Re: The Boston Celtics Mailing List Digest V6 #451

[Dan Parker <danp@town.ipswich.ma.us>]

>Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 08:33:57 -0400
>From: Mark Estepp <EsteppJM@appstate.edu>
>Subject: prediction

>This weekend, as I was boring my wife by lamenting over the lost glory 
>days  of the Celtics, I commented to her that, if I were a player who
>could choose between a contract of, lets say,  70 million, to play for a
>team with little of no "mystique" as a sports franchise, or playing with
>a team like the storied Celtics for "only" 50 million, I would choose to
>be part of a team that had a history.  I would want my name raised to the
>rafters with the likes of Russell, Cousy, and Bird.  After all, is there
>really a practical difference between 50 million and 70 million?

I think most players don't have an inkling at what the difference between
50 and 70 million dollars means to them.  They can see one is bigger than
the other, and, well, that's about it.  Even a player who takes care of a
large family wouldn't miss the difference.  I think agents are probably
the biggest problem (the extra 4% on 20 million sure makes a difference to
them), followed closely by poor financial advisors.  I've never understood
why players didn't just throw the money in the bank or buy CDs or
something safe.  Instead you hear about an advisor investing in a new
record label or something and suddenly the player is wiped out.

A major coup would be for a star player to negotiate a low contract to
either:

(1) Lower ticket prices with the difference of what he could have
gotten with "market value".  A player making $3,000,000 less per year for
41 homes games of a 15,000 seat stadium would lower the average price
$4.88.

(2) Say winning was the most important thing and with a low contract it
would help the team sign good players.

Think of the good press, and the player could almost certainly make up for
it with endorsement opportunities.

Dreamin' away...

Dan