13 Owners who will reject deal even if the players accept!!!

[e-LIMON-ators]

Washington
Denver
Charlotte
Milwaukee
Indiana
Minnesota
Portland
OKC
Memphis
Sacramento
Phoenix
Philadelphia
Atlanta
Utah

According to Bill Simmons
http://twitter.com/#!/sportsguy33

[DevilsAssassin]

i hope Bill Simmons is just trolling

[e-LIMON-ators]

No I don't think so, he usually doesn't post things like these unless it is totally legit. Also, Adrian wojinoiwski also confirmed it that the suns and cavs are voting for the deal. I believe him.

[bagelred]

One team, one vote? This is BS. It should be like the Electoral College. Based on Team Revenue.

Knicks 85 votes
Lakers 83 votes
Grizzlies 2 votes

[Clutch]

One team, one vote? This is BS. It should be like the Electoral College. Based on Team Revenue.

Knicks 85 votes
Lakers 83 votes
Grizzlies 2 votes
:applause:

[Burgz]

this is turning into '98/'99 again

both sides are just too damn greedy

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-KM912_mcmill_G_20101019115123.jpg

[Sakkreth]

this is turning into '98/'99 again

both sides are just too damn greedy

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-KM912_mcmill_G_20101019115123.jpg

The rent is too damn high guy :roll:

[Derrick]

this is turning into '98/'99 again

both sides are just too damn greedy

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-KM912_mcmill_G_20101019115123.jpg
:roll: :roll: :roll: :applause:

[B]

So thirteen isn't a majority. It's a simple majority vote all it takes is 16 and Stern holds the Hornets vote.

[MaxFly]

One team, one vote? This is BS. It should be like the Electoral College. Based on Team Revenue.

Knicks 85 votes
Lakers 83 votes
Grizzlies 2 votes

Lol!

[samballs]

How many owners does it take to pass? If 17 vote for it will it still pass? Also they need to get rid of a few of those teams. NBA quality would go up if there were less players and teams.

[Sarcastic]

No Cleveland?

[Clutch]

If Suns are voting for the deal then that makes it 18-12 for the deal.
Few changes are expected but the deal should pass,I hope so.

[PleezeBelieve]

:roll: :roll: :roll: @ you dumbasses. Where's the hate for Gilbert??

[B]

No Cleveland?
Cleveland is actually not one of the hardliner teams

[Joey Zaza]

If you are a fan of
Washington
Denver
Charlotte
Milwaukee
Indiana
Minnesota
Portland
OKC
Memphis
Sacramento
Phoenix
Philadelphia
Atlanta
Utah

Come into this thread and show your shame. Dolan has embarassed Knick fans for years, but I KNOW he wants to pay his players and have a season. Look at your guys...they should be ashamed of themselves.

...and ATL really? REALLY? OKC .. you've fallen into great players at cheap prices...what're you complaining about?

[Sarcastic]

I wonder what the guy who was going to buy the Hawks would have voted? I wonder if that came into play in rejecting him as owner.

[lilbill]

If you are a fan of
Washington
Denver
Charlotte
Milwaukee
Indiana
Minnesota
Portland
OKC
Memphis
Sacramento
Phoenix
Philadelphia
Atlanta
Utah

Come into this thread and show your shame. Dolan has embarassed Knick fans for years, but I KNOW he wants to pay his players and have a season. Look at your guys...they should be ashamed of themselves.

...and ATL really? REALLY? OKC .. you've fallen into great players at cheap prices...what're you complaining about?

If the players agree to the deal on the table a lot of these owners will change their vote.

[Sarcastic]

If the players agree to the deal on the table a lot of these owners will change their vote.

These are the ones that will say no, even if the players say yes. They want the 47/53 with hard cap, or worse.

[cuad]

I'm a Kings fan. The Magoofs want to vote no...

[PowerGlove]

who even owns Atlanta???

[SourGrapes]

They are bluffing. It's an untrue leak to spur the players into thinking they should take what is offered and be happy about it

[eliteballer]

How many votes do they need is a the real question. Simple majority or more?

[Sarcastic]

They are bluffing. It's an untrue leak to spur the players into thinking they should take what is offered and be happy about it

Some of them want to lose the season to begin with. They want to follow the NHL model.


Just as a kind of funny side note: when the NHL had its lockout, the league FORCED the players to take.........(can you believe this?)............54%-57%. Can you believe the audacity?

[Fiasco]

who even owns Atlanta???

Joe Johnson.

