amount over a period of two weeks -- a very dumbed down situation, to be sure; completely for illustrative purposes. Absolutely no measureable difference in dollar value there.


Right, so your point was about mowing lawns? It seems a little off topic, then. Not that I mind. But let's be clear here: you agree your example of lawn mowing was completely irrelevant to the discussion of Sheed's salary?



> My response to that is the very fact that we're having this discussion. If it were common knowledge/view, then we wouldn't have anything to disagree about here. As I said, you can dislike my point all you want, but unless you or anyone else can offer something up to refute it, I maintain the alternative and common view is wrong.


What is it that you want me to refute? The suggestion that NBA salaries should be flat rather than graduated? 

Either flat or graduated are perfectly reasonable ways to structure salaries. I can imagine reasons why one party or another would prefer one or the other, depending on circumstances and the negotiating position of the other party, but I can't see any reason to categorically state one is better than the other. 

Shrug. If it is some other point you wanted addressed, let me know. Sorry if I've lost the thread here.

barfo


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> you agree your example of lawn mowing was completely irrelevant to the discussion of Sheed's salary?


Yes, I would agree to that. It was only used to illustrate a point that seemed to be falling on deaf ears. There's no direct comparison between it and Rasheed's salary situation.



> What is it that you want me to refute?


That a contract starting at $10 million (or whatever exactly his current contract started at) is not a pay cut. That is the heart of the disagreement, and I've yet to hear anything resembling a compelling counter-argument.



> The suggestion that NBA salaries should be flat rather than graduated?


Sure, that too. 



> Either flat or graduated are perfectly reasonable ways to structure salaries. I can imagine reasons why one party or another would prefer one or the other


Ok, what is one negative to the flat salary structure? I named quite a few positives previously, covering all parties involved. I honestly cannot come up with a negative. Unless there are negatives I'm overlooking, it should be a very easy sales job by Stern to the player's union, seeing as how they would benefit from it, too.

Dan


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> That a contract starting at $10 million (or whatever exactly his current contract started at) is not a pay cut. That is the heart of the disagreement, and I've yet to hear anything resembling a compelling counter-argument.


Ah. Well, I'm not really on the other side of that argument, so I can't argue it, except to say that I think it is just semantics. You and whoever are just defining the term 'pay cut' differently. My position is that it doesn't make a damn bit of difference if it is a pay cut or not. [Only Sheed would care if it is a pay cut, right? And he's going to sign for the maximum he can get, pay cut or not, right? So why does it matter if it is a pay cut?]



> Ok, what is one negative to the flat salary structure? I named quite a few positives previously, covering all parties involved. I honestly cannot come up with a negative. Unless there are negatives I'm overlooking, it should be a very easy sales job by Stern to the player's union, seeing as how they would benefit from it, too.


The players would benefit if you keep the total dollars paid over the life of the contract the same, but flatten the payments. Conversely, the owners would lose [money]. The owners surely know that. Your argument that the owners would gain by being able to do better financial planning I find unconvincing - I think they are adequately equipped to model the financial effects of graduated salaries.

barfo


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

I agree that its semantics...

If you define a paycut as getting a contract that will pay you less over a 5 year period, then you could arrange it such that starting at $10 mil would avoid that...

However, if you define a paycut as getting paid less over the course of a year, then you couldn't.

Most people in a steady job make the same or more every year they work with that company. The raises may be small, but they're there. And It'd be a pretty tough sell to tell your employees that you're going to cut their salary in half for next year, but give them gradual raises so that maybe in 5 years they'll make what they made the year before.

NBA contracts are certainly a different matter, but there are still parallels. For example, if they extended Sheed's contract at the current rate, that would be much more analogous to what I consider a raise then signing him for slightly higher than they did 5 years ago...

Anyway, however you want to define your terms, there's no sense in being condescending about it, ya know?


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Hmm, first I was told my stated position is clearly a pay cut, now I issue the challenge to prove me wrong and I'm told it's just a matter of semantics... Not too convincing.



> Conversely, the owners would lose [money]. The owners surely know that. Your argument that the owners would gain by being able to do better financial planning I find unconvincing - I think they are adequately equipped to model the financial effects of graduated salaries.


