If players want championships

[benji]

Not if you have stock options...

[The Other Kevin]

LakersRule24, as everyone has already stated, why dont u answer this question: If your aim was to help some random company make more sales and Company A would offer you half the salary of that of Company B but Company A was slightly more successful. And it isn't certain that joining A would mean you would achieve your goals. Would you still take less money to join A? Or would you join B instead?

I would join B, the the NBA ring is worth a lot more than making a company more successful.

You just proved everyone's point, you would take the money.

[maceo24]

Not if you have stock options...

I would honestly take A. Money is not everything. Most people that make exorbitant money like that have no time to spend the money, and your family falls apart over that money while youre buried at your desk.

As long as Company A, pays enough for me to support my family, I would make the sacrifice to be a part of something better. And I'd also be willing to wager my job security would be through the roof for taking the paycut.

[Sauru]

I always thought that NBA players, and profressional athletes get paid too much anyway. I understand the economics behind it, but in a day and age where the people that teach our children only make 30 grand a year, (when you need about 45k a year to live decently, in NJ at least) I really wish the money scale could be downsized a bit. It angers me when I hear players complaining about how important they are and holding out for an extra couple million when the truly important roles of society are so taken advantage of.

But you know whats crazy when you think about it?


Think about how much money Steinbrenner has to be making for him to completely unconcerned about offering someone a 250 million dollar contract.

sometimes i am also angered when players hold out, specially if they are in the middle of a contract(nfl players do it every year and the franchise tag only makes it worse) but at the same time i see thier point. well lets say i see the point of alot of players, players like kg or kobe or ai. the top money makers, not the best players but the best money makers, they should demand more money. if iverson makes 10 mil a season they will make way more than that off of his name alone. just look at the impact kg has had on boston so far, season ticket sales are soaring and his jersey is the number one most in demand at the nba store(last time i check that is).

so yeah, i am kinda torn as to which way i should lean, i guess you can say i am right in the middle. if i was in the nba i would want a ring, you better believe it, but if i could get 10 mil a season vs 2 mil a season i am gonna jump all over the 10, atleast til i am nearing the end of my career. also i would want to win a ring as one of the main guys on the team, i would not want to just sign onto a already great team in hopes they can drag my sorry ass along so i can get a cheap ring

[grusom]

but what do the sponsors get out of it if they have to pay more when a player takes a pay cut?

They would put their players in a better position to compete for a championship, thus giving him more tv-minutes, and a lot of love from the fans from the club that now could afford a Scottie Pippen next to their MJ.

[Andrew]

Players in the NBA's goals are to win championships, right? That's the reason the "I love this Game" was there in the first place, because players want to win.

We hear in media reports of how players like Kobe, KG, Iverson, and all those players want to win most. If so, why don't they take a paycut for the benefit of their team and for a better image in the media business? We have Iverson saying that he'd trade all his titles and accomplishment for one ring. They already set themselves up as the best players in the league, now why don't they take a smaller role knowing that they are already the best?

Winning a championship is a goal that most players probably have but I would say most of them would have several personal goals as well as well as personal interests such as achieving financial security and earning the best salary they can possibly negotiate. In that regard, they aren't too different from any other employee; there are wider goals that will ultimately benefit them in some way (ie working hard to make a business successful and profitable so that there will still be a job for them) as well as personal agendas (seeking the most amount of money given their skills and importance to the company).

As far as taking on a smaller role, that too conflicts with personal goals and competitive spirit. Yes, players like KG and Iverson have proven themselves to be fantastic players but there's no reason for them to accept a lesser role when they are still capable of playing at that level. By doing so they might possibly increase their chances of winning a title but it's also admirable that they want to try and lead a team to a championship as well.

I would suggest that winning a championship while playing 10 minutes a game would be somewhat bittersweet and frustrating for the player who is willing and more than capable of playing 40 minutes a game and being a major player in the league. And as far as AI trading his accomplishments for a ring, I wouldn't doubt that he and other top players chasing a championship do feel that way at times but also remain proud of what they have achieved and are keen to be on the floor competing for a championship rather than being a spectator.

The other factor to consider is that unless a player is an up and coming free agent, taking a paycut and joining a contender isn't necessarily feasible. It's not as though KG can decide he'll drop his annual salary from $20+ million a year to the veteran minimum, granting his team instant cap space or walk out on his contract and sign with someone else where he'll likely have an easier path to a championship.

If I were Nike, Adidas, or another NBA sponsor, I would consider offering my athletes a better deal if they signed for less than the maximum with their NBA club.

Nike already promised Lebron James a major pay increase if he signed in NY or LA, why not do the same if he signe for maybe half of what he's worth, thus giving him a chance to get more publicity through a decent championship run with other than a crippled Larry Hughes, a bald and jump shooting center and a rookie pg besides him?

