# Update on Rasheed's controversial comments



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

Merry Christmas everyone!

In between celebrating with some family and watching the LeBron/T-Mac showdown, I caught an interview on Fox Radio today with Geoffrey Arnold. You all know him - he's the reporter who wrote the article containing Sheed's controversial comments about exploitation.

The host asked Geoffrey if he could explain what Sheed was thinking when he said these things. Here's a summary of what Geoffrey said:


When Rasheed refers to "high schoolers" coming into the league and being exploited, he's criticizing the system of a rookie scale. He believes that guys like LeBron could be making a lot more money if it were not for the system that restricts how much money they can make during their first few years in the league. He believes in more of a "free market" system where both rookies and veterans can make as much $$$ as they can.


That's it. So, essentially what we have is Sheed expressing his opinion that the rookie scale is oppressive. That coming from the man who interviewed Sheed, heard the quotes and wrote the article. Now, Sheed clearly didn't communicate himself well - but then again, if Geoffrey understood what Sheed was TRYING to say, why not make that clear IN THE ARTICLE, and not in a radio interview 3 weeks later?

Geoffrey was quick to point out that he disagrees with Sheed on this perspective, and that he has no idea where this point of view comes from. I would also say that I disagree with Sheed's opinion. LeBron is the exception - the rookie scale has in many cases guaranteed younger players more money (and perhaps for more years) than they could have expected to sign for as an untested rookie. Plus, I think that the rookie scale has brought some financial sanity to the league by not taking $$$ away from veterans just because a rookie like Glenn Robinson wants to be the first rookie to sign a $100 million contract (I know, he didn't get it - but he did get a bigger deal than he was worth)

BTW, I could tell that the host wasn't expecting this answer, because he quickly moved on to ask "why is Sheed so angry?" and about the "Blazer team in general" and their reputation as "bad guys". This instead of dwelling on "maybe we got it all wrong when we mis-interpreted what he was trying to say".


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

Oh yeah... well... maybe... but then what about this only exploiting the N------. I read Sheeds comments, and that is a very nice interpretation of them, though it really is not close to what he actually said.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

What the heck does the rookie scale have to do with exploited HS'ers? Doesn't it apply equally well to college graduates?

Dan


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

*Well, the HS kids...*

....are being exploited because they are giving up an education to make the millions of dollars that they can't turn down when they've perhaps lived in poverty prior to that. So they sign on for "THREE MILLION DOLLARS" which is a lot of money for them. Sheed's saying that these kids don't realize that 3 million is pittance compared to how much they're worth to the league.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

... which is still no different than how much the non-straight-from-HS guys sign for relative to their worth to the league. The rookie scale is the rookie scale, regardless of age or schooling.

The more one tries to explain the argument, the more flawed it becomes...

Dan


----------



## RoseCity (Sep 27, 2002)

I do not see it. Sorry. 

Sheed would NOT rant like that with the use of the 'N' word about a freaking rookie salary scale.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

wait..so 1 year players should be making as much money as someone who's been in the league 5-8 years?


chaaa right.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

And... as some coaches around the league pointed out... most first round picks are a bust.... so most get paid without ever producing.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> wait..so 1 year players should be making as much money as someone who's been in the league 5-8 years?
> 
> 
> chaaa right.


No, the point is that players shouldn't be locked into salaries for their first three years. They should be able to make whatever the market will bear. Which means if an incoming rookie is a hot property and teams want to bid him up into the stratosphere, he should be free to make that money. Free market principle.

In baseball, players are prevented from reaching free agency for their first six major league years.

Players have always railed against their free market rights being curtailed.

I don't necessarily disagree with the principle of limiting certain free market rights, because the sports world is already an artificial economic system...not a pure free market in which players are the only ones losing free market rights. Owners lose certain rights, too.

It's a tremendously complex issue, one I've discussed many many times in a baseball context.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> No, the point is that players shouldn't be locked into salaries for their first three years. They should be able to make whatever the market will bear. Which means if an incoming rookie is a hot property and teams want to bid him up into the stratosphere, he should be free to make that money.


And this will turn the dumb N****** into smart N******? Not arguing with you- just with the "point" that Sheed maybe was trying to make but didn't.