[PleezeBelieve]

No Cleveland?
Stay the f*ck off Twitter and Wikipedia, clown.

If you want to form an opinion, use your own brain.

[Joey Zaza]

They are bluffing. It's an untrue leak to spur the players into thinking they should take what is offered and be happy about it

Possibly, but it also shows division among the owners and it shows that the majority are being dragged down by this vocal minority, which could spur the players to demand more.

Might be misinfo (as alot ofthe info is) but hard to know the point of it.

[SourGrapes]

Stay the f*ck off Twitter and Wikipedia, clown.

If you want to form an opinion, use your own brain.

You've fallen off so badly, I almost get sad when I see you post now

[SourGrapes]

Possibly, but it also shows division among the owners and it shows that the majority are being dragged down by this vocal minority, which could spur the players to demand more.

Might be misinfo (as alot ofthe info is) but hard to know the point of it.

Agreed, though to this point the hardline owners seem to have juice relative to the others

[Joey Zaza]

Atl really gets to me. A big market that isn't drawing fans and can't turn a profit. A pretty good team for half-a-decade built without a superstar yet retaining all of its draft choiuces. JJ chose to go there from a better stuation in PHX and stayed there because the old deal (so much better than the newer deal0 allowed them to keep him.

ATL should be aching to play games. ATL should be whistling a happy tune every day because of what the old deal did for them.

F-ATL.

[The Macho Man]

Didn't Bill Simmons also tweet that he would be shocked if they didn't have a deal "by the weekend" like 3 weeks ago? Isn't Bill Simmons also an insufferable f*ggot?

[kurple]

I want a hard cap if i think longterm, but i want a season aswell

[SourGrapes]

I want a hard cap if i think longterm, but i want a season aswell

I want guaranteed contracts so the NBA doesn't turn into And 1, and I want a season as well

[fatboy11]

I want guaranteed contracts so the NBA doesn't turn into And 1, and I want a season as well

Catch 22.

Non-guaranteed contracts will lead to more selfish play, but it will also lead to players playing harder.

[talkingconch]

LOL

[Sarcastic]

Catch 22.

Non-guaranteed contracts will lead to more selfish play, but it will also lead to players playing harder.

Players play hard right now. Why would you think they don't?

[Sarcastic]

I really hate the notion that players will play harder if there are non guaranteed contracts and a hard cap. There is no proof anywhere in sports that this leads to harder play.

The NHL instituted a hard cap in 2005. Are you telling me that players before the lockout in 2004 loafed it, and only now they play hard?

MLB has no cap at all, and plays double the games as NHL and NBA. Do you really think players don't play hard in MLB?

NFL has a hard cap, and no guaranteed contracts. Does anyone think that Albert Haynesworth played hard when he was in Washington?

[Yung D-Will]

^^^
God I really hope this lockout ends not only so I can watch basketball but so I can stop seeing this guys completely pro player slants on everything that comes out

[Sarcastic]

^^^
God I really hope this lockout ends not only so I can watch basketball but so I can stop seeing this guys completely pro player slants on everything that comes out

Tell me how non guaranteed contracts make someone player harder, and not just more selfish?

[Rab]

Tell me how non guaranteed contracts make someone player harder, and not just more selfish?
Are you suggesting players play harder because of guaranteed contracts? Maybe during a contract year...but they play harder and more selfish then as well. No contract is going to guarantee a player plays harder. Might as well reduce the risk and save some money.

[eliteballer]

Tell me how non guaranteed contracts make someone player harder, and not just more selfish?

selfish=coach sits you and you dont play, and get a bad rep.

[Sarcastic]

Are you suggesting players play harder because of guaranteed contracts? Maybe during a contract year...

I am saying it has no bearing.

A non guaranteed contract isn't going to make Harold Miner try really really harder and become Michael Jordan.

[bagelred]

I want a hard cap if i think longterm, but i want a season aswell

I want no salary cap at all. And I'm willing to sit out a whole season, until I get what I want.

[Sarcastic]

selfish=coach sits you and you dont play, and get a bad rep.

Or in the case of Nate Robinson: player is close to hitting goals; owner doesn't want to pay him; coach sits him down; team cuts him for not hitting goals.

[kurple]

I want no salary cap at all. And I'm willing to sit out a whole season, until I get what I want.
The NBA has to choose, you or me!

[rufuspaul]

^^^
God I really hope this lockout ends not only so I can watch basketball but so I can stop seeing this guys completely pro player slants on everything that comes out

:oldlol:

15 minutes until the deadline. I've actually been pacing back and forth.

