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

[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/yan...-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.