If Rasheed had been more clear about this in the interview, it wouldn't change the impact of the other things he said.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Paxil</b>!
> Oh yeah... well... maybe... but then what about this only exploiting the N------.


To be fair, Sheed is nowhere quoted as saying "only" when talking about exploitation. I have a copy of the article and I just re-read every word to make sure. Actually the word "exploit" (or any form of the word) is never quoted as coming out of Sheed's mouth. That's Arnold's term in setting up Rasheed's comments. Do Sheed's quotes point toward exploitation? Absolutely. He just never (as far as we know) used the word.



> I read Sheeds comments, and that is a very nice interpretation of them, though it really is not close to what he actually said.


But this is the "interpretation" given by the man who actually sat down with Rasheed and performed the interview. If we can't take Arnold's interpretation of both what what said and published AND what was said and unpublished, whose interpretation can we rely on?


Let me make it very clear. I disagree vehemently with Rasheed. But if you go back and read the quotes that Arnold used in the piece, each of them can indeed be seen in the context of an indictment on the rookie scale.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Backboard Cam</b>!
> 
> If Rasheed had been more clear about this in the interview, it wouldn't change the impact of the other things he said.


But it seems as though Rasheed WAS clear - after all, Arnold got the point. It's that Arnold wasn't able to clearly communicate the point in his article and had to get on the radio to express what Rasheed really was harping on.

That's not Rasheed's fault, that lies firmly at the feet of the person writing the story - in this case, Geoffrey Arnold.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Backboard Cam</b>!
> 
> 
> And this will turn the dumb N****** into smart N******? Not arguing with you- just with the "point" that Sheed maybe was trying to make but didn't.


At this point, with all the competing interpretations of what Wallace said, I don't know what point Wallace was or was not trying not to make.

However, if this *is* the point he was trying to make, than his references to league seeing high schoolers as "dumb ******s" probably referred to the fact that many poor young kids don't understand free market concepts and thus are wowed by, say, $3 million instead of realizing that they may be being low-balled.

Wallace, in my opinion, wasn't calling those kids "dumb ******s," himself. He was saying that's how the league sees them, exploiting their lack of knowledge (which is not the same thing as lack of intelligence).

What's the difference between high schoolers and college grads in this context? Education. College students are much more likely to know about free market principles and come into the industry with their eyes open. However, I'm not sure what players who understand the issues can do about it. That's where *I'm* left confused.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> Wallace, in my opinion, wasn't calling those kids "dumb ******s," himself. He was saying that's how the league sees them, exploiting their lack of knowledge (which is not the same thing as lack of intelligence).


I agree. Here's one of his quotes:

"That's why they're drafting all these high school cats, because they come into the league and they don't know no better. They don't know no better, and they don't know the real business, and they don't see behind the charade. "


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> 
> I would also say that I disagree with Sheed's opinion. LeBron is the exception - the rookie scale has in many cases guaranteed younger players more money (and perhaps for more years) than they could have expected to sign for as an untested rookie.


I'm not sure that's true. It's not like rookies make a ton. The top rookies make a few million a year. If they were given free agency from the start, there's a very good chance they could make considerably more.

The scale drops rapidly, with lower first round picks making in the hundreds of thousands. Many of these I think could make *at least* that much, if not more, with free agency. Untested means unproven...in both good and bad ways. A lot of GMs put great stock in potential.

And the high schoolers, the ones with the *most* potential, could pretty well clean up. How much do you think the next Kobe Bryant (forget LeBron James) coming out of high school could earn if all GMs could bid on him? With examples like Bryant, McGrady, Garnett, Stoudemire, O'Neal, James...I think a whole lot more than a couple mil a season.

I think a salary cap, locked salaries for several years *and* a draft restrict players' free market rights too much. I've always argued for financial sanity in baseball...but my proposals have tried to be fair to players and owners. Implementing all three fetters to player salaries puts too much money in owners' pockets that should be paid to the people responsible for generating all the revenue.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

It's a very convoluded issue, to say the least, and there's no indication that Rasheed understands the complexities of it very well.

