Suns: Eric Bledsoe signs a 5yr/$70 million extension

[Killakobe81]

Fair points, but like I said in my reply above ... I never meant to imply there are never player like Tim or Pedroia that offer hometown discounts ... I should have added the term "fair value" to illustrate that better. But even without "fair" are you telling me that Tim duncan if he could have gotten more but also helped the team he would not have taken that route? I think we all agree he is unselfish and a team and community guy again I am just saying that to me it doesnt make sense for Ducan in the deal you mentioned having to sacrifice while a guy that joined a few seasons later like RJ gets what he does for producing much less?

For me it all comes back to the stupidity of the owners. Every CBA negotiations in all sports they argue that they need to control costs for the good of the league. And so they put in provisions to do so. But right after they throw out huge contracts to non superstars like candy. Maybe some of this is a bit personal because I went through a layoff in the banking industry a few years back, but i just strongly feel that a player like James or prime duncan no matter how much he made previously or makes off the courts shouldnt have to suffer (relative) and sacrifice so owners can pay cats like Bledsoe. Just like in corporate america they tell you that budgets are tight but pay CEO golden parachutes and woo client in expensive ways. It's all bull . I just dont trust them greedy bas s so I guess when I feel a player like James is getting an unfair deal I side with them.

Good news is the Spurs have mostly avoided most of this they win but are careful with spending. And that's because they have great ownership and leadership. But they still made the RJ trade/Signing so even they are not perfect. Maybe Tim is so self-less that it does not bother him a scrub like RJ was making bank but I have no shame admitting that it would bother me.

Back to Lebron I also stand by statement it bothers James despite him leaving the max deal structure to go to Miami. the comments about Miggy, even the comments floated through his camp about him never being the highest paid player on the team ...that is just voicing what I believe to be his thoughts. Will he make that fight? No because he will look like an ass. But he should even if not for himself but for the next superstar who is getting taken advantage of by that system. I know it's crazy to say that when the NBA platform is a big part of why he is famous but I still feel it is unfair to him.



I Appreciate you keeping it classy as always Jam, and even though we disagree some here, I always appreciate your insight. And again I freely admit I could have worded my thought better.


Oh by the way (not at you) I am so "salty" about Lebron calling him a GOAT arguing he is being screwed over by league ... Im such a hater!!!! so insecure, so threatened!!!

I may have done a poor job of expressing to Jam all of this a few weeks back ... here are some highlights:

1. LeBron James might not hold an official le within the National Basketball Players Association, but his standing as the league's best player put him in an important position to speak about the new television rights deal.

"I am kind of the guy that has the power, I guess, without even having to put a name on it," James said Monday after the league announced a nine-year extension of its TV deal with ESPN and TNT that begins in 2016-17. "I'm very educated and I will use what I have to make sure our players are taken care of."

2. James said that the new TV deal, along with a spate of teams being sold for unprecedented sums (the Los Angeles Clippers went for $2 billion in July), will cause the players to dig in for their rightful portion of the profits this time around.

"The whole thing that went on with the last negotiation process was the owners was telling us that they were losing money. There's no way they can sit in front of us and tell us that right now after we continue to see teams selling for billions of dollars, being purchased for $200 million, [selling] for 550 [million], 750 [million], $2 billion," James said. "And now [Mikhail] Prokhorov is possibly selling his majority stake in the Nets for over a billion. So, that will not fly with us this time."

3. While the current CBA seems to be skewed in the owners' favor, James said that getting a deal done in order to salvage a 66-game shortened season in 2010-11 led to the explosion in revenue the league is seeing today.

"I think it was a good deal," James said. "I think you can always want more and give less. But I think both sides kind of benefited from it, as you see in this new TV deal. Both sides continue to grow it, but there's some things that we'd like to see changed as players going forward."

One of those changes could be the NBPA pursuing the abolition of max contracts. James would not comment on his stance on the subject; however, reporters including ESPN's Brian Windhorst have intimated that the increase or removal of max contracts is indeed on James' agenda for the next CBA.

"I don't even really get into speculation conversations in my name," James said.


Like I said in this thread of course he doesnt want to come off as greedy and I do believe he cares about his fellow players. But of course he got screwed in the last deal and he expects to get taken care of properly in the next one.

[Killakobe81]

It's not a matter of whether the value of those players had diminished. It's whether they believed they were worth more than what they took. Now neither you nor I can get into the heads of these players to truly say with any certainty what they believe their true value is/was at the time of those contract signings, but I can say with certainty that each of my examples were ones with players who could have gotten more money. So it's about them taking less than what they could have gotten.