The problem with that kind of compensation is that it would pretty much be tampering and unfairly favours teams in larger markets. That's why I'm skeptical about that clause in LeBron's contract with Nike because the league wouldn't condone it.

[benji]

The problem with that kind of compensation is that it would pretty much be tampering and unfairly favours teams in larger markets. That's why I'm skeptical about that clause in LeBron's contract with Nike because the league wouldn't condone it.

The league can't tell Nike or LeBron what kind of business they can enter into with each other. Tampering can only be determined by the league in areas in which they have jurisdiction and rules against it. The league only has power over the teams and players. Unless it could be clearly proven that the Knicks and Lakers/Clippers had a hand in LeBron's Nike contract, the Cavaliers could and would not bring tampering charges against them.

KG can decide he'll drop his annual salary from $20+ million a year to the veteran minimum

I'd say KG is not a perfect example, as he's twice signed lower extensions than he could've gotten to provide a bit more space to his team. He certainly didn't sign for the minimum or anything, but he's one of a few players I know of doing that willingly a couple times.

[Andrew]

The league can't tell Nike or LeBron what kind of business they can enter into with each other. Tampering can only be determined by the league in areas in which they have jurisdiction and rules against it. The league only has power over the teams and players. Unless it could be clearly proven that the Knicks and Lakers/Clippers had a hand in LeBron's Nike contract, the Cavaliers could and would not bring tampering charges against them.

I can't imagine the league would be too fond of such deals and would investigate such agreements to whatever extent they can.

I'd say KG is not a perfect example, as he's twice signed lower extensions than he could've gotten to provide a bit more space to his team. He certainly didn't sign for the minimum or anything, but he's one of a few players I know of doing that willingly a couple times.

I only used KG as an example because his name has been brought up and he's one of the highest paid players in the league, I didn't intend to hold him up as an example of selfishness. In any case, it comes down to negotiating extensions or free agent contracts; as far as I'm aware, KG (or any other player) couldn't decide to play for the veteran minimum tomorrow and have the difference immediately come off his team's payroll.

[benji]

I can't imagine the league would be too fond of such deals and would investigate such agreements to whatever extent they can.

They can investigate all they want, but they don't have any authority over endorsement contracts players sign with other companies. There would be nothing they could do to punish LeBron or any other player.

The only option they could have is to ban or limit endorsements for NBA players during the next CBA talks, which would lead to a lockout that makes 1998s look like a weekend at the beach.

[Andrew]

Fair enough. However, a company agreeing to pay an athlete more money to leave his current team and join a team in a large market for less money (thus compensating him for the paycut) just doesn't seem like it's on the level to me.

[Fresh8]

Well, whether it is illegal or not according to the NBA, I would imagine that it is inm the League's best interest not to let it happen. If all the good players flock to a handful of teams, it would be the end of the NBA.

[benji]

It hasn't killed the league yet has it?

And what could they do about it? They are POWERLESS. They have no authority over players individual endorsement contracts, and if they tried to grab it the players would all walk and that would literally be the end of the NBA.

[Fresh8]

I'm not saying they could do anything about it. I'm just saying they wouldn't want it to happen. And you're right, they are powerless.

[grusom]

The problem with that kind of compensation is that it would pretty much be tampering and unfairly favours teams in larger markets. That's why I'm skeptical about that clause in LeBron's contract with Nike because the league wouldn't condone it.

As a fan, I wouldn't support the idea (unless it helped my team of course ), but I guess most shoe companies care more about their income than the state of the league.

If they haven't got moral issues using child labor and such, I can't see how good sportsmanship should stop them.

[Sauru]

really all the nba needs to do is make a new rule, whoever drafts you owns your rights as long as you play in the nba or they trade them. see how easy that was? the owners can now openly fuck the players outa everything and thier aint shit any of the players can do about it cause even if they all quit there is only about another million or so kids ready to take thier place.

[benji]

Yeah, I'm sure the NBAPA and the various NBA teams would sign off on the elimination of free agency.

[Sauru]

Yeah, I'm sure the NBAPA and the various NBA teams would sign off on the elimination of free agency.

[benji]

I don't know what that's supposed to mean.

[Sauru]

it just means that i really hope you didnt take that post serious

[Andrew]

It hasn't killed the league yet has it?

And what could they do about it? They are POWERLESS. They have no authority over players individual endorsement contracts, and if they tried to grab it the players would all walk and that would literally be the end of the NBA.

That basically means there's a pretty big loophole in the salary cap rules which essentially allows any team to circumvent the salary cap if a company on Nike is on board. There seems little point in having a salary cap if teams in big markets can exploit it so easily.