As I recall, the rookie scale was considered by many a necessity to keep contracts from spiraling out of control. Stupid owners/GMs, not an evil plot to manipulate young black men, but that's an issue no one particularly likes me bringing up...

Bidding up contracts only comes into play for free agents. So unless someone is proposing doing away with the draft, I can't imagine a bigger non-issue.

In the case of LeBron, the noted big exception, anyone who is a big enough exception to make the rookie scale look particularly silly is also a big enough commodity to more than make up for it in endorsements. The kid's doing okay.

What does Rasheed even care about the rookie scale? It came along after he was well taken care of...

Dan


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

Wha-- these kids aren't wearing thrift store suits trying to get a job in a bank- they have* agents*! If anyone is taking advantage it's the agents I'd guess.

I was just trying to say that even the Geoff Arnold explained version (of Wallace's comments) is dumb. I was doing some serious eye-rolling that day. We all could have done without it, especially Sheed. 

Stop talkiing to the media, Rasheed!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> 
> Bidding up contracts only comes into play for free agents. So unless someone is proposing doing away with the draft, I can't imagine a bigger non-issue.


That's not entirely true. In both football and baseball, there are drafts, but players have more leverage with the teams that draft them. Thus, rookies (at least the better ones) in those leagues make considerably more than their basketball counterparts who cannot even negotiate.



> What does Rasheed even care about the rookie scale? It came along after he was well taken care of...


Again, this goes back to the fact that Wallace didn't say *he* was being exploited. He was saying that others, especially the young kids out of high school, were the ones being exploited.

If anything, it's *more* compelling that he's saying this when it won't benefit *him*. It means he really believes this, he's not just angling for more money for himself.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> That's not entirely true. In both football and baseball, there are drafts, but players have more leverage with the teams that draft them. Thus, rookies (at least the better ones) in those leagues make considerably more than their basketball counterparts who cannot even negotiate.


I wouldn't like to see that kind of system in the NBA. IMO, it would cause too many problems.

Sure, it's fine when you draft a LeBron. I don't think you would mind giving him a large contract. But, it would be even more of a disaster for a team if you drafted a bust. You would have a Darius Miles on your roster costing like $60 Mill over 6 yrs. It would make it much harder to trade the guy and there is no way to get out of bad contracts in the NBA like in other codes (like June 1 cuts in Football). :dead: 

There are also other problems like holdouts...etc. :no:


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> That's not entirely true. In both football and baseball...


Who's talking about football or baseball? 



> Again, this goes back to the fact that Wallace didn't say he was being exploited. He was saying that others, especially the young kids out of high school, were the ones being exploited.


That wasn't the question, though. The question was, _why does Wallace care?_ If he doesn't feel he's being exploited, why does he care?



> If anything, it's more compelling that he's saying this when it won't benefit him. It means he really believes this, he's not just angling for more money for himself.


In that case, why isn't he contributing some of his millions to all these woefully exploited kids? It doesn't add up. On one hand, he's not concerned about himself. On the other hand, he's concerned about others. Yet, he's doing nothing about it directly.

If we come to that conclusion, then the best we can say about Rasheed is he's a huge hypocrit. Still not the most glowing of compliments.

Dan


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> Again, this goes back to the fact that Wallace didn't say *he* was being exploited. He was saying that others, especially the young kids out of high school, were the ones being exploited.


Hey Minstrel,

Don't bother if you don't have the time - I'm not that excited about it but I've seen a few people who have echoed the above opinion. I've read it several times and it seems clear to me that he's saying he's being exploited.

Since you've probably got a better grasp of english than me(based on quality of posts IMO) could you explain how he's excluding himself?

Like I said, if you don't have time, no big deal but I find it difficult to believe I can't see what everyone else seems to be able to.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> That's not entirely true. In both football and baseball, there are drafts, but players have more leverage with the teams that draft them. Thus, rookies (at least the better ones) in those leagues make considerably more than their basketball counterparts who cannot even negotiate.


Big differences:

Football has NO guaranteed contracts. If you suck, you get cut and you don't get paid. So sure, you can offer your high flying draft pick 10 million per year, but if he doesn't cut the mustard, he gets nothing. True, they have less leverage in negotiating that first big contract, but the tradeoff gives a BIG advantage to the NBA players who can't have their money taken away from them no matter how bad they are. 

