Creative Financing: Spurs include performance incentives in rookie contracts

[Samr]

Here's the link to a very long, very interesting read. (http://blog.shamsports.com/2010/08/creative-financing-in-nba-2010_12.html)

Some Spurs-relevant parts are here:


(A fifth player joined the less-than-120% club this year; Spurs draft pick and England frontline seamer James Anderson. After about a month of negotiations, San Antonio eventually signed Anderson to a contract that pays a maximum of 120% of the scale in the first year, but only 115% in the second year, and 117% in the third (fourth year salaries are calculated as a percentage of the third), all years of which contained more significant performance incentives than usual. This is the kind of thing Memphis are accused of being doing, if not an even more extreme example. Furthermore, this now means that three of the five players to have received less than the full 120% have been Spurs picks. They've actually gone through with the deed Memphis stand accused of trying, and they've done so on an annual basis. In the cases of Mahinmi and Hill, San Antonio could invoke the "no one else was drafting you that high, so live with it" excuse. Not so with Anderson. San Antonio have better leverage, given their strength as a franchise and the fact they aren't doing it with lottery picks, yet it is the same practice.)


The Spurs use this creative manipulation of the rookie salary scale protocol all the time. In fact, they're worse for it; there were no incentives that George Hill could meet in order to get his 120%. He was getting only 80% regardless (and since 80% of the third year of George Hill's rookie contract actually worked out to less than the minimum salary, he had to be bumped up to that by the league instead.) The Spurs knew what they were doing here, just as they did when they did it to Anderson last week. The only people who didn't know were the fans, and that's because no one sought to tell them.

When San Antonio do it, it's "shrewd." When Memphis do it, it is "cheap," and representative of a moribund franchise that needs contracting. This is the prevailing attitude born out of a desire to disparage the Grizzlies at every juncture, symptomatic of a wider problem of favouritism for certain executives by certain media. For example; Daryl Morey is a vastly superior general manager to David Kahn, but why did the very similar mistake signings of Ryan Hollins and David Andersen, and their subsequent correcting trades, get different levels of press? Because Morey is good and Kahn is bad, thus Morey's mistakes are all minor while Kahn's are all major. There's an element of truth to that logic, yet it is all overblown.

The same is true of the Spurs' and Grizzlies' handling of this year's first round draft picks. If it's wrong when Memphis do it, it's wrong when San Antonio do it. And since it's not wrong when San Antonio do it, it's not wrong when Memphis do it either. It's not going to be wrong when any team does it. Perhaps more of them should.

Thoughts on any of this?

[Solid D]

Playoffs = shrewd, no playoffs = cheap.

also, please note correct usage of the English language:


If it's wrong when Memphis does it, it's wrong when San Antonio does it. And since it's not wrong when San Antonio does it, it's not wrong when Memphis does it either. It's not going to be wrong when any team does it. Perhaps more of them should.

[DespЏrado]

There is a hell of a lot left out of that blurb that could make a huge difference in what to make of this article. And the article is too long to read this late, but my two cents:

I tried to skim the article for anything other than the ominously pejorative phrase "performance incentives," and didn't see anything.

You can't make an informed opinion either way because the incentives aren't specified. The George Hill incentive could have been entirely reasonable like make 35% of your three pointers and he gets a huge boost. If I were Hill I wouldn't have balked at that and it would have made sense after his retched rookie summer league. Meanwhile Memphis may have included incentives that were impossible to reach like make the all star team in a rookie year. There can be a world of difference between the two and if Hill, Anderson, and Ian didn't balk at the deals it was their choice to enter into their respective deals or not.

So even if George Hill might have only started with 80% of his rookie pay scale guaranteed, the Spurs likely made the incentives achievable with the player's input on expectations.

[Bruno]

Thoughts on any of this?

What Spurs FO did with Anderson is lame and stupid.

[Seventyniner]

What Spurs FO did with Anderson is lame and stupid.

Unless that's what was needed to keep the Spurs under the tax. In that case, the Spurs had every incentive to try and eek under that line. I would've saved the money by paying Bonner or Neal a little less, myself.

[Cane]

Since when did the Spurs have nearly impossible to reach rookie incentives like the recent Memphis contracts:


As reported by Tillery in the paper the incentives are as follows:

1.
Participation in summer league.
2. A two-week workout program with the team's training staff.
3. Satisfying one of the following: play in NBA rookie/sophomore game during All-Star weekend, or earn an all-rookie selection, or average 15 minutes in at least 70 games

This is why Xavier Henry and Greivis Vasquez are refusing to sign their rookie contracts. These three conditions are the difference between a happy family and potential playoff quality team and the train wreck franchise that actually makes the L A Clippers look stable.



Point no. 3 seems to be nearly impossible to fulfill and it just takes about a weeks worth of injury to fail there. Also don't see how Henry's going to be able to get decent minutes in the Memphis rotation.