I disagree with that on both counts.

1) _The owners would lose money._ This may have been true 5 years ago when league revenues were still increasing, but we're into an era now where that is anything but a sure bet. Given the recent economic climate and the likelihood that won't change significantly any time soon (TV deals and advertising pretty much maxed out 2-3 years ago), let's say there's a roughly equal chance that: a) league revenue goes up, b) league revenue remains steady, or c) league revenue declines. If you accept that assumption, then there's a 2/3 chance that a flat salary structure actually would benefit the owners. The rising salary structure only benefits them if league revenues rise as fast as the collective salaries, and that doesn't look too likely anymore.

2) _The owners are on top of things._ The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Many of the owners have put their foot down and said they're unwilling to pay the luxury tax -- too expensive. Teams being sold, veteran players getting "only" the MLE or being out of work because of the veteran's minimum... I see no indication that things are going well economically with the current setup.

Dan


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, 16 and 8, unless you need to round down for some reason
> ...


It supports my point better if I round down. Why would I sopt an extra .3 of a point if I can deduct .7 ?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> Hmm, first I was told my stated position is clearly a pay cut, now I issue the challenge to prove me wrong and I'm told it's just a matter of semantics... Not too convincing.


Well, it is a matter of semantics. I can't help it if someone argued with you over semantics.



> 1) _The owners would lose money._ This may have been true 5 years ago when league revenues were still increasing, but we're into an era now where that is anything but a sure bet. Given the recent economic climate and the likelihood that won't change significantly any time soon (TV deals and advertising pretty much maxed out 2-3 years ago), let's say there's a roughly equal chance that: a) league revenue goes up, b) league revenue remains steady, or c) league revenue declines. If you accept that assumption, then there's a 2/3 chance that a flat salary structure actually would benefit the owners. The rising salary structure only benefits them if league revenues rise as fast as the collective salaries, and that doesn't look too likely anymore.


No, sorry, I didn't mean their net income would go down. I meant that their expenses would go up. It's the same point I've been making: getting money today is better than getting money later. Likewise, paying money now is worse than paying money later. In the flat scheme you've been proposing, the owners would be paying more money sooner. This is a negative for the owners, a positive for the players. 



> 2) _The owners are on top of things._ The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Many of the owners have put their foot down and said they're unwilling to pay the luxury tax -- too expensive. Teams being sold, veteran players getting "only" the MLE or being out of work because of the veteran's minimum... I see no indication that things are going well economically with the current setup.
> 
> Dan


Well, things aren't going well economically. Period. The NBA is suffering (a little) along w/ the rest of the country. 
But as to your argument, where's the pudding? Owners not wanting to pay the luxury tax? How does that imply bad financial management? Teams being sold? Isn't that true of every sport, or even every industry, in this country? Veteran players getting paid less - isn't that an indication of GOOD financial management on the part of the GMs? 

barfo


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

As barfo noted, the present value of money comes into play when determining whether there's a "real" pay cut or not.

Rasheed Wallace, and his agent and advisors, would argue that it's a pay cut to go from $17m to $10m, even if the new deal averages out to be the same. Not just because of the fact that he actually IS making less money from one year to the next, but because the money that he'll get in the future to make up for his lower first-year salary is worth less than it would be if he got it now. (Confusing a bit  .)

In terms of why GMs don't use flat salary numbers over time: it's because of (a) the discount inherent in delayed payments, and (b) often salary cap space requires that the first year be a certain amount, and the player is in a position to demand the maximum allowable raises to maximize his income.

I'm having a feeling of _déjà vu_ here... have you and I discussed this before, Dan?

Ed O.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Now we're at least delving into the heart of the matter. 



> It's the same point I've been making: getting money today is better than getting money later.


But, as I just illustrated (or tried to) above with the "2/3" example, that isn't necessarily true. If league revenue goes down, they're better off paying relatively more now when it can be afforded, rather than later when it is doubly problematic from the perspective of the salary cap.



> Owners not wanting to pay the luxury tax? How does that imply bad financial management? Teams being sold? Isn't that true of every sport, or even every industry, in this country? Veteran players getting paid less - isn't that an indication of GOOD financial management on the part of the GMs?