I can acquiesce to disregard the Peyton Manning example because he was coming off of the neck injury. However, it is fact that he could have gotten more from the Broncos because they offered more. And while it's just my opinion, I am fairly certain Peyton had full faith in his ability and that he was worth any amount of money the Broncos were willing to pay. I believe they threw out an obnoxious salary at him and he went back to Elway and said something to the effect that they can just pay him the same exact salary as Tom Brady and not a penny more. I believe that's what I did.

With Tim Duncan, I'm not talking about his current contract where he's getting something like $10 million a year. Back in 2007, after the Spurs had just won their 4th le with Duncan winning another Finals MVP, Duncan and the Spurs agreed on an extension. This was when Duncan was still 31 years old and very much in his prime, and again coming off a championship. He left something like $11 million on the table to enable the Spurs some financial flexibility for future free agents. He took a lot less money, while still in his prime.

Dirk's current situation may be more of a stretch since he's already 36 years old. But then again, we're talking about a guy who is still a superstar and who last year put up per minute production that was right in line with his MVP season statistics with the exception of his rebounding. And when you look at how much less he took, it's dramatic. Even at Dirk's advanced age, is he really only worth $8 million a year? That's taking a ginormous paycut. You don't think he could have gotten more? You don't think he thinks he could have gotten more? You don't think he's worth more than $8 million a year?

"No player wants to get paid below what they feel their value is." Well, those players did imo. Not about being in their prime. Not about being the best player in the game. It's about players taking less than what they think they're worth. And there are examples.

Could LeBron make more money? Sure. Should LeBron make more money when we see the money guys like Eric Bledsoe get? Sure. But you're also talking about a guy in LeBron who has made over $130 million in NBA salary already and who's made that many times over in endorsement deals. The flaws in the NBA salary structure and the stupidity of owners handing out contracts like these and others like the Rashard Lewis and Gilbert Arenas contracts doesn't really affect a media, cultural megastar icon like LeBron. It just doesn't. It's not really his fight.

It's not?!

[Killakobe81]

this. The NBA salary structure is dumb. IF i was Lebron I would take a very different stance come next negotiations.

Bump

[angrydude]

The suns aren't trying to win anything. They're trying to be compe ive to sell season tickets.

[baseline bum]

this. The NBA salary structure is dumb. IF i was Lebron I would take a very different stance come next negotiations.

Good luck with that, since there are a lot of well paid midlevel players with lots of union votes who don't want to see their money going to LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Anthony Davis, Blake Griffin, Kevin Love, Russell Westbrook, Chris Paul, Stephen Curry, Carmelo Anthony, Dwight Howard, LaMarcus Aldridge, and James Harden.

[Killakobe81]

Good luck with that, since there are a lot of well paid midlevel players with lots of union votes who don't want to see their money going to LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Anthony Davis, Blake Griffin, Kevin Love, Russell Westbrook, Chris Paul, Stephen Curry, Carmelo Anthony, Dwight Howard, LaMarcus Aldridge, and James Harden.

Yes but you thinking small. There are plenty of mid level guys that think they are worth top level money. Who wants to get max capped if they breakout? And how can they look LeBron in the face when he has to sacrifice for them when owners making money hand over fist?

[Killakobe81]

Trust me the guys you mentioned will have more voice than the bottom union guys who many don't attend union meetings and are barely hanging on.

[Chinook]

Yes but you thinking small. There are plenty of mid level guys that think they are worth top level money. Who wants to get max capped if they breakout? And how can they look LeBron in the face when he has to sacrifice for them when owners making money hand over fist?

No max = the end of the middle class. Look at the NFL. No way players let that happen because they feel sorry for James.

And Lebron isn't "sacrificing" for players any more than they're sacrificing for him. No one on the Lebron Heat made market value except maybe Haslem. Some players took contracts with half the APY other teams offering. James already showed he couldn't do it by himself, so it makes little sense to argue that he should get more of the cap from any team that wants to win. We just saw a team of players on mid-level contracts beat a team with high income disparity. If anything, that might encourage the lowering of the max (relatively speaking) to force teams to have more balanced rosters.

Trust me the guys you mentioned will have more voice than the bottom union guys who many don't attend union meetings and are barely hanging on.

Their votes still count for the same.

[Killakobe81]

No max = the end of the middle class. Look at the NFL. No way players let that happen because they feel sorry for James.