If you think baseball rookies make more money than kids in the NBA, you're wrong. There'll be maybe 2-3 kids drafted per year that will get about a 3 million dollar signing bonus. The rest of the 1st round picks generally average about 1 million dollar bonus. But then they get to earn minor league pay ($800/ month in A ball to maybe $2,500 a month in AAA) for 3-4 years typically before signing a major league contract. So spread that 3 million dollar bonus over 3 years and it's far, far less than Lebron James will make over his 4 year guaranteed contract. Not to mention, rookie MLB contracts are generally at about 300,000 to 400,000 per year and generally 1 or 2 years. James will make about 13 million. Even Travis Outlaw, a mid 1st round pick, will make about 2.7 million over 3 years. I'd be willing to bet that's much more than even a high 1st round pick gets over the course of his 1st 3 years in a MLB system.

Of course, if they make the bigs in their 1st year, they'll get a big payday. But check the salary of last year's MLB rookie of the year winners:

MLB
Angel Berroa: $302,000 per year.
Dontrelle Willis: $300,000 per year.

NBA
Travis Outlaw: $784,200 per year. (3 years guaranteed)

So clearly, the NBA guys are making out like bandits. 3 years guaranteed for a guy like Travis Outlaw and he doesn't even have to be able to produce.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> 
> Who's talking about football or baseball?


I was simply disputing your point that this is a non-issue unless one is planning to repeal the draft. Baseball and football show examples of having drafts *and* players getting benefits from not having fixed, slotted salaries.

Basketball *could* do something similar, making it an issue even with a draft in place.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> Big differences:
> ...


You're either not aware or not mentioning a key point. While salaries are not guaranteed, signing bonuses are *fully* guaranteed. Which is why the most important part of any NFL contract is the signing bonus. Players negotiate for huge signing bonuses, because they *will* see that cash no matter what happens (short of retiring and simply refusing to play out your contract).

Therefore, players with huge deals (mostly structured into their signing bonus) are rarely cut...the signing bonus, which would be spread out over the length of the deal, gets accelerated at the time of the cut, such that that team has to pay off the remaining money of the bonus in *one* year, delivering a devestating cap hit.

It's exactly the same for rookies. The signing bonus is the huge part of draft picks' contracts. The salary is less important. Why do you think Ryan Leaf hung around football so long despite being perhaps the greatest bust in NFL history? Why wasn't he cut, giving him "nothing"? Because he had a *huge* signing bonus, which he was going to get either way. His salary was fairly irrelevant. And even his salary he got because the Chargers couldn't afford to just cut him and take his entire signing bonus in a one-time cap hit.

You're right about baseball. Due to spending time in minor league baseball, an issue NBA players wouldn't have to deal with, the signing bonuses they earn don't end up being more. Baseball players are under teams' financial control longer.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>trifecta</b>!
> 
> 
> Hey Minstrel,
> ...


I don't think there's a time he ever specifically *excludes* himself -- i.e. "Now, *I'm* not one of these people who gets exploited."

I simply don't recall ever reading a line where he *included* himself. He always talked about other people, "these high school cats," etc. The one time I remember him referring to himself was where he said *something* like: "I understand the game, I see behind the curtain." Which seemed to suggest he was different from those who *were* being exploited, whom he said did *not* understand the game behind the game.

If someone has an example of a line where Wallace says he's been exploited, too, I'd revise my opinion on this.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> I was simply disputing your point that this is a non-issue unless one is planning to repeal the draft. Baseball and football show examples of having drafts and players getting benefits from not having fixed, slotted salaries.
> 
> Basketball could do something similar, making it an issue even with a draft in place.


Ok, it's an "issue" if you choose to completely change the situation, I'll grant you that. But I would first argue that your changed situation has nothing to do with the one Rasheed was discussing, so it's a moot point.

Dan


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> 
> Ok, it's an "issue" if you choose to completely change the situation, I'll grant you that. But I would first argue that your changed situation has nothing to do with the one Rasheed was discussing, so it's a moot point.