Why Memphis deserves to be shit on, not only for the Pau Gasol collusion but just being a bunch of dumbasses:


In a live interview with Chris Vernon on 730 Fox Sports in Memphis, Heisley abrasively made the case for his decision to hold off on signing Henry unless the Kansas product agrees to fairly unprecedented performance-based incentives. When Vernon asked why Heisley is taking a stand with Henry's contract despite giving maximum rookie-scale contracts to 2009 draft picks Hasheem Thabeet and DeMarre Carroll, Heisley answered that he just found out about the rule allowing negotiation in rookie contracts this summer when employees in the Grizzlies' front office made him aware of it. "I've never seen the collective bargaining agreement," Heisley said. "Would you sit down and read it?" Vernon answered in the affirmative; I imagine many Grizzlies fans listening at home have indeed read the CBA. And they don't own $250-million NBA franchises.

[bobby4germany]

IIRC didnt Blair have an incentive in his contract that kicked in if he was named MVP of the rookie/sophomore game?

BTW he should have won it!

[Bender]

spurs lowballed hill?

[Cane]

IIRC didnt Blair have an incentive in his contract that kicked in if he was named MVP of the rookie/sophomore game?

BTW he should have won it!

I believe that was a Nike shoe deal IIRC.

[cantthinkofanything]

[QUOTE=Samr;4594352]
(A fifth player joined the less-than-120% club this year; Spurs draft pick and England frontline seamer James Anderson.
QUOTE]

I don't understand this sentence. I didn't read the article but it seems like they meant "England frontline seamer Ryan Richards."

[TimmehC]

(A fifth player joined the less-than-120% club this year; Spurs draft pick and England frontline seamer James Anderson.


I don't understand this sentence. I didn't read the article but it seems like they meant "England frontline seamer Ryan Richards."

There's another James Anderson who happens to be an English cricket player. Pretty sure that's the "joke" he's making.

[Mel_13]

also, please note correct usage of the English language:

The writer of the article is English. In the portion you quoted "San Antonio" represents the collective noun "the San Antonio Spurs", thus the verb tense used is normal in British English.



(A fifth player joined the less-than-120% club this year; Spurs draft pick and England frontline seamer James Anderson.


I don't understand this sentence. I didn't read the article but it seems like they meant "England frontline seamer Ryan Richards."

In addition to being English, the writer tries to be funny. There is an English cricket player named James Anderson, so it was a joke.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/theashes/5852807/The-Ashes-James-Anderson-leads-England-seamers-as-Australia-crumble.html

[cantthinkofanything]

[QUOTE=cantthinkofanything;4595157]

There's another James Anderson who happens to be an English cricket player. Pretty sure that's the "joke" he's making.

Wow. How could I have missed that. You're right though. I just assumed "frontline seamer" was some other name for an NBA big man. Had to google it to find otherwise. Thanks for explaining.

[Solid D]

The writer of the article is English. In the portion you quoted "San Antonio" represents the collective noun "the San Antonio Spurs", thus the verb tense used is normal in British English.



In addition to being English, the writer tries to be funny. There is an English cricket player named James Anderson, so it was a joke.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/theashes/5852807/The-Ashes-James-Anderson-leads-England-seamers-as-Australia-crumble.html

Thanks, Mel. It was my understanding, also, that the writer is an Englishman. His quote is:
"The same is true of the Spurs' and Grizzlies' handling of this year's first round draft picks. If it's wrong when Memphis do it, it's wrong when San Antonio do it. And since it's not wrong when San Antonio do it, it's not wrong when Memphis do it either. It's not going to be wrong when any team does it. Perhaps more of them should."

I'll think about your perspective on it. My perspective was, and may still be, that the collective noun is the San Antonio Spurs team/the Memphis Grizzlies team or the San Antonio Spurs franchise/the Memphis Grizzlies franchise. In the case of a singular noun, "does" seems to still apply as the proper usage in the Queen's English, don't it? :)

[Mel_13]

Thanks, Mel. It was my understanding, also, that the writer is an Englishman. His quote is:

I'll think about your perspective on it. My perspective was, and may still be, that the collective noun is the San Antonio Spurs team/the Memphis Grizzlies team or the San Antonio Spurs franchise/the Memphis Grizzlies franchise. In the case of a singular noun, "does" seems to still apply as the proper usage in the Queen's English, don't it? :)

Might could be, ain't like I'm some kind of grammarian. :lol

[Muser]

http://www.kingcricket.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/England/Anderson.jpg :worthy:

[ElNono]

Since when did the Spurs have nearly impossible to reach rookie incentives like the recent Memphis contracts

From TFA:

The Spurs use this creative manipulation of the rookie salary scale protocol all the time. In fact, they're worse for it; there were no incentives that George Hill could meet in order to get his 120%

[Cane]

From TFA:

The Spurs use this creative manipulation of the rookie salary scale protocol all the time. In fact, they're worse for it; there were no incentives that George Hill could meet in order to get his 120%

Yea I saw that in the article but there were no details as to what the incentives were unless I'm being a dunce.