[Hater]

Some of them want to lose the season to begin with. They want to follow the NHL model.


Just as a kind of funny side note: when the NHL had its lockout, the league FORCED the players to take.........(can you believe this?)............54%-57%. Can you believe the audacity?
They split net revenue in the NHL, genius.

[Rab]

:oldlol:

15 minutes until the deadline. I've actually been pacing back and forth.
I don't think a deal will be agreed on today. I think the best we can hope for is some kind of compromise and continued talks.

[Sarcastic]

They split net revenue in the NHL, genius.

They are smart. I wish the NBA was as smart as the NHL.

[Hater]

They are smart. I wish the NBA was as smart as the NHL.
The NBAPA would never go for that kind of split.

[Sarcastic]

The NBAPA would never go for that kind of split.

What split? The owners sharing revenue, or the players getting between 54 and 57 percent of BRI?

[Hater]

What split? The owners sharing revenue, or the players getting between 54 and 57 percent of BRI?
The NHL splits NET revenue. The NBA splits GROSS revenue.

[Gundress]

EPSN said 15 owners.

[ZenMaster]

Tell me how non guaranteed contracts make someone player harder, and not just more selfish?


Because playing harder will get you on the court, playing more selfish will get you on the bench. At least on a serious basketball team.

[Sarcastic]

The NHL splits NET revenue. The NBA splits GROSS revenue.

Awww. Isn't that cute. You are trying to use financial terms and you have no idea what they mean. :facepalm



Gross is what you bring in before expenses. Net is what you bring in after expenses. With that in mind, gross is larger than net, so the NBA is splitting a larger amount according to you.

[Hater]

Awww. Isn't that cute. You are trying to use financial terms and you have no idea what they mean. :facepalm



Gross is what you bring in before expenses. Net is what you bring in after expenses. With that in mind, gross is larger than net, so the NBA is splitting a larger amount according to you.
The NBA IS splitting a larger amount. That's exactly what I'm saying. Lol. What part of this aren't you understanding?

[Joey Zaza]

I am saying it has no bearing.

A non guaranteed contract isn't going to make Harold Miner try really really harder and become Michael Jordan.

I am generally pro-owner (except for the 13 guys who do not like the current deal) and I tend to agree, There are a handful of guys who go harder in contract years...but that doesn't mean they will go hard all the time without guarantees.

[Blue&Orange]

Awww. Isn't that cute. You are trying to use financial terms and you have no idea what they mean. :facepalm



Gross is what you bring in before expenses. Net is what you bring in after expenses. With that in mind, gross is larger than net, so the NBA is splitting a larger amount according to you.
NHL splits the money left after the owners pay their expenses. NBA splits the money and then the owners still have the expenses to pay.

I find it funny that you explained correctly and still thought that it was a pro-player argument. It's impossible for someone to be more biased. Use an argument that fits someone else's pov and flaunt it like it helps your pov.

[ZenMaster]

NHL splits the money left after the owners pay their expenses. NBA splits the money and then the owners still have the expenses to pay.

I find it funny that you explained correctly and still thought that it was a pro-player argument. It's impossible for someone to be more biased. Use an argument that fits someone else's pov and flaunt it like it helps your pov.

Too funny!:oldlol:

[DFish]

Awww. Isn't that cute. You are trying to use financial terms and you have no idea what they mean. :facepalm



Gross is what you bring in before expenses. Net is what you bring in after expenses. With that in mind, gross is larger than net, so the NBA is splitting a larger amount according to you.

How can one person be so uneducated? I appreciate the irony employed by your avatar and location even more now.

[lpublic_enemyl]

Awww. Isn't that cute. You are trying to use financial terms and you have no idea what they mean. :facepalm



Gross is what you bring in before expenses. Net is what you bring in after expenses. With that in mind, gross is larger than net, so the NBA is splitting a larger amount according to you.
lol financed

[Hater]

NHL splits the money left after the owners pay their expenses. NBA splits the money and then the owners still have the expenses to pay.

I find it funny that you explained correctly and still thought that it was a pro-player argument. It's impossible for someone to be more biased. Use an argument that fits someone else's pov and flaunt it like it helps your pov.
From everything I read about that blundering idiot Sarcastic, he's nothing but a Max Kellerman wannabe. A straight w.i.g.g.e.r that roots for the blackest side in any argument. Completely deluded left winger. I do think it's comical that HE's trying to "explain" something to ME, when he's the one that didn't understand. Lol. Back to school, Sarc. At least get a GED.