How did I "completely change" the situation? The point is that a draft does not make fixed, slotted salaries irrelevant.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> How did I "completely change" the situation?


By going from the rookie salary scale (which clearly implies the NBA which in turn implies a draft situation) to talking football and baseball. If Rasheed's objection had been the draft or even free agency rules, it might be a valid comparison. But as it stands, they're two totally disparate items in the context of Rasheed's statements.

Dan


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> 
> By going from the rookie salary scale (which clearly implies the NBA which in turn implies a draft situation) to talking football and baseball.


You related the draft and rookie salary scale.

I only said that they weren't related and gave examples supporting that they weren't related.

There's nothing intrinsically different about football (we can leave baseball out, since one might argue the minor leagues make for an intrinsic difference) that makes their system useless to compare to the NBA's system. They are two sports with two different systems. But either sport could use either system, making the NFL's system a perfectly valid one to use when discussing what is and isn't possible regarding how rookies are compensated.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> You're either not aware or not mentioning a key point. While salaries are not guaranteed, signing bonuses are *fully* guaranteed. Which is why the most important part of any NFL contract is the signing bonus. Players negotiate for huge signing bonuses, because they *will* see that cash no matter what happens (short of retiring and simply refusing to play out your contract).
> 
> Therefore, players with huge deals (mostly structured into their signing bonus) are rarely cut...the signing bonus, which would be spread out over the length of the deal, gets accelerated at the time of the cut, such that that team has to pay off the remaining money of the bonus in *one* year, delivering a devestating cap hit.
> ...


I agree that NBA rookies don't get fair market value. Lebron could probably be making 10 million+ in a free market system. But then again guys like Bison Dele and Shawn Kemp get FAR more than fair market value when they retire or get fat and lazy in the middle of their guaranteed contract. That's the way the players union agreed to have it be structured, so I can't see blaming the owners for 'exploiting' players who agreed to the current system. 

If what Sheed calling for is a free market system of rookie pay, I believe you'd have to get rid of guaranteed deals for all players, which is, I believe, something the players union wouldn't agree to. 

Maybe the solution is to establish a system of incentive pay based on performance? An extra million for making the all star team for example... That money wouldn't count toward the salary cap, and there would be a set limit on the amount given for each performance based feat.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> Maybe the solution is to establish a system of incentive pay based on performance? An extra million for making the all star team for example... That money wouldn't count toward the salary cap, and there would be a set limit on the amount given for each performance based feat.


I'd be interested to see no multi-year deals. Make players face free agency every year. They still get security a year at a time (normal workers don't get even full years gauranteed) but they can't parlay good performance into an excellent deal and then flop, essentially forcing their current employer to pay them for *previous* years that are gone.

It's the ultimate in free market, too. Have a great year? Cash in that very off-season. Drop off? So does your salary.

It also would protect teams (and more importantly, their fans) from front office incompetence, like the Knicks current situation locking them into a hopeless situation for some years. They may blow a year, but the next season can be a new dawn (unless you blow it again).

Of course, in such a situation, a cap would certainly need to exist. Otherwise, certain teams who could afford to would sign up all the best players every year.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> You related the draft and rookie salary scale.
> 
> I only said that they weren't related and gave examples supporting that they weren't related.


They most definitely are related. The rookie scale is based on the draft (position).

I would hate to see the NBA go to a system of single year, non-guaranteed contracts. That's the sort of system that completely killed the NFL, in my opinion. Complete team turnover every couple of years makes it pretty tough to associate with a team. I used to never miss a game with my favorite teams, now I'm hard pressed to sit through even half a game.

Dan


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> 
> They most definitely are related. The rookie scale is based on the draft (position).


They're related in that way. They're not related by the relationship _one necessitates the other_.

I felt you were making that second relation. If you were, my objection remains, for the same reasons I've already given. If you were not making that relation, we can drop this altogether.



> I would hate to see the NBA go to a system of single year, non-guaranteed contracts. That's the sort of system that completely killed the NFL, in my opinion. Complete team turnover every couple of years makes it pretty tough to associate with a team.


But the NFL doesn't have such a system. To the contrary, there are many many long-term deals that teams would sooner sever but cannot.