[ElNono]

Yea I saw that in the article but there were no details as to what the incentives were unless I'm being a dunce.

I think he means there's no incentives possible to get the full 120% scale in the last two seasons. Hill was simply signed for 80% for years 3 and 4, with no way to earn anything more.

[Cane]

I think he means there's no incentives possible to get the full 120% scale in the last two seasons. Hill was simply signed for 80% for years 3 and 4, with no way to earn anything more.

Ah, thanks :toast

[Mel_13]

From TFA:

The Spurs use this creative manipulation of the rookie salary scale protocol all the time. In fact, they're worse for it; there were no incentives that George Hill could meet in order to get his 120%


Yea I saw that in the article but there were no details as to what the incentives were unless I'm being a dunce.

George got 120% for his first two seasons and the 80% for the third. No incentives are available for him to go above that. The contract was structured in that way, presumably, to create the maximum amount of cap space for the summer of 2010.

Not sure I understand how the Spurs are 'worse for it' as a result. Clearly George is worse for it, but the only way the Spurs could suffer would be in the summer of 2012 when George hits FA.

[bobby4germany]

I don't think that George is too upset with the contract considering he has stated he wants to stay with the spurs for his entire career.

[ElNono]

George got 120% for his first two seasons and the 80% for the third. No incentives are available for him to go above that. The contract was structured in that way, presumably, to create the maximum amount of cap space for the summer of 2010.

Not sure I understand how the Spurs are 'worse for it' as a result. Clearly George is worse for it, but the only way the Spurs could suffer would be in the summer of 2012 when George hits FA.

I think he meant that the Spurs are worse than Memphis when it comes to creative manipulation of the rookie scale.

[Mel_13]

I think he meant that the Spurs are worse than Memphis when it comes to creative manipulation of the rookie scale.

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks.

[Blackjack]

Might could be, ain't like I'm some kind of grammarian. :lol

I ain't ever been prouder. :cry

[TD 21]

It's right when the Spurs do it and wrong when the Grizzlies do it. I know that sounds biased or unfair or whatever, but the reason it's right when the Spurs do it is because they can do it.

When I say can, I mean they can not only get their rookies signed on their terms, but do so without irreparably damaging the relationship with their rookies before they even play a second for them because they've built up a ton of credibility as a franchise. The Grizzlies can't do this, because they have no credibility as a franchise, therefore it's wrong for them to attempt to do this.

[Seventyniner]

Given the vanishingly small number of rookies who sign for less than 120%, the new CBA should just lock rookie salaries firmly in place at 100%. What's the point of having wiggle room if trying to use it can cause this kind of backlash?

[Blackjack]

The rookie pay-scale is one of the few things they've got right. And if there's a change, the players wouldn't agree to concede the opportunity to be paid 20% more just for the security of 100%.

If anything, the PA would be looking to follow the NFL's model -- there's no reason to change the whole system because of the Memphis Grizzlies and their attempt to pull off something along the lines of the Spurs.

TD 21 pretty much summed up why -- it ain't fair but it's right.


Edit: Did you mean 100%, as in the full 120%? I'm not sure if I misinterpreted.

[Bruno]

Unless that's what was needed to keep the Spurs under the tax.

No, it wasn't.

Spurs have low balled Anderson to save $161K on a 4 years contract while at the same time they have signed new contracts with players for $100M this year.

Spurs were in a strength situation with Anderson because he has no other option than signing with Spurs. Even if it's damn lame, one can say NBA is a business and when you are in a strong position during a negotiation, the business rule is to use the edge you have to get a discount.

But it isn't only morally lame, it's also damn stupid business wise. The ratio benefit/risk is ridiculous.
The benefit ($161K) is very small.
The risk could be quite big. I'm sure Anderson and his agent will remember of that when he will be a FA. I'm also sure this story will put a label, among NBA agents, on Spurs as a franchise that doesn't treat well its rookies.

The only thing that makes Spurs' situation better than grizzlies' one, is that Spurs' asshole attitude hasn't leaked everywhere in the press.

[Seventyniner]

The rookie pay-scale is one of the few things they've got right. And if there's a change, the players wouldn't agree to concede the opportunity to be paid 20% more just for the security of 100%.

If anything, the PA would be looking to follow the NFL's model -- there's no reason to change the whole system because of the Memphis Grizzlies and their attempt to pull off something along the lines of the Spurs.

TD 21 pretty much summed up why -- it ain't fair but it's right.


Edit: Did you mean 100%, as in the full 120%? I'm not sure if I misinterpreted.

I had meant 100% as opposed to 120%, but I wouldn't see any harm in locking them all in at 120% either. My point was that this flexible system seems to hurt far more than it helps.

[K-State Spur]

I think he meant that the Spurs are worse than Memphis when it comes to creative manipulation of the rookie scale.

Maybe I don't understand this, but if there were no incentives involved in year or 4, how is simply negotiating a lower number "manipulation"? If you can do it without pissing the player off (and Hill's comments about the franchise tend to indicate that he is anything but) - that's shrewdess, not connivance.