And Lebron isn't "sacrificing" for players any more than they're sacrificing for him. No one on the Lebron Heat made market value except maybe Haslem. Some players took contracts with half the APY other teams offering. James already showed he couldn't do it by himself, so it makes little sense to argue that he should get more of the cap from any team that wants to win. We just saw a team of players on mid-level contracts beat a team with high income disparity. If anything, that might encourage the lowering of the max (relatively speaking) to force teams to have more balanced rosters.



Their votes still count for the same.

1. I doubt we see end of max ceiling, but I do think it goes up.
2. I guess many here don't see it but yes he is.They dont have the power like he said in the interview, he does. In a free market system everyone knows Lebron would get paid A LOT more money. Yes I agree it could hurt the middle class to pay stars more but we just saw how dumb owners have overpaid the middle class like the upper class. Hayward, bledsoe etc. SO again those guys are getting inflated contracts and he is getting a deflated one. Yes that is great for those guys, Parsons etc but why should the money not go to the top level producers? System is broken when those guys are getting overpaid and Lebron is under paid.
3. yes, votes are all the same but it's a star driven league. some players have taken short-term deals to see how TV money shakes out. Most of these guys wanna get paid like stars so why would they be against having the salary roof for stars raised?

[Killakobe81]

And you can disagree with it ... I just told you scros where Lebron's head was at maybe he doesnt get his way and Union /Owners asks him to "take one" for the good of the league ...

But he already proved my point by voicing his thoughts on the matter.
And you guys bought all that oh he doesnt care about money all he wants to do is ring. and his endorsements are enough ....bull . He is being denied his full earning potential and he knows it. He wants to win they ALL do. But he also wants fair value for his talent.

[Chinook]

1. I doubt we see end of max ceiling, but I do think it goes up.

The max is pretty much where it's been for 10 years, save for the addition of the Rose-max. The difference is that the size of raises is smaller now than it was in the 2005 CBA. That may go back up, but it's also possible that that would happen in conjunction with lowering the max, which would further encourage players to re-sign with their current teams.

2. I guess many here don't see it but yes he is.They dont jabe the power like he said in the interview, he does. In a free market system everyone knows Lebron would get paid A LOT more money. Yes I agree it could hurt the middle class to pay stars more but we just saw how dumb owners have overpaid the middle class like the upper class. Hayward, bledsoe etc. SO again those guys are getting inflated contracts and he is getting a deflated one. Yes that is great for those guys, Parsons etc but why should the money not go to the top level producers? System is broken when those guys are getting overpaid and Lebron is under paid.

And his teams would lose. So he's not worth it from a basketball perspective. We can talk about stars all we want, but you need middle-class players to win. Giving stars more money at the expense of solid role-players would just further the advantage teams like the Spurs would have over the rest of the league.

And James needs to keep his eyes on his own team. That's the only thing that should determine if he's overpaid or underpaid. A team like Dallas simply had the money to give Parsons a max deal. They weren't going to spend it anywhere else. NBA contracts (and indeed any type of budgeting) is about opportunity cost. Parsons' making $14 Million a year was not prohibitive to Dallas, which is why he got it. James making $35 Million a year would be extremely prohibitive to his teams, which is why owners won't let him get it, AND why James himself shouldn't demand it.

3. yes, votes are all the same but it's a star driven league. some players have taken short-term deals to see how TV money shakes out. Most of these guys wanna get paid like stars so why would they be against having the salary roof for stars raised?

The NBA is the least star-driven league in the country from a salary perspective. That's because players don't want to get rid of the MLE in order to raise the max. It simply doesn't make sense for the average player to give up $20 Million now in hopes of earning an extra $10-20 Million if they happen to become stars in a few years. That's completely different from what players like Stephenson did. Those players are banking on the increased cap leading to players of their caliber getting a raise (like Lance's $9M APY under this CBA may be a $12M APY under the next one). Those players are absolutely not interested in giving up their paydays to increase the max.

Simply put, higher APYs mean fewer large contracts. Fewer large contracts mean smaller percentage of players getting life-time financial security. No way any non-elite player is going to vote for that, not even the Bledsoes or Stephensons of the league.

[Killakobe81]

The max is pretty much where it's been for 10 years, save for the addition of the Rose-max. The difference is that the size of raises is smaller now than it was in the 2005 CBA. That may go back up, but it's also possible that that would happen in conjunction with lowering the max, which would further encourage players to re-sign with their current teams.



And his teams would lose. So he's not worth it from a basketball perspective. We can talk about stars all we want, but you need middle-class players to win. Giving stars more money at the expense of solid role-players would just further the advantage teams like the Spurs would have over the rest of the league.