Further, there doesn't have to be complete team turnover just because players *can* move. If a team and player (and fanbase) develop a good relationship, they can keep signing deals together. In fact, inertia and settling in a region would tend to bias players against moving unless there was a compelling reason.

For players that teams really want to keep around, offering the same value they can get elsewhere would likely keep them there.

For players that teams *don't* want around, there's usually a reason. Would you really be heart-broken if players like Patterson, Anderson, etc moved on? Players like Zach Randolph, Portland could certainly afford to keep around by matching similar deals.

It might not end up working perfectly. I don't know, I've never seen it. However, it would motivate players to play every season as if their livelihood depended on it and it would prevent teams from killing their futures. Those are pretty impressive gains, from a fan standpoint, in my opinion.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

With too much player movement freedom, players will chase two things:

1) Money.
2) Big market glamor.

It's tough enough to counter either of those with all the safeguards currently in place. It should be made harder for the Portland's and New York's to foolishly overspend and for the LA's to have marquee players knocking on the door, not easier.

Here's an idea sure to chap Rasheed's hide: Rather than do away with the rookie scale, take it to the next level ... implement a salary scale for the _entire_ league. Rookies have a set scale. Everyone else has a salary based on their production the previous year -- combined offensive/defensive efficiency, plus team winning percentage, pro-rated against league revenue, or something. Everyone gets exactly what they deserve, no more, no less. Let's say all contracts are a fixed 3 years, non-guaranteed. Short enough that players can move fairly freely, but long enough teams can build for the future and maintain an identity.

If it's a truly free economy Rasheed is campaigning for, let's see just how close to it he actually wants to get... Most jobs have fixed salary slots and don't move you up them unless you're producing at the necessary level.

'twould also make trades a ton easier if various salaries were more in line with each other...

Better? Worse?

Dan


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> 
> Here's an idea sure to chap Rasheed's hide: Rather than do away with the rookie scale, take it to the next level ... implement a salary scale for the _entire_ league. Rookies have a set scale. Everyone else has a salary based on their production the previous year -- combined offensive/defensive efficiency, plus team winning percentage, pro-rated against league revenue, or something. Everyone gets exactly what they deserve, no more, no less.


But just to "chap Rasheed's hide," you're making the system even more unfair for players, restricting their free market rights even further.

Who determines what a player "deserves"? What salary, in such a scale, does a Tim Duncan get? Do you factor in cash revenue a player generates into their "production"? Because there really would be an air-tight case for "exploitation" if you locked James into a scaled salary for his on-court production while reaping tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue from his marketing value.

Players could very reasonably argue that they "deserve" what a bidding war between all possible employers ends up on. Why should they be denied their chance to make the most someone will offer them?

That's why I favoured the free agent every year idea. Players get what they "deserve," without getting to slack off in the middle of long-term deals. If you suck, you won't get much. If you're great, and are in demand, you'll make a ton.

In principle, I like it. I agree, the practical problems you raise with it could happen.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> That's why I favoured the free agent every year idea. Players get what they "deserve," without getting to slack off in the middle of long-term deals. If you suck, you won't get much. If you're great, and are in demand, you'll make a ton.
> 
> In principle, I like it. I agree, the practical problems you raise with it could happen.


One problem I see with this system is that there is nothing (outside of the 3 or 4 year rookie scale contracts) that stops players from doing just this right now. Rasheed Wallace, or any other veteran, could choose to sign a 1 year contract each and every year. It's the players who dictate whether or not they sign on the dotted line. If they want this to happen, all they have to do is refuse to sign any long term deals, but only a series of one year contracts.

What's stopping them?


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think there's a time he ever specifically *excludes* himself -- i.e. "Now, *I'm* not one of these people who gets exploited."
> ...


See, the way I read it, is that he sees that he's being exploited - only that he's smart enough to know it.

No big deal - thanks for getting back to it.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> One problem I see with this system is that there is nothing (outside of the 3 or 4 year rookie scale contracts) that stops players from doing just this right now. Rasheed Wallace, or any other veteran, could choose to sign a 1 year contract each and every year. It's the players who dictate whether or not they sign on the dotted line. If they want this to happen, all they have to do is refuse to sign any long term deals, but only a series of one year contracts.
> ...