1) Several owners have mandated avoiding it because they claim to not be able to afford it. That isn't a good economic sign. The result is cost cutting in many areas that affect the product on the floor, as we're seeing here in Portland this year.

2) I may be wrong about this, but my impression is there is more turnover -- both realized and pursued -- currently with NBA franchises than we've seen in the past. Again, profitability seems to be lacking for many teams, which implies a bad economic situation.

3) Perhaps a sign of better financial awareness, but not a good sign of economic health. Veterans are being squeezed out in many cases because their contracts cannot be afforded. If they want to continue working, it's for far less than they likely would have gotten only a couple years ago.



> Rasheed Wallace, and his agent and advisors, would argue that it's a pay cut to go from $17m to $10m


But like I said a few posts back, anything that isn't a pay cut from that perspective would be a _gigantic_ pay raise, a la KG numbers. Let's say they go after a 6-7 year contract that "isn't a pay cut." We'd be looking at numbers along the lines of:

$17 million
$19.5
$22.5
$25.8
$29.7
$34.2
$39.3

or $188 million over 7 years, i.e. $26.9 million per year, or roughly double his current contract. If his agent has the audacity to claim that is what it takes to not be a pay cut, then the above numbers should be a sufficiently rude awakening.

It also serves to illustrate how ridiculously out of hand the cost of living approach to mega-salaries can get...



> I'm having a feeling of déjà vu here... have you and I discussed this before, Dan?


Yes.  That's the previous (summer) discussion I alluded to. Not too many people chimed in on that one. I guess I didn't strike quite as much of a nerve the first time...

Dan


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> But, as I just illustrated (or tried to) above with the "2/3" example, that isn't necessarily true. If league revenue goes down, they're better off paying relatively more now when it can be afforded, rather than later when it is doubly problematic from the perspective of the salary cap.


You are making a point here I agree with, if I understand you correctly. The tax code (either government or league) may tip the balance in favor of early payment rather than later. 

If on the other hand you are saying paying early is better because revenue is higher early, then I disagree. It would be better to save and invest the excess revenue and make the payments later.



> 1) Several owners have mandated avoiding it because they claim to not be able to afford it. That isn't a good economic sign. The result is cost cutting in many areas that affect the product on the floor, as we're seeing here in Portland this year.
> 
> 2) I may be wrong about this, but my impression is there is more turnover -- both realized and pursued -- currently with NBA franchises than we've seen in the past. Again, profitability seems to be lacking for many teams, which implies a bad economic situation.
> 
> 3) Perhaps a sign of better financial awareness, but not a good sign of economic health. Veterans are being squeezed out in many cases because their contracts cannot be afforded. If they want to continue working, it's for far less than they likely would have gotten only a couple years ago.


We agree the economic situation is bad. But I thought you were previously arguing that the owners/GMs were incompetent financial managers (so incompetent that they needed a flat salary structure to understand their future monetary commitments).

barfo


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> The tax code (either government or league) may tip the balance in favor of early payment rather than later.
> 
> If on the other hand you are saying paying early is better because revenue is higher early, then I disagree. It would be better to save and invest the excess revenue and make the payments later.


In general economic terms, there's no question about the second part. But as your understanding in the first part explains, the NBA's salary cap, luxury tax, profit sharing, and miscellaneous related rules do not really make this a standard economic model. Money available and money spendable are not really one and the same, due to tax thresholds, salary restrictions, and what not. Pretty far removed from the typical free market place...



> I thought you were previously arguing that the owners/GMs were incompetent financial managers (so incompetent that they needed a flat salary structure to understand their future monetary commitments).


Yes, but I don't see that those are incongruous points. The inability of execs to deal with the current salary situation has led to the problems I listed above. Because nearly every team is in a tight situation, difficult decisions need to be made, none of which appear to be benefitting the league as a whole or players on average.

Dan


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> Hmm, first I was told my stated position is clearly a pay cut, now I issue the challenge to prove me wrong and I'm told it's just a matter of semantics... Not too convincing.


Well maybe you're not talking about me, but I never said that your "stated position was clearly a pay cut". I said that I would call it a pay cut if I were in that position, which I think falls pretty well in line with the idea of it being a matter of semantics.