[brantonli]

Tell me how non guaranteed contracts make someone player harder, and not just more selfish?

The thing is it won't make a difference to guys we all really want to see (the stars, all stars, superstars) because teams aren't exactly going to cut LeBron if he doesn't play hard in a game. Non-guaranteed contracts will mainly work behind the scenes I reckon, on players on the fringe or primarily bench role, to play harder in practice and to be better players, and since they don't get that much court time I doubt we'd notice any significant increase in 'playing harder'.

[hops and stops]

Gross is what you bring in before expenses. Net is what you bring in after expenses. With that in mind, gross is larger than net, so the NBA is splitting a larger amount according to you.

But expenses matter.

If you own a business that is forced to share its revenue with its employees, which setup would you choose?


50% of net profits
50% of gross revenue


Let's say your company brings in $100,000 for the year of 2011, and total expenses are $45,000. With option #1, you give your employees 50% of $55,000 ($27,500) and you keep the other $27,500. With option #2, you give your employees 50% of $100,000 ($50,000) and your expenses remain unchanged at $45,000. You keep $5,000.

Sharing net profit would be a good idea, but like another poster said, the NBA players most likely wouldn't go for it.

[Charlie Sheen]

NFL has a hard cap, and no guaranteed contracts. Does anyone think that Albert Haynesworth played hard when he was in Washington?

Not True. He was guaranteed 30 somethin million for the first year

[Droid101]

But expenses matter.

If you own a business that is forced to share its revenue with its employees, which setup would you choose?


50% of net profits
50% of gross revenue


Let's say your company brings in $100,000 for the year of 2011, and total expenses are $45,000. With option #1, you give your employees 50% of $55,000 ($27,500) and you keep the other $27,500. With option #2, you give your employees 50% of $100,000 ($50,000) and your expenses remain unchanged at $45,000. You keep $5,000.

Sharing net profit would be a good idea, but like another poster said, the NBA players most likely wouldn't go for it.
lol at this.

Maybe for a small business owner, that kind of thing matters. But owners of NBA teams don't make their money from their NBA teams. They make their money elsewhere. Their NBA team is just a prestige object used to help them make money elsewhere.

[hops and stops]

lol at this.

Maybe for a small business owner, that kind of thing matters. But owners of NBA teams don't make their money from their NBA teams. They make their money elsewhere. Their NBA team is just a prestige object used to help them make money elsewhere.

That expense kind of thing matters to NBA owners as well. The owners' teams might not be their primary source of income, but that doesn't mean they want to or should be expected to simply hemorrhage money every year. The NBA, like any other professional sport, is a business. It runs like a business, it has income like a business, and it has expenses and costs like a business. The owners' other business ventures shouldn't even be relevant to the CBA negotiation or discussion. It's like saying that Kobe Bryant deserves less money from the Lakers because he gets income from sources other than his contract salary.

[Shadynasty's]

That expense kind of thing matters to NBA owners as well. The owners' teams might not be their primary source of income, but that doesn't mean they want to or should be expected to simply hemorrhage money every year. The NBA, like any other professional sport, is a business. It runs like a business, it has income like a business, and it has expenses and costs like a business. The owners' other business ventures shouldn't even be relevant to the CBA negotiation or discussion. It's like saying that Kobe Bryant deserves less money from the Lakers because he gets income from sources other than his contract salary.

+rep.. completely agree here

[Droid101]

The owners' other business ventures shouldn't even be relevant to the CBA negotiation or discussion.
And that's where I disagree with you.

For example, owners can own the arenas their teams play in... charging the team rent to play there. Money comes out of their "BRI" from their NBA franchise... and right directly into their own pocket, their other business.

You can't look at this situation in a vacuum. It makes no sense.

[Lebron23]

How many owners does it take to pass? If 17 vote for it will it still pass? Also they need to get rid of a few of those teams. NBA quality would go up if there were less players and teams.


I agree with this posts. Only the best basketball players in the world should play in the NBA.

[Droid101]

It's like saying that Kobe Bryant deserves less money from the Lakers because he gets income from sources other than his contract salary.
Also, you realize that the Player's Union supports this, right? Setting maximum salaries means your super stars (Wade, LeBron, Kobe) get paid less than what they are actually worth, and middle-level players get paid more than what they're worth.

[hops and stops]

And that's where I disagree with you.

