Re: Owners now the problem?

[Kim Malo <kmalo19@idt.net>]

At 07:26 AM 11/17/98 PST, "Jim Meninno" <jim_meninno@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The negotiations are stuck now on determining what a fair amount is.  
>It's an issue that needs to be resolved, with or without a hard cap.

Er, not exactly. The amount surely needs resolving but my point was lack of
agreement on whether it's fair. That's not likely to change no matter what
it gets settled at.

>I think teams should suffer when they sign long term contracts for 
>players who aren't worth it.  Maybe that will keep the contracts 
>shorter.

But a hard cap also makes them suffer when they sign long term contracts to
players who ARE worth it.

<snip>
>As you said before, many of 
>these players stop trying as hard when they get that long term deal (at 
>least I think it was you that I am paraphrasing).

It is.

>That said, I think it is reasonable for the players to expect guaranteed 
>contracts.  Would you sign a contract that says you can't leave your 
>employer for X years, but they can dump you whenever they wish?  I 
>wouldn't.

Fine, but the only league that has a working hard cap has very few
guaranteed contracts. Nor is a valuable player likely to be dumped on a
whim. Go back to your own arguments against long term. Contracts didn't used
to be guaranteed. And I've no problem with certain players getting
guaranteed contracts, but in hoops almost everyone does. With the Spreewell
judgement showing that you can't even get out from under it when trying to
fire for cause, which is the case in any other industry.

<snip>
>Also, there might need to be 
>limited exceptions to allow signing low end players, though that 
>probably leads to lots of minimum wage players.  Note, the "hard cap" 
>I'm referring to is league wide, and does not preclude limited 
>exceptions for teams.

Once you have exceptions, you no longer have a hard cap even if you call it
such. And what about draftees? Imagine drafting the real next Bird or MJ and
being unable to sign him because you're already at the cap. You're probably
already a bad team to be in that position and life just moved from bad to
hopeless.

>The big thing is that the Bird Exception must go.  If that means teams 
>can't keep franchise players, then tough.  Maybe that will lead to some 
>reworking of the free agency rules, which would be the only way to 
>really stop that.  Otherwise, they will just keep getting more and more 
>money and leave anyway.

Total disagreement. The Bird Exception is not the problem. It only affects
about 10% of the players anyways, not all of which involve mega contracts
although they're what people get worked up about. And most importantly, it
involves paying out to experienced players, so you know pretty much what
you're getting for the money. The rookie 2nd year extension exception is a
much bigger problem, especially as players come into the league younger and
younger and less polished as players (note that I'm not talking about
talent, but game maturity). It means paying out the same sort of megabucks
for relatively untested and unknown talent almost solely on potential that
may never be realized, who are usually emotionally immature (meaning, among
other things, more concerned about impressing than winning and being more
likely to be impressed by what someone like their agent tells them is right)
simply because of their age and limited experience. The sorts of
disagreement there are over re-signing AW highlights the problem. Very
rarely is there the same sort of disagreement on the whether one should
re-sign a Bird player, simply debate over the net amount and that can more
reasonably be left to the market on a known commodity. 

>You say that guaranteed long term contracts are the problem.

No I don't. I said guaranteed contracts, simply pointing out that the length
of contract extends the effect.
<snip>

-Kim
Kim Malo
kmalo19@idt.net