Comments on: Layups: Kevin Pelton on the Perils of Long-Term Contracts

By: simeon

simeon — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 04:23:03 +0000

How about getting rid of guaranteed contracts altogether? They don't exist in most fields and those fields turn out fine.

By: Daniel Song

Daniel Song — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:04:28 +0000

Moral of the story: build through the draft, trades, and cheap free agents. Give the big expensive long-term contracts to superstars on your own team (i.e. Durant).

Otherwise, you just have to let them walk and let other people give them stupid contracts.

By: Charrua

Charrua — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 01:07:12 +0000

I wonder if part of the problem isn't the availability of replacements. I mean, it's easy to see that some of these contracts are bad, but are we sure that better options were available? There is a finite number of draft picks and useful cheap FAs, after all. And of course, at that salary range you are competing with Europe, not just other teams. More than anything, Kevin's numbers tell me that most guys become unrestricted FAs precisely just about their peak years (now, that's a good idea) and that teams tend to value known production a lot (enough that if you push them, they will pay too much for it).

By: Grant

Grant — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 23:33:29 +0000

The ultimate goal of the salary cap is competitive balance in the league and the rewarding of shrewd management and coaching over high spending and long term commitments. The best thing to come out of the summer of 2010 was the clearing of the decks that so many teams went through to try and attract top talent. There have been fortunately fewer Darko deals than large contracts for legit superstars (even if Joe Johnson got seriously overpaid). If we're lucky, they split the Mid-Level exception in two on an annual basis, and make the larger exception every other year. There's a lot of players stuck making veteran minimum who deserve $2-3MM per year but due to cap rules are stuck at the "bottom" while a lot of guys earning $5-$8MM per year (Marc Blount) were just the beneficiaries of dumb money following exceptional contract year performances...

By: Anon x 2

Anon x 2 — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:03:43 +0000

he doesn't come off the cap. his buyout becomes part of the cap, instead.

What he's referring to is the Allan Houston rule of a few years back.

By: Jason J

Jason J — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 16:10:56 +0000

Nick - You mean if the Knicks fire Marbury and pay out the length of his contract he immediately comes off the cap / tax figures? That's not too different than what they do with buyouts now I guess.

By: Nick

Nick — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 04:06:21 +0000

A deal the owners would hate but might solve the problem would be to allow teams to dump a contract for cap purposes, while still honoring the contract's monetary value with regards to the player, if the player is cut from the team.

By: Anon x 2

Anon x 2 — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:38:43 +0000

I get the part relating to the players. But basketball is abnormal because the salaries are so high and it effects people not directly related in the business (fans).

And I also believe the owners deserve blame, if not most of it, for all these issues. But the truth is that if we want to have a competitive league, they do need protecting.

By: ScottR.

ScottR. — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:22:43 +0000

It's ridiculous that the GMs and owners need protection from themselves for giving out stupid contracts but, for the good of the game, they do. No one (but the individual player) wins when you have teams outbidding each other like drunken sailors for the services of a mid-level player. The team is ultimately hurt and the product suffers as a whole.

Obviously you want to lock up your super duper stars but any league that lets a team sign Darko to a 4 year deal is flawed.

By: Kirk

Kirk — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:03:22 +0000

Of course, from a player, aka labor point of view--and there are surely more of us that fall into that category than the owners category--they were not being paid market value in their rookie contracts. In the case of the few super duper stars, they *never* get paid their market value by their NBA teams. I agree with Neil's conclusion in this post, but what we call smart team building is based on the exploitation of players being paid artificially depressed salaries. On the flip side, Coghan just got something like a 300% return on his Warriors investment, not counting any losses/profits during his ownership. Fans are usually quick to condemn players, but we should at least all be aware of these dynamics if the CBA negotiations turn tough and the possibility of a lockout looms even larger.