[Blackjack]

I tend to agree, K. I don't have much of a problem with it.

It'd be one thing if the Spurs were having some kind of a soap opera playing out year-in and year-out, but that's not the case. What they did was build a winning, unselfish and team-first culture, and they made a couple of moves that turned out to be pretty savvy -- drafting two players (Mahinmi and Hill) that were grateful to go in the first round.

Those two things combined allowed them to create the conditions to pay less than full scale because the incoming player both knew the type of proven team he would be coming to and the example of first-rounders taking less was already made. It almost put the player in a position of feeling like an asshole or like he'd be coming off as thinking he's better than some of those that went before him, rather than simply asking for what most would feel he deserves.

I can't say it's something I would personally do but the Spurs do what they do, and they do it well.

If it ain't broke (and I never heard anything about this until the Grizzlies fiasco), why fix it?

[Solid D]

I don't agree that what the Spurs do with contract negotiations are morally lame or immoral. If the Spurs were to reneg on a contract, then morals would come into question. We are talking about not giving the max end of a range above the 100% guaranteed salary slot. Hardly a morality issue.

[ajh18]

The Spurs, more than any other team in the league, seem to use every single aspect of basketball operations to reinforce team culture. Weather its community service, signing character over talent, or asking every star to come off the bench when necessary (and Manu, Parker, and even Duncan have done it), it seems like the Spurs take every step possible to reinforce what they see as their corporate culture.

I'd be willing to bet they treat rookie contracts the same way. Sure it's "fiscally prudent," but if I were the Spurs, I'd make the point that this is the first opportunity a player has to demonstrate that they fit in with the team. By taking a bit less than they could hold out for (see: Hill, Anderson, Blair, Splitter), young players are given their first taste of sacrificing self-interest for the team.

The Spurs also have a tendency of rewarding players down the road. Think Avery Johnson, Malik Rose, David's last contract, and now Bonner and Jefferson. They over-compensate players who buy into the system (relative to market value), and ask newcommers to give up more.

Now, the Spurs recognize this is a business, and certainly will deviate from this strategy if they think an opportunity to really improve comes along. Think of the Webber and Kidd pursuits at the expense of their relationships with Robinson and Parker. But for the most part, I think they at least ATTEMPT a "sacrifice now, reward later" approach to business. I'm not saying I always agree with this, but if a player isn't willing to buy into this theory of business, I it sends up a huge red flag to Spurs' management. For better or worse.

[ElNono]

Maybe I don't understand this, but if there were no incentives involved in year or 4, how is simply negotiating a lower number "manipulation"? If you can do it without pissing the player off (and Hill's comments about the franchise tend to indicate that he is anything but) - that's shrewdess, not connivance.

You should read the article. In a nutshell, the story comes from Memphis not offering the customary 120% for a first round rookie, and the rookie not wanting to sign for Memphis because of it, and the press jumping right away calling Memphis cheap/retarded for not offering the full amount for talent that's relatively cheap compared to salaries in the league.

The author goes to point out how the Spurs are a team that do this kind of stuff all the time, and instead they're labeled as a brilliant FO by the same press.

I do think the Spurs have certain leverage in that they have a competitive team and so rookies coming over have a great chance to learn from actual pros that are winners and know the game inside out. But as Bruno pointed out, not every player is the same, and some might feel they're being lowballed sometimes for relatively small money, which might bite you in the ass long term when they become FAs .

[ElNono]

The Spurs, more than any other team in the league, seem to use every single aspect of basketball operations to reinforce team culture. Weather its community service, signing character over talent, or asking every star to come off the bench when necessary (and Manu, Parker, and even Duncan have done it), it seems like the Spurs take every step possible to reinforce what they see as their corporate culture.

I'd be willing to bet they treat rookie contracts the same way. Sure it's "fiscally prudent," but if I were the Spurs, I'd make the point that this is the first opportunity a player has to demonstrate that they fit in with the team. By taking a bit less than they could hold out for (see: Hill, Anderson, Blair, Splitter), young players are given their first taste of sacrificing self-interest for the team.

The Spurs also have a tendency of rewarding players down the road. Think Avery Johnson, Malik Rose, David's last contract, and now Bonner and Jefferson. They over-compensate players who buy into the system (relative to market value), and ask newcommers to give up more.

Now, the Spurs recognize this is a business, and certainly will deviate from this strategy if they think an opportunity to really improve comes along. Think of the Webber and Kidd pursuits at the expense of their relationships with Robinson and Parker. But for the most part, I think they at least ATTEMPT a "sacrifice now, reward later" approach to business. I'm not saying I always agree with this, but if a player isn't willing to buy into this theory of business, I it sends up a huge red flag to Spurs' management. For better or worse.

You know, this is the pros. Any of those kids can have a career ending injury at any point (knock on wood), so is it really fair to 'red flag' them if they don't want to take less?