For example, owners can own the arenas their teams play in... charging the team rent to play there. Money comes out of their "BRI" from their NBA franchise... and right directly into their own pocket, their other business.

You can't look at this situation in a vacuum. It makes no sense.

Whatever money goes into the owners' pockets is personal income. No? I don't see how their other businesses factor in there. If an owner that didn't have other ventures charged rent on its arena, would that be kosher? But, anyway, we're getting off the topic of expenses and net profit vs. gross revenue. My point is that you can't say expenses shouldn't matter to NBA owners simply because they have other businesses.


Also, you realize that the Player's Union supports this, right? Setting maximum salaries means your super stars (Wade, LeBron, Kobe) get paid less than what they are actually worth, and middle-level players get paid more than what they're worth.

Supports what? Setting player salaries according to other sources of income they have? Like endorsements or ad deals?

[DFish]

For example, owners can own the arenas their teams play in... charging the team rent to play there.

You just went full retard. Owners charge the team they own to play in the arena they own? Yeah, and I pay myself $75/hour to have sex with myself.

[christian1923]

That happens in sports all the time, once players get there guaranteed money they stop playing as hard, where you been?




I really hate the notion that players will play harder if there are non guaranteed contracts and a hard cap. There is no proof anywhere in sports that this leads to harder play.

NFL has a hard cap, and no guaranteed contracts. Does anyone think that Albert Haynesworth played hard when he was in Washington?

[Blue&Orange]

And that's where I disagree with you.

For example, owners can own the arenas their teams play in... charging the team rent to play there. Money comes out of their "BRI" from their NBA franchise... and right directly into their own pocket, their other business.

You can't look at this situation in a vacuum. It makes no sense.
YOU make no sense, first u laugh at the notion that splitting net or gross is exactly the same for NBA owners, it matters only to small business owners, which is a pretty retarded notion, go tell that to everyone with half a brain and they will laugh at your face

Then the arenas comment, so if they rent the arena for a Britney Spears concert, should that be relevant to the negotiating of the CBA? How? Players are upset that the team rent goes to the owners pockets? Well stop bitching and buy the arenas from the owners, simple.



"We have a team, we're building the arena, we've hired professional management, we have the option to buy into another large project, the building of an office center. For me, this is a project with explosive profit potential. The capitalization of the team will be $700 million after we move to Brooklyn. It will earn approximately 30 [million]. And the arena will be worth around $1 billion."

Clearly the guy doesn't care about profit.

[SourGrapes]

You just went full retard. Owners charge the team they own to play in the arena they own? Yeah, and I pay myself $75/hour to have sex with myself.

frank mccourt was charging his dodgers rent to play at his own stadium and then using the expense as a tax write-off... i'm sure it happens in the nba as well

[Kevin_Gamble]

That happens in sports all the time, once players get there guaranteed money they stop playing as hard, where you been?

All the time? Like 50% of the time? 80%? 100%? I would be interested to get some ball park figure on what "all the time" is because, as far as I know, almost every NBA contract is guaranteed.

[christian1923]

All the time? Like 50% of the time? 80%? 100%? I would be interested to get some ball park figure on what "all the time" is because, as far as I know, almost every NBA contract is guaranteed.

hedo
arenas
jerome james
baron davis
diaw
diamper
haywood
al harington
ben gordan
villanueava
biedrins
posey
eddy curry
redd
gooden
okafor
ariza
jefries
brand
salmons
Q

probably more i cant think of, all those guys have gotten worse since getting new deals

[fatboy11]

Players play hard right now. Why would you think they don't?

Obviously I'm not talking every single player, but there are enough players that aren't busting their butts out there because they know they still have 2, 3 years left on their fully guaranteed contract. It reduces their incentive to play hard night in and night out, and if you don't think it happens (and on somewhat of a wide scale), you're fooling yourself. I mean, do you watch regular season basketball?

Personally, I partly blame the NBA for making the schedule so long, but it does happen. It's pretty clear to see. Players ride the roller coaster all season.

[Kevin_Gamble]

Obviously I'm not talking every single player, but there are enough players that aren't busting their butts out there because they know they still have 2, 3 years left on their fully guaranteed contract. It reduces their incentive to play hard night in and night out, and if you don't think it happens (and on somewhat of a wide scale), you're fooling yourself. I mean, do you watch regular season basketball?

Personally, I partly blame the NBA for making the schedule so long, but it does happen. It's pretty clear to see. Players ride the roller coaster all season.

