Re: Rogers not going to Nets (Yes he is)

[Kim Malo <kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 12:28 PM 8/15/02 -0700, bird wrote:
> I understand, but he's (presumably) doing as the coaching staff wants; I 
> find it difficult to fault the guy for that.  Welcome to the Wonderful 
> World of Obie.  Once you just allow the meds to take over, it can be a 
> pleasant ride.  Rogers just seemed to fit in very well in Obieball -- with 
> the acquisition of a guy like Baker, I'm hoping Obie will adjust, because 
> Baker, by contrast, doesn't seem to fit as well as Rogers.  Then again, 
> Obie could just plug Baker in to Battie's spot and move along.
Perhaps. I've never bought into the idea that we should assume that the 
players are always just doing what the coaches tell them or even that O'B 
necessarily prefers the all 3 point all the time offense in any absolute 
sense..


> ...the apparent reasoning behind "not being able to afford" Rogers and 
> letting him go to a division rival, is painful.  Skillful management, I 
> think, would have somehow made sure that Rogers, if he "had" to be moved, 
> would have gone to a Western team.
Well yeah, but we didn't move him 'cause we didn't own him. And he's not 
good enough (especially in the Shaqled west) that there were necessarily a 
lot of sign and trade options to try that, if Rodney would have even agreed 
to such a thing (sign for a low enough salary that he would be an 
attractive deal for the Cs vs testing the FA market on his own - I wouldn't 
in his shoes).


>  He may only be a "good journeyman", but he only wanted $2-3 million a 
> year for 2-3 years, apparently.  Walter McCarty made that by barely 
> getting into games and concentrating on his music career.  (I know, 
> different situation.)  A "good journeyman" has *got* to be worth that, right?
Walter made it on his last contract, when there were no luxury tax issues, 
not on this one (part of the different situation). Sorry, but all that 
comparing who made what will do is drive you crazy. As to what a good 
journeyman is worth, you know as well as I do that it's what the market 
will pay that decides that more than the player's actual worth, although 
I've already agreed that Rodney was worth his fairly reasonable asking price.


> I'm just sick of these particular flaws in this current CBA.   I don't 
> care about making sides happy, I care about making *me* happy :).  My 
> agenda is, I'd like a situation in place to force Paul Gaston to open up 
> the checkbook, because I don't think he's selling.  Gotta get rid of the 
> tax to do that, but then you need something to cap player 
> salaries.  Whatever, it's all conjecture at this point.
I don't think he's selling either, no matter how much Ray thinks he can 
make it happen by saying so.
As to opening the checkbook, that was addressed with setting a base minimum 
that must be paid out in salaries. You can't force high spending without 
getting rid of the whole idea of a cap, because what you're asking for is 
the opposite of a cap.


> I'll disagree about the negotiators, though: if one's tunnelvision in 
> regards to interests hinders one's critical abilities, one is a bad 
> negotiator.  Who, in their right minds, lets a phrase like "sole 
> discretion" get into a contract?  And then challenges it later?  Those 
> kinds of phrases ought to be Big Red Flags to any lawyer perusing that 
> document.  It's like signing something that gives "complete and total 
> control" to someone and then saying "Gee, I'd like some control too".
> Simply ridiculous.
Dunno, I wasn't there. May have been accepted in return for getting 
something else that the players wanted.
One thought on revised CBA - have the luxury tax money not get paid back as 
a reward to the 'fiscally moral' owners who stay under the cap but paid out 
to a charity (I don't want the players having incentive to push it up 
either), with the total tax added on to the revenue figures to boost up the 
next season's cap limit. After all, the owners seemed to think they could 
afford to pay it out in the first place...

That way it's only double jeopardy for the owners, the overspending of 
others doesn't lead to potential profit for cheap owners who would now get 
the rebate, and it leaves some flexibility float for the cap.

Other than that, we're back to the guaranteed contracts as the real 
problem, and that's not likely to be changed, although I still think  a 
good enough sales job could be done to push through a partial elimination 
through limiting them to a certain number per team..

Kim