[DrSteffo]

The Spurs, more than any other team in the league, seem to use every single aspect of basketball operations to reinforce team culture. Weather its community service, signing character over talent, or asking every star to come off the bench when necessary (and Manu, Parker, and even Duncan have done it), it seems like the Spurs take every step possible to reinforce what they see as their corporate culture.

I'd be willing to bet they treat rookie contracts the same way. Sure it's "fiscally prudent," but if I were the Spurs, I'd make the point that this is the first opportunity a player has to demonstrate that they fit in with the team. By taking a bit less than they could hold out for (see: Hill, Anderson, Blair, Splitter), young players are given their first taste of sacrificing self-interest for the team..

Interesting point. On the other hand if the FO just tries to save 100-200k or something like that it would be cheap and stupid as Bruno pointed out. I guess it depends on the situation and the alternatives for the player. For example low balling a top euro talent who has been a pro for several years and knows he would get paid much more staying where he is would be very stupid. Saying No thanks to an offer like that would not be a sign of greed, it would be the professional thing to do.

[greyforest]

I like the incentives. I think there's clearly evidence of players ramping it up on their contract years, so this plays along those lines of incentivizing good play with money.

That being said, when the incentives are impossible to achieve it's just a lawyer trap to trick players.

[TDMVPDPOY]

do you guys think teams or 3rd parties in relation to the general employer also pay players under the table?

[greyforest]

do you guys think teams or 3rd parties in relation to the general employer also pay players under the table?

absolutely. it's just a question of how often. it's also definitely not only players getting paid.

[K-State Spur]

You should read the article. In a nutshell, the story comes from Memphis not offering the customary 120% for a first round rookie, and the rookie not wanting to sign for Memphis because of it, and the press jumping right away calling Memphis cheap/retarded for not offering the full amount for talent that's relatively cheap compared to salaries in the league.

The author goes to point out how the Spurs are a team that do this kind of stuff all the time, and instead they're labeled as a brilliant FO by the same press.

I do think the Spurs have certain leverage in that they have a competitive team and so rookies coming over have a great chance to learn from actual pros that are winners and know the game inside out. But as Bruno pointed out, not every player is the same, and some might feel they're being lowballed sometimes for relatively small money, which might bite you in the ass long term when they become FAs .

I understand the author's point of the article for sake of comparison.

I still take issue with the word 'manipulation.' Maybe it's because he's a Brit and he just means it by definition and not negative connotation that often is associated with it in the states.

Regardless, his point seems to be not so much that people that people should go easier on the Grizz, but instead that the Spurs are doing something wrong and deserve to be called out as well.

I don't really care about Xav-ee-ay's situation (he deserves having to play at a discount just for that pronunciation), but calling out another team as 'manipulating' when they negotiate a lower number directly with the player (the player knows full well the deal he is signing) - a player who has proven nothing when he signs that contract - is harsh.

It speaks volumes that management in SA tends to maintain a much better relationship with talent compared to just about any other club. There are a few isolated incidents where a player ends up angry or hurt here and there, but that's going to happen with any company in any industry.

Overall, I'd say that the Spurs negotiating tactics - while held to strict standards - tend to rub players the wrong way less than most other teams. There's nothing manipulative in that.

[K-State Spur]

do you guys think teams or 3rd parties in relation to the general employer also pay players under the table?

With wealthy clubs, I think that happens.

On the whole, probably not as much as sportswriters like to allude to. If that was a widespread problem, you'd see more players signing for less reported money than they do. But, most of the time, players tend to take the highest reported offer.

If more teams had extra money that they could be dishing out under the table to entice players to come, the entire league wouldn't be so scared about going into luxury tax territory.

[ajh18]

You know, this is the pros. Any of those kids can have a career ending injury at any point (knock on wood), so is it really fair to 'red flag' them if they don't want to take less?

This kind of thing happens all the time in the "real" professional world. Companies will often ask you to come on at a lower position or salary, and then if you prove you can perform at a certain level they'll reward you appropriately.

Like in sports, people who accept these offers are taking a chance. A death in the family, illness, or some other unexpected occurence could prevent you from realizing your potential, and then you're stuck at a lower pay-grade. Injuries in sports may be more common, but sports are a higher-risk, higher reward trade by nature, and the willingness to take this chance implies certain personal characteristics that the Spurs may also value.

[ElNono]

This kind of thing happens all the time in the "real" professional world. Companies will often ask you to come on at a lower position or salary, and then if you prove you can perform at a certain level they'll reward you appropriately.

It's kind of different. If you feel like you're being lowballed on a job offer, you can just walk away and go find another offer from anybody. First rounders can't just simply walk away and go listen to offers from other teams. All they can try to negotiate is to get that 120%. Any other option involves pretty much sitting out the entire season.


Like in sports, people who accept these offers are taking a chance. A death in the family, illness, or some other unexpected occurence could prevent you from realizing your potential, and then you're stuck at a lower pay-grade. Injuries in sports may be more common, but sports are a higher-risk, higher reward trade by nature, and the willingness to take this chance implies certain personal characteristics that the Spurs may also value.