Basically, you have absolutely 0 proof that multi-year guaranteed contracts induce players to stop trying. Your single argument is, if I can rephrase it, "Come on, everyone knows this." That's not very convincing.

Also, do you think an NBA player signs one single multiyear contract in his career? Because that's not how it works. Your contract doesn't last forever.

[Kevin_Gamble]

(... bunch of bad players ...)
probably more i cant think of, all those guys have gotten worse since getting new deals

Basically, you are:

1. Assuming that there is correlation between (getting worse) and (getting new deals) based on some random anecdotal evidence pulled out of your ass.

2. Assuming that those players have actually gotten worse without really having any reason to.

3. Assuming that correlation = causation.

Among other things. Now, let's say my argument is:

Steve Nash got a big contract at Phoenix after leaving Dallas (who wouldn't pay him). He became 2 time MVP. Therefore guaranteed multiyear deals will cause NBA players to perform at an MVP level.

Does that sound right to you?

[c3z4r]

Basically, you have absolutely 0 proof that multi-year guaranteed contracts induce players to stop trying. Your single argument is, if I can rephrase it, "Come on, everyone knows this." That's not very convincing.

Also, do you think an NBA player signs one single multiyear contract in his career? Because that's not how it works. Your contract doesn't last forever.

How would you explain an increase in their production all over the board in contract years? There's how the saying he's playing for a contract came to be. If you don't believe me, i suggest researching for yourself on basketball-reference and see with ur own eyes that players play better in contract years than they normally do, because they know for a fact that after obtaining that big fat contract they don't have to exert themselves as much as before since everything's guaranteed.

Edit: Actually i'll find some proof of that then post it later on if somebody doesn't do it before me.

Edit2: Actually here's (http://basketball-statistics.com/playingforthemoney.html) an old article from 2006 with evidence of what im saying and i think it's safe to assume that this has happened a lot more since then. Actually I got 2 examples in my head : Sasha Vujacic and Luke Walton, they both played extremely well in their contract years and where are they now?

[Sarcastic]

You just went full retard. Owners charge the team they own to play in the arena they own? Yeah, and I pay myself $75/hour to have sex with myself.

Of course they do.

Paul Allen owns the Blazers.
The Blazers pay for the use of the Rose Garden.
The Rose Garden is owned by Vulcan Inc.
Vulcan Inc is an investment company started by Paul Allen.

[Kevin_Gamble]

How would you explain an increase in their production all over the board in contract years? There's how the saying he's playing for a contract came to be. If you don't believe me, i suggest researching for yourself on basketball-reference and see with ur own eyes that players play better in contract years than they normally do, because they know for a fact that after obtaining that big fat contract they don't have to exert themselves as much as before since everything's guaranteed.

Edit: Actually i'll find some proof of that then post it later on if somebody doesn't do it before me.

Did you research for yourself whether players actually perform better in contract years? (Also, what does it mean to _perform better_? Maybe players are induced to stat-pad, which would harm the team.)

I'll wait for your "proof," but I'll remind you that finding one or even 50 examples of players who performed poorly in the first few years of their multi-year contracts would not be "proof" in any sense of the term.

[christian1923]

Basically, you are:

1. Assuming that there is correlation between (getting worse) and (getting new deals) based on some random anecdotal evidence pulled out of your ass.

2. Assuming that those players have actually gotten worse without really having any reason to.

3. Assuming that correlation = causation.

Among other things. Now, let's say my argument is:

Steve Nash got a big contract at Phoenix after leaving Dallas (who wouldn't pay him). He became 2 time MVP. Therefore guaranteed multiyear deals will cause NBA players to perform at an MVP level.

Does that sound right to you?

its not pulled outta my ass, it happens in all sports every year, ill give u examples if u need them

there reason is i got paid, im set for life, why would i work as hard as i use too?

but ya not every player is the same but alot are.

[Kevin_Gamble]

its not pulled outta my ass, it happens in all sports every year, ill give u examples if u need them

there reason is i got paid, im set for life, why would i work as hard as i use too?

but ya not every player is the same but alot are.

Again, on one hand people say:

1. Players are set for life, why are they so greedy for money?

Then:

2. If a player gets one multi-year contract, he is set for life, and he will not care about money.

Which is it?

[fatboy11]

Basically, you have absolutely 0 proof that multi-year guaranteed contracts induce players to stop trying. Your single argument is, if I can rephrase it, "Come on, everyone knows this." That's not very convincing.

Also, do you think an NBA player signs one single multiyear contract in his career? Because that's not how it works. Your contract doesn't last forever.