And James needs to keep his eyes on his own team. That's the only thing that should determine if he's overpaid or underpaid. A team like Dallas simply had the money to give Parsons a max deal. They weren't going to spend it anywhere else. NBA contracts (and indeed any type of budgeting) is about opportunity cost. Parsons' making $14 Million a year was not prohibitive to Dallas, which is why he got it. James making $35 Million a year would be extremely prohibitive to his teams, which is why owners won't let him get it, AND why James himself shouldn't demand it.



The NBA is the least star-driven league in the country from a salary perspective. That's because players don't want to get rid of the MLE in order to raise the max. It simply doesn't make sense for the average player to give up $20 Million now in hopes of earning an extra $10-20 Million if they happen to become stars in a few years. That's completely different from what players like Stephenson did. Those players are banking on the increased cap leading to players of their caliber getting a raise (like Lance's $9M APY under this CBA may be a $12M APY under the next one). Those players are absolutely not interested in giving up their paydays to increase the max.

Simply put, higher APYs mean fewer large contracts. Fewer large contracts mean smaller percentage of players getting life-time financial security. No way any non-elite player is going to vote for that, not even the Bledsoes or Stephensons of the league.

Some great points but you give the owners too much credit. No matter what the structure is Owners have shown time and time again they will overpay players. stars get franchise type contracts and role players get paid like stars. How does the current system work in a team's favor? I would rather overpay Bledsoe than pay more of that money to Lebron?

Again the Spurs have done a great job of paying the right guys. The heat may have lost to the Spurs but was not their big 3 system a success? they won 2 les and made 4 finals in a row ... And beat the spurs the previous season .. so If I have a choice Im taking the Heat way, even if building the spur way is more conducive to long-term success. From a basketball perspective it makes sense to bolster the middle class, but to me no system makes sense when you are overpaying role players at the expense of stars. And I dont get how it's not a star driven league salary or otherwise. the contracts are guaranteed so the true stars or even the role players that are paid like one dominate the majority of most team's salary caps.

[Killakobe81]

The max is pretty much where it's been for 10 years, save for the addition of the Rose-max. The difference is that the size of raises is smaller now than it was in the 2005 CBA. That may go back up, but it's also possible that that would happen in conjunction with lowering the max, which would further encourage players to re-sign with their current teams.



And his teams would lose. So he's not worth it from a basketball perspective. We can talk about stars all we want, but you need middle-class players to win. Giving stars more money at the expense of solid role-players would just further the advantage teams like the Spurs would have over the rest of the league.

And James needs to keep his eyes on his own team. That's the only thing that should determine if he's overpaid or underpaid. A team like Dallas simply had the money to give Parsons a max deal. They weren't going to spend it anywhere else. NBA contracts (and indeed any type of budgeting) is about opportunity cost. Parsons' making $14 Million a year was not prohibitive to Dallas, which is why he got it. James making $35 Million a year would be extremely prohibitive to his teams, which is why owners won't let him get it, AND why James himself shouldn't demand it.



The NBA is the least star-driven league in the country from a salary perspective. That's because players don't want to get rid of the MLE in order to raise the max. It simply doesn't make sense for the average player to give up $20 Million now in hopes of earning an extra $10-20 Million if they happen to become stars in a few years. That's completely different from what players like Stephenson did. Those players are banking on the increased cap leading to players of their caliber getting a raise (like Lance's $9M APY under this CBA may be a $12M APY under the next one). Those players are absolutely not interested in giving up their paydays to increase the max.

Simply put, higher APYs mean fewer large contracts. Fewer large contracts mean smaller percentage of players getting life-time financial security. No way any non-elite player is going to vote for that, not even the Bledsoes or Stephensons of the league.

The trouble for the Mavericks is that Parsons, like two of the other top-five targets on Dallas' list, was a dreaded restricted free agent, which put them at great risk to strike out again. But they went into July anyway with the plan to chase Melo and LeBron for as long as it made sense ... and then to zero in on the most gettable of the three restricteds they coveted.

Those three: Gordon Hayward, Eric Bledsoe and the kid from Casselberry, Florida, who says he used to "wear Dirk jerseys to Orlando games" as a kid whenever the Mavs were in town.

"LeBron and Melo, those are long shots," Cuban concedes. "But you do 'em because you have to run things out. People give you a hard time when you don't get this person or that person, but you never win any games you don't play. And in the worst case you develop a relationship for the next time something comes up. It's as much about trying to develop relationships as it is about trying to hit the home run.