I don't necessarily disagree that the Spurs might do that as some form of character-testing. That doesn't mean that the strategy could backfire long term.

[K-State Spur]

It's kind of different. If you feel like you're being lowballed on a job offer, you can just walk away and go find another offer from anybody. First rounders can't just simply walk away and go listen to offers from other teams. All they can try to negotiate is to get that 120%. Any other option involves pretty much sitting out the entire season.


That only works if you view each team as a unique basis as opposed to the NBA as a single entity. Viewing the NBA as a single entity where salary structure is predetermined by headquarters with various departments located in different cities choosing the actual number from within a range...it's not that different from a lot of jobs in the real world.

And what industry do you work in where you can ignore a current lowball job offer and go take another job from "anybody"? Especially right now, there's 10% of the country that would be interested in knowing.

Most companies are going to offer new professionals the lowest they can to get them through the door. And there are many industries where the offer you get from the corporate leader (in this case the NBA) is by far the best that you are going to be the best that you see, even if it is lower than they offered some of your peers.

[Blackjack]

You should read the article. In a nutshell, the story comes from Memphis not offering the customary 120% for a first round rookie, and the rookie not wanting to sign for Memphis because of it, and the press jumping right away calling Memphis cheap/retarded for not offering the full amount for talent that's relatively cheap compared to salaries in the league.

The author goes to point out how the Spurs are a team that do this kind of stuff all the time, and instead they're labeled as a brilliant FO by the same press.

That's the thing though, as it pertains to the author at least, the Spurs have only been brought into the discussion because of the butthurt of Memphis and their supporters. This was a complete non-issue until Memphis began this soap opera and those looking to defend them brought the Spurs into the equation to try and justify their stance.

Problem is, it's apples and oranges. Memphis is not San Antonio and to pretend that they are would be disingenuous.

Maybe now that it's been brought to the fore and players/agents will have it at their minds the same, that could potentially have the Spurs' tactics bite them in the ass at some point. But there was absolutely no issue with their way of doing business until another team tried to make it one because of their team's failings.

The press may have been unnecessarily hard with regards to Memphis and the situation, but it didn't seem to be gross -- you can't ask to be extended credit just for the simple case you'd like to be extended credit. The Spurs have earned theirs over the years, the Grizz have yet to establish any.

[ElNono]

That only works if you view each team as a unique basis as opposed to the NBA as a single entity. Viewing the NBA as a single entity where salary structure is predetermined by headquarters with various departments located in different cities choosing the actual number from within a range...it's not that different from a lot of jobs in the real world.

Well, I'm viewing it the way free agents view it. Which is basically how rookies used to see it before the rookie scale was introduced in 1994.
As a matter of fact, part of the reason the rookie scale was created was that rookies would hold out until they would get the contract they wanted. So the league figured that by setting a upper limit, the room for negotiations would be pretty small. Ultimately, the litmus test is wether other teams would be willing to hire the first rounder and pay him 120% of the rookie scale. Considering it's almost customary among teams to do that, with very few exceptions (as noted in this thread), I would say it's plausible that he would have passed that test.


And what industry do you work in where you can ignore a current lowball job offer and go take another job from "anybody"? Especially right now, there's 10% of the country that would be interested in knowing.

The industry or unemployment level doesn't matter when discussing having the possibility to do it. Ultimately, the choice is really yours. If you want to ignore a lowball offer, and send your resume somewhere else, you're able to do it.

We're talking about very talented kids. That's why they're first rounders and not second rounders or NBDL guys. Talent is always in high demand in the league. Especially cheap young talent with a lot of upside.


Most companies are going to offer new professionals the lowest they can to get them through the door. And there are many industries where the offer you get from the corporate leader (in this case the NBA) is by far the best that you are going to be the best that you see, even if it is lower than they offered some of your peers.

Well, I personally don't think it works like that all the time. I think there's many factors considered, like talent, experience in the field, potential, etc.
For example, do you think Cleveland would have tried to lowball LeBron in his rookie deal? Or the Spurs with Duncan?

[ElNono]

That's the thing though, as it pertains to the author at least, the Spurs have only been brought into the discussion because of the butthurt of Memphis and their supporters. This was a complete non-issue until Memphis began this soap opera and those looking to defend them brought the Spurs into the equation to try and justify their stance.

Problem is, it's apples and oranges. Memphis is not San Antonio and to pretend that they are would be disingenuous.

Maybe now that it's been brought to the fore and players/agents will have it at their minds the same, that could potentially have the Spurs' tactics bite them in the ass at some point. But there was absolutely no issue with their way of doing business until another team tried to make it one because of their team's failings.

The press may have been unnecessarily hard with regards to Memphis and the situation, but it didn't seem to be gross -- you can't ask to be extended credit just for the simple case you'd like to be extended credit. The Spurs have earned theirs over the years, the Grizz have yet to establish any.