Do you know what a player that isn't playing hard looks like? Do you have eyes?

Sounds to me like you're just ready to say "that still doesn't prove it" no matter what anyone says. You can't argue with people like you. And I'm not going argue about something I know I see and I know is true.

[hops and stops]

Basically, you have absolutely 0 proof that multi-year guaranteed contracts induce players to stop trying. Your single argument is, if I can rephrase it, "Come on, everyone knows this." That's not very convincing.

Also, do you think an NBA player signs one single multiyear contract in his career? Because that's not how it works. Your contract doesn't last forever.

If an employee gets paid a guaranteed $500k/year for 5 years, do you think that person is going to work as hard as he would if his annual salary wasn't guaranteed, but dependent entirely upon his performance each year? Say, anywhere from $500k for the maximum performance to $75k for minimal performance. That employee is probably going to work a lot harder if he knows that his effort will be reflected in his salary that year, and he'll probably coast up until the 5 years is up on the guaranteed salary.

I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that guaranteed money has the possibility or even tendency to produce sub-par performance or effort by the players.

[christian1923]

Again, on one hand people say:

1. Players are set for life, why are they so greedy for money?

Then:

2. If a player gets one multi-year contract, he is set for life, and he will not care about money.

Which is it?

huh? players will always care about more money

[Kevin_Gamble]

Edit2: Actually here's (http://basketball-statistics.com/playingforthemoney.html) an old article from 2006 with evidence of what im saying and i think it's safe to assume that this has happened a lot more since then. Actually I got 2 examples in my head : Sasha Vujacic and Luke Walton, they both played extremely well in their contract years and where are they now?

Pretty rubbish article, to be honest. The 'study' picks 130 players, excluding those with short contracts or contracts with team or player options, there is no discussion of selection bias, it doesn't say who these players are, or even what sort of players they are. It doesn't control for other factors. 'Study' uses PER, which is not only a rubbish stat, but especially bad for trying to figure out who is 'trying hard,' since many instances of 'hustle' is something that doesn't show up on PER (getting back on defense, etc.).

Steve Nash won 2 MVPs after getting his multi-year contract. Shaq became a monster after signing a multi-year contract with the Lakers. Why aren't more NBA teams handing out multiyear contracts?

[Sarcastic]

There have been tons of studies on baseball players in contract years, and time after time it has been shown that there is no correlation to playing harder and putting up better stats when a player is up for a new contract.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/13/yankees-phillies-astros-business-sports-bloomberg-baseball.html


Over the past nine years, 177 players performing in the last year of a contract hit for a collective .282 batting average, with an .824 OPS (on-base plus slugging percentage, an increasingly used measurement of the moneyball era). They also averaged 19 home runs, 51 extra base hits and 73 runs batted in per 500 at-bats.

That's not much different from their collective numbers from the previous year: .283 batting average, .821 OPS, 19 homers, 51 extra base hits and 74 RBI. Two years before? A .279 batting average and .809 OPS, with 18 home runs, 50 extra base hits and 73 RBI per 500 at-bats.

"When you aggregate all of this, there isn't very much difference," says Daniel Cohen, an executive with Bloomberg's MLB pro product unit.

[Kevin_Gamble]

Do you know what a player that isn't playing hard looks like? Do you have eyes?

Sounds to me like you're just ready to say "that still doesn't prove it" no matter what anyone says. You can't argue with people like you. And I'm not going argue about something I know I see and I know is true.

Ok, so in your view, it's a fair argument to say "Well I KNOW that they are not trying"?

I am not making an argument either way. I am just pointing out that no one has any good reason to assume that NBA player just stops trying after one, single contract. In fact, since we know that they want to continue to get millions, it makes more sense to believe an NBA player will continue to try for his second, third contracts.

[christian1923]

Ok, so in your view, it's a fair argument to say "Well I KNOW that they are not trying"?

I am not making an argument either way. I am just pointing out that no one has any good reason to assume that NBA player just stops trying after one, single contract. In fact, since we know that they want to continue to get millions, it makes more sense to believe an NBA player will continue to try for his second, third contracts.

yeahh during there next contract year lol

[Kevin_Gamble]

If an employee gets paid a guaranteed $500k/year for 5 years, do you think that person is going to work as hard as he would if his annual salary wasn't guaranteed, but dependent entirely upon his performance each year? Say, anywhere from $500k for the maximum performance to $75k for minimal performance. That employee is probably going to work a lot harder if he knows that his effort will be reflected in his salary that year, and he'll probably coast up until the 5 years is up on the guaranteed salary.