You say its not a pay cut, I say its a pay cut followed by a series of pay raises - different definition, different perspective. I also never said that I would never take such a deal as it could work out that it would be beneficial long term depending on the deal, circumstances, etc... I just wouldn't appreciate someone trying to convince me in negotiations that it wasn't in fact a pay cut.

Cheers


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

Dan, 

I think perhaps what you miss is that we all understand your point and that you would prefer to look at it as the total sum of a new contract as opposed to on an annual basis.  The only reason no one can directly refute and offer evidence opposing your view on this is that from the angle you're looking at it, you're correct.

I just happen to think you may be the only one to view NBA salaries this way.

My issue is that everything I've ever read about NBA contracts are always based on annual salaries and then raises from that point. The way the CBA is structured is based on annual salaries. The luxery tax is based on annual revenue. All financial matters in the league are based on annual numbers. Also, as a player is not obigated to fulfill a contract (he retires) then there is a clear chance that he would have indeed received a paycut.

Note that I'm not saying that Sheed deserves a raise or I expect that he'll get one. I'm just saying that I'd love to be in the room when Nash explains that $10mil is really more than $17mil.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> I just happen to think you may be the only one to view NBA salaries this way.


And I happen to think that that is exactly the problem, which is why I'm so passionate about trying to get the point across. 

Every time a contract discussion comes along regarding Rasheed, the consensus is that he needs to be paid less after this year to be of value to the Blazers. However, many of those same people invariably say $10-11 million would be a good number for next year, ignoring the fact that a few years down the road, it'll put us right back in the same messed up situation. That's why I say it is not a pay cut, rather just duplicating the same mistakes. The fact that so many people apparently cannot see that is largely why I believe a flat salary structure is not only beneficial, but absolutely essential.

Stepping back from Sheed's contract and looking at the bigger picture, the system is clearly broken. Using the opinion of the majority as a safety blanket is quite likely not the best way to go... Maybe my approach would not fare any better, but chances are pretty good it wouldn't be worse. At least on paper, the pros heavily outweigh the cons.

Dan


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> The fact that so many people apparently cannot see that is largely why I believe a flat salary structure is not only beneficial, but absolutely essential.


But Dan, whether a bunch of fans can understand it (or not) is completely irrelevant. The salaries aren't negotiated by any of us. And I feel very confident that the owners, GMs, agents, and probably some players do understand the current salary structure and the implications thereof. To suggest otherwise is to call them something on the order of 'incompetent morons'. 

I can't offer any evidence for this position of mine, and I could be wrong - but my experience is that very successful people (which most of the above are, by any usual definition) are not often incompetent morons. There are occasional exceptions, of course, but we can discuss the President some other time.

barfo


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> 
> However, many of those same people invariably say $10-11 million would be a good number for next year, ignoring the fact that a few years down the road, it'll put us right back in the same messed up situation.


The same base salary will only put the Blazers in the same position as they are now if they also put in the same yearly pay raises and the same number of years.

If those things change, the starting salary next year could still be $10 million / year, say, and it wouldn't escalate the same way.

But really when people talk about $10 million / year, they likely mean a contract that *averages* $10 million / year, and they're simply being imprecise in the interest of brevity and the assumption people know what they mean.

Which is fine, since none of them are offering official deals when they say what they'd like, so imprecise speaking isn't damaging. If they mean $10 million / year, yes, it would have to start at under $10 million / year if it's going to be a graduated deal.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> whether a bunch of fans can understand it (or not) is completely irrelevant. The salaries aren't negotiated by any of us. And I feel very confident that the owners, GMs, agents, and probably some players do understand the current salary structure and the implications thereof.


I would hope that's true, but this discussion and the state of affairs in the NBA is indicating otherwise. What players and agents expect salary-wise is at least in part due to what fans expect, so understanding what we're talking about at a grass roots level is not irrelevant. Much more important than endless trade proposals, I dare say.  



> The same base salary will only put the Blazers in the same position as they are now if they also put in the same yearly pay raises and the same number of years.
> 
> If those things change, the starting salary next year could still be $10 million / year, say, and it wouldn't escalate the same way.