I agree that the Spurs and the Grizz are completely different franchises, and that definitely is a factor. I'm in no way trying to defend the author's take, I'm just saying what I interpreted from his writing.

[ajh18]

Well, I'm viewing it the way free agents view it. Which is basically how rookies used to see it before the rookie scale was introduced in 1994.

This is due primarily to the NBA representing basically a monopoly to a lot of these kids. In this little running analogy, teams represent branches of a company, federal agencies, or franchises... independently operated sub-categories of a larger organization. The real "alternative" offer would be moving to another league, but since this isn't an option genuinely considered one that can compete with the "industry leader" NBA, they're stuck.



Well, I personally don't think it works like that all the time. I think there's many factors considered, like talent, experience in the field, potential, etc.
For example, do you think Cleveland would have tried to lowball LeBron in his rookie deal? Or the Spurs with Duncan?

No, Cleveland wouldnt have tried to get a lower deal out of Lebron, and the Spurs wouldnt have tried to get a lower deal out of Duncan. These guys were seen as the can't-miss, number one draft pick, once-in-a-generation type of guys. They wouldnt get low-balled, similar to how the valedictorian from HLS or Wharton wouldn't get lowballed in their first offer.

[DrSteffo]

The problem is that the salary is low even if you offer the max 120%. Historically players did not even consider other options but if the rookie scale remains like this it's a problem, especially when it comes to drafting international players like Splitter, Rubio and so on. It's different to be offered your first (well hehe) paycheck as a pro and having to take a reduced salary for several years. If the NBA wants to have all the top talents the rookie scale needs to be increased a bit and I don't see why teams should have the option to lowball rookie scale contracts.

[The Truth #6]

That was a long article but it brought up interesting points. In regards to Hill not having incentives, I can see how this hurts the Spurs in the sense that Hill is guaranteed to make as little as legally possible without any incentive to play better to get more money. I know everyone thinks NBA players should always play as hard as possible, but it's a business so let's be real.

It was obviously written from a Memphis perspective but I don't think the author avoids calling the Memphis owners idiots. Overall, I agree with his point about how the Spurs get a pass.

But the point to me isn't that the Spurs get a pass, but how they deal with their draft picks. Trying to save 116K with Anderson does seem petty in the whole scheme of things. It makes me wonder how poorly they handled the Scola situation.

If they were always cheap, at least it would be consistent. But giving any money to Bonner makes no sense. So in the end, I have no idea what their strategy is. They did a miracle with their contract with Splitter from a business standpoint but then lost their minds with Bonner and RJ. What's their argument to agents? We can only pay your client big bucks if he underperforms?

[ElNono]

The problem is that the salary is low even if you offer the max 120%. Historically players did not even consider other options but if the rookie scale remains like this it's a problem, especially when it comes to drafting international players like Splitter, Rubio and so on. It's different to be offered your first (well hehe) paycheck as a pro and having to take a reduced salary for several years. If the NBA wants to have all the top talents the rookie scale needs to be increased a bit and I don't see why teams should have the option to lowball rookie scale contracts.

It's not just the league that wanted this rookie scale. The player union reportedly pushed for it too due to some older/veteran players being butthurt that rookies could end up with better deals than them. So there's obviously a little bit of everything there.

[Cane]

That was a long article but it brought up interesting points. In regards to Hill not having incentives, I can see how this hurts the Spurs in the sense that Hill is guaranteed to make as little as legally possible without any incentive to play better to get more money. I know everyone thinks NBA players should always play as hard as possible, but it's a business so let's be real.

It was obviously written from a Memphis perspective but I don't think the author avoids calling the Memphis owners idiots. Overall, I agree with his point about how the Spurs get a pass.

But the point to me isn't that the Spurs get a pass, but how they deal with their draft picks. Trying to save 116K with Anderson does seem petty in the whole scheme of things. It makes me wonder how poorly they handled the Scola situation.

If they were always cheap, at least it would be consistent. But giving any money to Bonner makes no sense. So in the end, I have no idea what their strategy is. They did a miracle with their contract with Splitter from a business standpoint but then lost their minds with Bonner and RJ. What's their argument to agents? We can only pay your client big bucks if he underperforms?

Bonner and RJ can be examples of how the Spurs reward its players.

Spurs don't get bad press for how they handle rookies since they handle it professionally (just check out the Memphis owner's shoddy comments on why they're haggling Henry...dude didn't even read the CBA!) and rookies still pick the Spurs as the no. 1 franchise (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156992) to go to, even over the current champs. They've also been pretty good about helping their players facilitate trades or get out of the NBA if they find more lucrative or desirable deals like Finley, Malik, and even Mason Jr. although Miami's 2nd rounder expired beforehand.

[Solid D]

I'm curious. ShamSports.com shows that the Oklahoma City Thunder signed 1st round pick Cole Aldrich for $1,772,100 in year 1 and $1,827,400 in year, which is 100% of rookie salary scale for that pick. I wonder if that is "actual" or not. Does anyone have any other data on what Aldrich signed for?