I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that guaranteed money has the possibility or even tendency to produce sub-par performance or effort by the players.

So lets say you are a boss. Oh, of an accounting firm.

Employee X has a 5 year contract, guaranteed. $100k per year. For 4 years, X is coasting. X does't come in to work on time, doesn't shower, plays solitaire all day, harasses the secretaries and now the company has 5 lawsuits on hand. His performance is so abysmal, you don't give him any important work, because you have already lost 100 clients because of X.

Year 5, X comes in, tries really hard.

Employee Y has a 5 year contract, guaranteed. Same terms. Tries hard for 5 years.

Who will get more money?

[Sarcastic]

Not True. He was guaranteed 30 somethin million for the first year

That was from his signing bonus. If the NBA went to a hard cap, with the ability to cut players, they would use signing bonuses as well to entice players.

[c3z4r]

Pretty rubbish article, to be honest. The 'study' picks 130 players, excluding those with short contracts or contracts with team or player options, there is no discussion of selection bias, it doesn't say who these players are, or even what sort of players they are. It doesn't control for other factors. 'Study' uses PER, which is not only a rubbish stat, but especially bad for trying to figure out who is 'trying hard,' since many instances of 'hustle' is something that doesn't show up on PER (getting back on defense, etc.).

Steve Nash won 2 MVPs after getting his multi-year contract. Shaq became a monster after signing a multi-year contract with the Lakers. Why aren't more NBA teams handing out multiyear contracts?

You're picking players that were already considered allstars/superstars that just didnt have a good team to lead, or in nash's case wasnt the main man. Im talking about all players,superstars and scrubs alike, which you would see if you actually did some research.

If Per is rubbish then what stat would indicate the effort level shown by players? How do you know if a player is putting the same amount of effort or not? I doubt u can watch all the players in the league and write your observations about them in your lil notebook. Wouldn't it make more sense to combine all of their stats and see if those stats decrease or not.

So the article showing proof and my examples don't make sense but somehow your logic and no examples or proof whatsoever make perfect sense?

[hops and stops]

So lets say you are a boss. Oh, of an accounting firm.

Employee X has a 5 year contract, guaranteed. $100k per year. For 4 years, X is coasting. X does't come in to work on time, doesn't shower, plays solitaire all day, harasses the secretaries and now the company has 5 lawsuits on hand. His performance is so abysmal, you don't give him any important work, because you have already lost 100 clients because of X.

Year 5, X comes in, tries really hard.

Employee Y has a 5 year contract, guaranteed. Same terms. Tries hard for 5 years.

Who will get more money?

In your scenario? Employee X will almost certainly be fired after the contract is up. In the NBA? Player X will either be re-signed after 5 years, sign with a different team, or retire if he's too old. That's because NBA teams only have one pool of players hire from, with the monopolistic nature of the league. Thus, bad players get picked up for way too much money resulting from a 'lesser evil' type of decision by the team. Removing/diminishing guaranteed contracts won't solve that problem, but I think it'll help.

[Kevin_Gamble]

In your scenario? Employee X will almost certainly be fired after the contract is up. In the NBA? Player X will either be re-signed after 5 years, sign with a different team, or retire if he's too old. That's because NBA teams only have one pool of players hire from, with the monopolistic nature of the league. Thus, bad players get picked up for way too much money resulting from a 'lesser evil' type of decision by the team. Removing/diminishing guaranteed contracts won't solve that problem, but I think it'll help.

You got it backwards. There is a limited number of employers. An NBA team can give a contract to anyone it chooses from anyone in the world. * After a year out of high school. Also, women may be excluded. I'm not sure though.

Ok, but let's assume you are correct, and that a GM has no choice but to pay the lazy player since there is no alternative. Since there is no alternative, why would a lazy player try even in the contract year? Either way, there is no one else the GM can sign. In fact, even if every contract was non-guaranteed, 1 day contract, that lazy player will know that he will always have a job, since, well, there is no one else who can take his place. So how does not guaranteeing contracts induce him to play harder?

On a more serious note, I think non-guaranteed contract experiment has been a mess. Every year in the NFL there are speculations about training camp holdouts and actual holdouts. Players demand new contracts after one or two years, since only the signing bonus is guaranteed. I don't think that's the model we want.

And I don't think we want players to stat-pad. If you want to watch players desperately trying to get a contract, there's already the D-League.