"When it comes to restricted free agency, you look at what it takes to get the player away and you can't pay less than that. We went through and looked at all the numbers and all the permutations, and we realized that the pricing for free agents in this market was going to be far more than anybody expected, just because of how cap room was playing out and who the free agents were." Via ESPN


No, Cubes was going to pay someone. He Wanted to pay Lebron and like most owners do overpay someone else less deserving when they strike-out.

[Chinook]

How does the current system work in a team's favor? I would rather overpay Bledsoe than pay more of that money to Lebron?

Yes. Bledsoe at $14 Million and James at $20 Million is much better than Bledsoe at $3 Million and James at $31 Million. Even if you disregard everything else, it allows teams to keep more good players. Eric is worth more than $3 Million (probably in the $7 Million range), so some other team was going to give it to him. James may (or may not) be worth $31 Million, but since no one could give him that, a team could afford to sign him and Bledsoe.

The heat may have lost to the Spurs but was not their big 3 system a success?

The Heat system is not what a max-less league would go toward. Everyone on the Heat took less, especially the non-stars. That's why they had a few mid-level contracts on their books. No way the Heatles happen if there were no max salaries, because then the stars would have been giving up $50 Million as opposed to $10 Million or so.

No, Cubes was going to pay someone. He Wanted to pay Lebron and like most owners do overpay someone else less deserving when they strike-out.

Exactly the reason why James can't judge his value based on what other teams do. The NBA is not a free market in a lot of ways, and most of those ways have nothing to do with players' earning rights. Players get overpaid because the league is an association of 30 separate businesses with their own budgets and expectations. Dallas wanted to spend the money, so they did. That would have been the case no matter how much James got.

The only people who could affect how much James gets is his own teammates (although they didn't affect him this year for obvious reasons) with whom his has to split the salary cap/apron. But while there's an argument that James is worth $35 Million, there's little argument that he's worth more than half a team's salary cap.

[Killakobe81]

Yes. Bledsoe at $14 Million and James at $20 Million is much better than Bledsoe at $3 Million and James at $31 Million. Even if you disregard everything else, it allows teams to keep more good players. Eric is worth more than $3 Million (probably in the $7 Million range), so some other team was going to give it to him. James may (or may not) be worth $31 Million, but since no one could give him that, a team could afford to sign him and Bledsoe.



The Heat system is not what a max-less league would go toward. Everyone on the Heat took less, especially the non-stars. That's why they had a few mid-level contracts on their books. No way the Heatles happen if there were no max salaries, because then the stars would have been giving up $50 Million as opposed to $10 Million or so.



Exactly the reason why James can't judge his value based on what other teams do. The NBA is not a free market in a lot of ways, and most of those ways have nothing to do with players' earning rights. Players get overpaid because the league is an association of 30 separate businesses with their own budgets and expectations. Dallas wanted to spend the money, so they did. That would have been the case no matter how much James got.

The only people who could affect how much James gets is his own teammates (although they didn't affect him this year for obvious reasons) with whom his has to split the salary cap/apron. But while there's an argument that James is worth $35 Million, there's little argument that he's worth more than half a team's salary cap.

Chinook. I dont disagree with your team building philosophy. Based on the current rules your mind-set makes sense. But as the absolutely best player in the game, those rules are unfair to Lebron. In reality a team should be able to go over the cap to pay a legit franchise star like Lebron that is the only thing we disagree on here. and As James says in the article through his flunky Windhorst he has an issue with that as well ... right or wrong.

And if the by-product is no Heatles ...is that a bad thing? With no Heatles Spurs probably sitting on 6 les right now ...

[Chinook]

In reality a team should be able to go over the cap to pay a legit franchise star like Lebron that is the only thing we disagree on here.

We do. It simply does not make sense to take out the max in a salary-cap era. Lebron may feel slighted, but he's also selfish if he can serious look his teammates in the eyes and say they should give some of their money to him. He's the best player in the world by far, but he's still not good enough to sacrifice several key role-players just to make him a little more happy.

And if the by-product is no Heatles ...is that a bad thing? With no Heatles Spurs probably sitting on 6 les right now

The Spurs would be working on a four-peat if there was no max. Although it's possible that Tim would have taken so much in 2000/2003 that Parker and Ginobili left (to get huge contracts with other teams as well), which would have completely busted this Spurs era. There wouldn't be multi-superstar teams in a maxless league. There'd be more teams like the Knicks with a single star surrounded by crap or ephemeral teams with star players on rookie deals.