[Blackjack]

I agree that the Spurs and the Grizz are completely different franchises, and that definitely is a factor. I'm in no way trying to defend the author's take, I'm just saying what I interpreted from his writing.

Sorry, that wasn't really aimed at you, just the point about the author spurred me to make a point I hadn't seen mentioned.


If they were always cheap, at least it would be consistent. But giving any money to Bonner makes no sense. So in the end, I have no idea what their strategy is. They did a miracle with their contract with Splitter from a business standpoint but then lost their minds with Bonner and RJ. What's their argument to agents? We can only pay your client big bucks if he underperforms?

Don't confuse not wanting a player like Bonner, and overpaying him. His yearly salary is pretty much in line with his market value.

In regards to RJ, yeah, they paid him more than market value. But I think it's pretty clear they put an offer on the table prior to RJ opting out that they felt fit their business model and ability to compete for the upcoming year and moving forward better. Essentially, they got what they wanted out of the deal.

Agree with it or not, the Spurs saved a lot of money for next year with the refinancing of RJ and only ended up shelling out about $13M more than they would have, while locking up RJ for 3 more years -- a notion they obviously believe to be a good one. :depressed


Bonner and RJ can be examples of how the Spurs reward its players.

Spurs don't get bad press for how they handle rookies since they handle it professionally (just check out the Memphis owner's shoddy comments on why they're haggling Henry...dude didn't even read the CBA!) and rookies still pick the Spurs as the no. 1 franchise (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156992) to go to, even over the current champs. They've also been pretty good about helping their players facilitate trades or get out of the NBA if they find more lucrative or desirable deals like Finley, Malik, and even Mason Jr. although Miami's 2nd rounder expired beforehand.

:tu


I'm curious. ShamSports.com shows that the Oklahoma City Thunder signed 1st round pick Cole Aldrich for $1,772,100 in year 1 and $1,827,400 in year, which is 100% of rookie salary scale for that pick. I wonder if that is "actual" or not. Does anyone have any other data on what Aldrich signed for?

Go with Sham. There's not a safer bet in the biz.

[Bruno]

I'm curious. ShamSports.com shows that the Oklahoma City Thunder signed 1st round pick Cole Aldrich for $1,772,100 in year 1 and $1,827,400 in year, which is 100% of rookie salary scale for that pick. I wonder if that is "actual" or not. Does anyone have any other data on what Aldrich signed for?

It isn't his salary, it's the cap hold. Cap holds are almost always 100% of the rookie scale. Shamsports hasn't Aldrich contract details but other reliable have him at 120% at least for the first year.

[Solid D]

It isn't his salary, it's the cap hold. Cap holds are almost always 100% of the rookie scale. Shamsports hasn't Aldrich contract details but other reliable have him at 120% at least for the first year.

The way it was listed, it looked like he posted the 100% scale for the 11th pick and not "actuals", so thanks for responding to my question.

[The Truth #6]

I suppose the contracts to RJ and Bonner could be considered rewarding their players...but what exactly are they rewarding? Bonner worked and persevered, and still isn't that good. RJ, in contrast, goes on the Howard Stern show, talks to the press about wanting to restructure his deal while we're about to head into the playoffs, and overall underperformed and whined all season. I don't see a connection other than rewarding players for playing poorly.

As for Bonner's market value - I didn't get a sense that he actually tested the market. We could have let him hang out there for a while but we didn't. RJ did hang on the market for a while, and because no one bit, I'll assume his market value was much lower. Obviously a deal was already in place and in retrospect they could have played hard ball to get a better deal.

Let's just hope everyone shows up next year ready to play.

[Sham]

Regardless, his point seems to be not so much that people that people should go easier on the Grizz, but instead that the Spurs are doing something wrong and deserve to be called out as well.

No, as evidenced by the grammatically overanalysed sentence from earlier that was quoted as far back as the initial post;

The same is true of the Spurs' and Grizzlies' handling of this year's first round draft picks. If it's wrong when Memphis do it, it's wrong when San Antonio do it. And since it's not wrong when San Antonio do it, it's not wrong when Memphis do it either. It's not going to be wrong when any team does it. Perhaps more of them should.




By the way. Cole Aldrich signed for the full 120%.

[Blackjack]

No, as evidenced by the grammatically overanalysed sentence from earlier that was quoted as far back as the initial post;

Sometimes you allow the thread and it's posts to skew what was really said, even after reading it. The further you get away, I guess.

My bad. Point taken. :toast

[Solid D]

No, as evidenced by the grammatically overanalysed sentence from earlier that was quoted as far back as the initial post;

By the way. Cole Aldrich signed for the full 120%.

Then his 1st year salary would not be $1,772,100, as listed, but $2,126,520. Thanks, Sham.

[Solid D]

Shamsports do have an awesome website. :smokin

[Blackjack]

Then his 1st year salary would not be $1,772,100, as listed, but $2,126,520. Thanks, Sham.

Same number I got (do). :tu