Re: Garnett?

["Jim Meninno" <Jim_Meninno@hotmail.com>]

----- Original Message ----- From: Berry, Mark S <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>

> If you're a GM for, say, Portland, and Vince Carter wants
> to play there when his contract is up, don't you think it's worth the risk
> of losing two draft picks to sign the guy to a secret deal so he gets max
> money while "legally" signing for the exception?

Let me make sure I understand what we're talking about.  Smith wasn't paid
more than his contract, was he?  I mean, we're only talking about a promise
for an extension, not any under-the-table payments, right?  So, Paul Allen
could perfectly legitimately say to a player, "why don't you take the
exception now, and there's a good chance we'll be in a position to take care
of you down the road".  It's not a promise, just a statement of fact.  If
the conversation went like this, "Joe, I would pay you 7 million per year
for 4 years, but this pesky salary cap won't let me.  You'll be eligible for
a similar raise next year, though, and I have a history of rewarding my
players.", would that be allowed?  I certainly agree that this action needs
to be punished, but I think we're deluding ourselves if we think it will
stop players from signing short term contracts with rich teams because they
expect to get paid more in the long run.

If anyone knows, I'd love to know what the difference between this situation
and, say the Toronto/Michael Stewart deal is.  Is there more evidence of a
deal here?  Is it because Stern is actually getting back at the T'Wolves,
Smith and even Garnett for forcing that whole lockout mess?  To me it would
be just as wrong if there was some sort of revenge factor at work here.

Jim