[benji]

Alright, I'll say this again. The NBA does not have any authority over the endorsement contracts that players sign. These players are not their teams property.

The CBA is what power the teams can exert over each other and the players. It is an agreement between the players/NBAPA and the teams/league to abide by the rules. It is not "circumventing" the salary cap as the team and the player have agreed to his contract amount on the books. If the player has a situation where he can agree to a lower playing salary because he makes enough in endorsements to make up the difference, that's his own personal decision.

Let's use an example. Let's say Jae works for you, and he signs an endorsement contract. This contract says if he ever winds up in a certain location, he will get some extra money because of the market. So when Jae's contract expires, and he's considering returning to work for you, and others are offering him work elsewhere including those big markets. If he's not happy where he is, he can take a look and see if the money he will make off endorsements is enough to outweigh any drop in salary from what you're offering him. Shouldn't that be his own personal decision?

We can also think logically about this exact case. LeBron can sign an extension with Cleveland that will average about $17 million a year, and I don't remember the length of his Nike contract but let's say it nets him $13 million a year. In order to play for the Knicks/Lakers outside of a sign-and-trade he would have to accept the MLE. He would need to get a bonus worth double his yearly amount Nike pays him. Would LeBron in Los Angeles and New York really be worth that much of an increase to pay LeBron? I doubt the bonus is even enough to offset a max contract. And is there any evidence the Knicks or Lakers is working with Nike to pay LeBron extra through them? If not, it's not tampering.

But again, it's not against the salary cap rules. It is not a loophole because that imples there's something the league could do about it and that they have authority in this situation. This "loophole" has always been in place, yet those damn players keep signing max contracts and staying in small markets. The NBA's power comes from the teams first and the players second. The owners trying to limit endorsement contracts would pretty much send all the "stars" fleeing the league into a new one. Perhaps one with say...Nike owned teams? (Or at the least, a crippling lockout that the owners would pretty much have to cave on.)

[Andrew]

Absolutely, if a player wants to play for the minimum then that's hit perogative. But I'm talking about a hypothetical situation where a team is actually working with a company like Nike to bring a player into the mix with his endorsement deal offsetting the paycut he would be taking, regardless of whether it matches what he might have made by re-signing/signing elsewhere. I guess it would be difficult to prove but it seems to me that the outside company would be directly interfering in an area within the NBA's jurisdiction, namely player free agency.

You're right, endorsement deals are not causing havoc with free agency. But legal or not, my opinion is that it would be wrong for teams to use those external bonuses as a bargaining chip when courting free agents, especially if there's any under-the-table deals being made.

[maceo24]

I think whats happening here is Benji saying how it is, and Andrew saying how it should be, lol.

Unfortunately for us, no one gives a damn about how it should be anymore.

[benji]

where a team is actually working with a company like Nike to bring a player into the mix with his endorsement deal offsetting the paycut he would be taking, regardless of whether it matches what he might have made by re-signing/signing elsewhere. I guess it would be difficult to prove but it seems to me that the outside company would be directly interfering in an area within the NBA's jurisdiction, namely player free agency.

The NBA could not directly punish that outside company, they would only be able to punish the team that was using a third party to pay the player. (And would likely punish the player like they did Joe Smith.) That would be violating the tampering clause against negoating a contract with a player (or coach, as in Pat Riley's case) while he is already under contract.

Unless Isiah Thomas calls up Nike and says "give LeBron some money to play with us" and the Cavaliers can prove this, there would be nothing the league could do. That's the way it is, and the only way it could be. If the league somehow gets some way to eliminate the possibility of this, they would have to find some way to do things like eliminate Florida's nice weather and low state taxes.

So, to wrap up, it's not tampering, it's not against the salary cap, and there's nothing that can be done. So it's pretty much a moot point I guess.

[LakersRule24]

LakersRule24, as everyone has already stated, why dont u answer this question: If your aim was to help some random company make more sales and Company A would offer you half the salary of that of Company B but Company A was slightly more successful. And it isn't certain that joining A would mean you would achieve your goals. Would you still take less money to join A? Or would you join B instead?

I would join B, the the NBA ring is worth a lot more than making a company more successful.

You just proved everyone's point, you would take the money.

No because an NBA ring is worth a lot more than helping a big company. If I could choose playing for the Spurs for the minimum while playing 10 minutes a game compared to playing for the Bobcats for 1.5K while playing 20 minutes a game, I'd pick the Spurs.

I'm not exaggerating to the point that superstars should be playing 10 minutes a game. I'm saying that superstars that play 40 minutes a game while earning 20 mil that want to win rings should cut it down to 30 minutes a game and about 10-12 million. I mean, these guys have earned so much money during their entire careers already, we haven't even factored in endorsement deals.