Reply With Quote
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?
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.
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?
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.
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 at ude hasn't leaked everywhere in the press.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 should read the article. In a nuts , 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/re ed 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 compe ive 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 .
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That only works if you view each team as a unique basis as opposed to the NBA as a single en y. Viewing the NBA as a single en y 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