Nothing's stopping them...it's often to their advantage to sign long-term deals, because they get security. If they sign a four-year or five-year deal, salaries are unlikely to escalate quickly enough that they lose enough to make it worth eschewing that security.

Teams also could force this change by refusing to even offer multi-year deals. Of course, players would allege collusion, I suppose.

My proposal is not to give the team or player the choice. Players *must* face the free market every year. There are advantages and disadvantages for both the player and team. But, in combination with a salary cap, I like the possibilities such a change could lead to.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>trifecta</b>!
> 
> 
> See, the way I read it, is that he sees that he's being exploited - only that he's smart enough to know it.
> ...


Sure. You might be right...I simply didn't read it as Wallace including himself.

I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt about whether they meant something unless they explicitly say it.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Who determines what a player "deserves"? What salary, in such a scale, does a Tim Duncan get? Do you factor in cash revenue a player generates into their "production"?


I believe I covered that...

"Everyone else has a salary *based on their production the previous year* -- combined offensive/defensive efficiency, plus team winning percentage, *pro-rated against league revenue*, or something."

Not that it would be an easy system to implement, but it does address each of your concerns. Find the right valuation and everyone gets a fair deal. Either no one is getting exploited or everyone is...

Dan


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> 
> I believe I covered that...
> 
> ...


Okay, I guess I missed the "pro-rated against league revenue." It still doesn't address my concerns of players who generate more revenue for the league than others just for who they are. i.e. they should get more than just their on-court production pro-rated against league revenue, because that assumes no one has more marketing value than what they do on the floor. Whereas, if that were true, Duncan and Shaq would be the most marketable players in the league and they aren't.

James is a financial windfall for the Cavs and the NBA, on top of his excellent play. Fairness dicatates that he see more cash because he's generating so much of it.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

That can be a factor, too. Just figure out the formula and we're golden. 

Dan


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> That can be a factor, too. Just figure out the formula and we're golden.


It's not a bad system. 

I still like no multi-year contracts, counting on a hard cap (not the soft cap the NBA currently has) to prevent glamour/rich markets from stockpiling all the best players.

But your system also seems like it could work nicely.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I like the _idea_ of non-multi year contracts, but I think the degree of player movement it would allow would really ruin the enjoyment for a lot of fans. Some other deterrant (beyond the cap) would have to be added, perhaps a percentage pay cut (getting us back to a salary scale of some sort) based on the number of years with the previous team? The longer the time spent with one team, the more then incentive to stick with them. Conversely, there would need to be incentive for the team to keep players around (loyalty is a 2-way street). Maybe a league kickback fund that pays a percentage of players' salaries when they spend long enough with a team.

It would be complicated, but it opens up a lot of possibilities...

Dan


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Yes, it's possible one could add a rule like a free agent signing with a new team can get a maximum contract of 75% what he made with his former team, or something, assuming his former team at least offered him a deal worth the previous year's amount.

In order to prevent a player from being unable to cash in on a great season just because his old team is low-balling him.

Actually, you're right, it's complicated. There are exceptions I'd want to handle.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

When the first article came out, Wallace's comments seemed out of touch (to me) with Arnold's lead-ins. With SCBF's recap of GA's interview, it seems clear now that the article was built around his quotes to carry the maximum shock value possible as the top priority. Whether it was Arnold or the O's editors who left the context of what Sheed was talking about/responding to, it seems pretty obvious (to me again) that large chunks of what was said didn't make it to print. Big surprise. 

If I was Wallace, I would only speak to the press on camera from here on out for the rest of my Blazer days. I still don't feel clear on Wallace's feelings on this issue, but I am pretty aware that the O is out to trash him (though to be fair, buried in today's sportspage was this article http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/sports/107252980411210.xml)

Sidenote... last season I heard an interview with Zach saying that a big regret is not coming out for the NBA strait out of High School. He said that the best thing for top talent is to "get on the clock" ASAP, because the real money to be made is obviously after your rookie deal is up. He basically was stating that the current CBA encourages top young players to bypass college. 

STOMP


----------