Ah, but that would be exactly what I'm suggesting is the best way to go!!! Hopefully, what I'm getting at is a bit clearer now? Fighting agains the status quo isn't easy...



> But really when people talk about $10 million / year, they likely mean a contract that *averages* $10 million / year, and they're simply being imprecise in the interest of brevity and the assumption people know what they mean.


You may be right about some people, but this thread clearly indicates that many people do not fit that description. Just look back for the incredulous responses saying my suggestion that a starting salary of $10 million would be laughed out of the building. Additionally, look at all the resistance to the concept of a flat salary structure. Doesn't look to me like any of them are thinking of an average amount when you look at both of those aspects in conjunction.

Dan


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> 
> I would hope that's true, but this discussion and the state of affairs in the NBA is indicating otherwise.


This discussion is just between fans, so I don't think it indicates anything at all about whether the people making NBA contracts understand them or not.

The state of affairs in the NBA might be due to the people making contracts not understanding the contracts, but I think it might be a bit more complicated than that.



> What players and agents expect salary-wise is at least in part due to what fans expect, so understanding what we're talking about at a grass roots level is not irrelevant.


Really? I don't see the connection. None of the players or agents have called me up to ask what they should be paid. I guess they might be reading this thread, but, if they are as stupid as you imply, they probably don't grok it anyway. Seriously, how do fan expectations of salaries influence actual salaries?

barfo


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

If the average fan believes $2 million to be appropriate for an all-star caliber player, as it was around '90, how many agents do you think will have the gall to walk into a GM's office and demand $20 million? I'm not saying there's a direct corrollation between fan perception and the way things actually work, but there certainly is an influence.

But more importantly, I see your dismissal of this on the basis of it being just a fan issue a bit off. Perhaps just a way of saying you don't want to discuss it any further? 99.99% of what is discussed on this board and others is no more relevant to the daily goings on of the NBA, and the vast majority of it much less so.

If people don't understand the issues and don't _want_ to understand the issues, I can only hope they steer clear of repeatedly spreading misinformation regarding the issues in the future...  

Dan
- smugly signing off


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> Fighting agains the status quo isn't easy...
> Dan


You're such a martyr...


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> If the average fan believes $2 million to be appropriate for an all-star caliber player, as it was around '90, how many agents do you think will have the gall to walk into a GM's office and demand $20 million?


Uhm, all of them? If they thought $20 million was achievable, they'd certainly ask for it (or more likely, more). Why would an agent care what you and I think? Their job is to get the maximum for their client, not to satisfy the public. 



> But more importantly, I see your dismissal of this on the basis of it being just a fan issue a bit off. Perhaps just a way of saying you don't want to discuss it any further?


No, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't dismissing the subject of the discussion by saying it was only us fans who care about it, I was saying that the fact that we are discussing it has no bearing on whether GMs do or do not understand the implications of the salary structure. You had claimed that this discussion was some sort of evidence they didn't understand.



> If people don't understand the issues and don't _want_ to understand the issues, I can only hope they steer clear of repeatedly spreading misinformation regarding the issues in the future...


I suppose spreading misinformation is generally bad, but face facts. We are a bunch of fans. It just doesn't matter what we think about salaries (except to the extent we stop buying NBA product because of outrage over salaries, perhaps). It certainly doesn't matter whether we think flat or graduated salaries are better. 



> Dan
> - smugly signing off


Indeed. If you really think your idea is so hot, call up St. Steve and tell him about it. He and Nash are the only ones worth convincing. I for one am not convinced, but that shouldn't stop you.

barfo


----------



## testersman (Apr 13, 2008)

this is the first time i heard of him, seem he is good


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

testersman said:


> this is the first time i heard of him, seem he is good


I don't get it?


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

Wow these archives go waaay back. This thread goes back to the beginning of the Iraq war.

Sheed comfortable with 12 and 7? Sounds about right.


----------



## sabas4mvp (Sep 23, 2002)

dammit, I'm drunk and I saw this thread and was confused as hell!


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

testersman said:


> this is the first time i heard of him, seem he is good


helluva first post there ... :raised_ey


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

testersman said:


> this is the first time i heard of him, seem he is good


lol


----------

