Artest on the Cannons

[That Nicka]

1) $2mil total for winning a ring isn't even close to what he'd actually get. Under the very best circumstances (a team having the best record in the league and winning the title) a team gets roughly $3mil to distribute to all the players and the staff--meaning Artest will net maybe $200,000

2) He can't sign a bigger contract the following year. To sign a bigger contract the Lakers would need his Bird rights--which take 3 years to blossom--or they'd need a chunk of money under the cap--which they won't have.

Players make the same salary per game in the playoffs that they get during the regular season (for example: Kobe will make about 21mil next season/82 games = about 260k per game)... And a bonus for making the playoffs and winning the championship... Of course I dont know how much the bonus is, but playing 16 extra games a year is quite a bit of change

He is right about #2 though... Ron Artest couldnt get offered significantly more in his 2nd year with unless we 1) got under the cap (lol) or 2) got his bird rights (which you need to have a player for 3 years to obtain

I guess we could offer him MLE for 1 year, then offer him MLE again next summer... but it wouldnt be a big increase (if at all) from just signing him to a 2 year MLE deal

[8'sReverse]

"Can you rephrase the question?" Artest to Vik

[snaquille oatmeal]

:rofl: "Can you rephrase the question?" Artest to Vik

hartman to Artest- if you do decide to play in LA you will be asking Vik to rephrase his questions a lot.

[rpa]

hey man, that is what an exLaker who is also a host of a Lakers radio show and also the color guy for Laker games on the radio said. without links to prove your points on how the Lakers run their payroll in the playoffs I will go with his take for now.

I don't need to "prove" the Bird rights part since one of your fellow fans already backed it up and it's pretty common knowledge among the more educated NBA fans.

As for the playoff pay:
1) I've read over a number of FAQs, etc. and have never seen anything that says players are payed more for more games. From what I've read a player's salary is on a per year basis (like any salaried worker in any other industry). The games are just part of the working period.
2) As for the bonus pay for playoffs, here's a link for last years bonus payouts:

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-2 ... Money.html

So I did a little math: if the Mavericks were to maximize their earnings from all this -- they had the best record in the regular season -- by marching all the way to the title, they would bring in roughly $3 million extra (which is then divided among the players and team staff in a manner not unlike how people are voted off the island in "Survivor.")

Now, this is for 2007 so it WILL increase but it's not going to suddenly increase more than by a small percentage.

[snaquille oatmeal]

hey man, that is what an exLaker who is also a host of a Lakers radio show and also the color guy for Laker games on the radio said. without links to prove your points on how the Lakers run their payroll in the playoffs I will go with his take for now.

I don't need to "prove" the Bird rights part since one of your fellow fans already backed it up and it's pretty common knowledge among the more educated NBA fans.

As for the playoff pay:
1) I've read over a number of FAQs, etc. and have never seen anything that says players are payed more for more games. From what I've read a player's salary is on a per year basis (like any salaried worker in any other industry). The games are just part of the working period.
2) As for the bonus pay for playoffs, here's a link for last years bonus payouts:

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-2 ... Money.html

So I did a little math: if the Mavericks were to maximize their earnings from all this -- they had the best record in the regular season -- by marching all the way to the title, they would bring in roughly $3 million extra (which is then divided among the players and team staff in a manner not unlike how people are voted off the island in "Survivor.")

Now, this is for 2007 so it WILL increase but it's not going to suddenly increase more than by a small percentage.

I concur on the bird rights, but your link proves that the league gives players a bonus, it does not say that the teams themselves do not give players a bonus for making the playoffs or winning the chip.

common sense would dictate that if you get paid the same wheather you make the playoffs or not (with the exeption of a little chump change from the NBA) that players would make a really big stink about it. playoffs/finals TV ratings money alone would be made a big deal by the players. I have a hard time beleiving that players only get about 200-300K for the post season.

[milesfides]

Artest also did say that money wasn't the most important thing. He said he wanted to be treated like a top 5, top 10 player, and at the same time, he said he likes to play defense over offense. I think it's clear Artest is talking about respect.

And nobody gets more respect than champions, especially core players. And Artest would be a core player. Hard core.

[rpa]

I concur on the bird rights, but your link proves that the league gives players a bonus, it does not say that the teams themselves do not give players a bonus for making the playoffs or winning the chip.

common sense would dictate that if you get paid the same wheather you make the playoffs or not (with the exeption of a little chump change from the NBA) that players would make a really big stink about it. playoffs/finals TV ratings money alone would be made a big deal by the players. I have a hard time beleiving that players only get about 200-300K for the post season.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#61

I read that as any incentives would be built into the salary/part of the salary. What you seem to be trying to get at is a way of circumventing the salary cap. Like the Knicks saying "We can only offer $1mil/year contracts because we're over the cap but if we win the title we'll give each player a $10mil bonus".

As for the TV money: it's already been determined FAR beforehand in the NBA's multiyear TV deal. Playing in the playoffs is valuable to the players for 2 reasons:
1) (Non monetarily) They're in a competition looking to WIN. I won't try to tout this as some big deal as it's impossible to quantify.
2) (Monetarily) Earning their next contract/dictating their value. Winning brings in fans. Fans pay with cold hard cash. Teams like cash. Therefore teams are looking to win. If players prove that they can be a guy who makes a legitimate difference between winning and losing (i.e. in the playoffs) then he ups his value because of the money that he can indirectly generate for a team.

[snaquille oatmeal]

your post told me nothing reguarding post season pay/bonus by teams.
it would make sense that the salary cap and yearly salaries and such are for the regular season and when teams make the playoffs and/or win the chip that there is a worthwhile bonus. show me a link that specificly states that teams do not pay extra for the playoffs and/or winning the chip and I will write your name on my next sig.

check that, I will have the mighty Trixx write your name on my next sig.

[microfib4thewin]

I know that the Lakers losing in humiliating fashion instantly have people knee jerking for more toughness, but a deal for Artest is most likely impossible, and I wouldn't want it to happen either.

1. Sac needs a true 4, Odom is a hybrid 3/4 who has average post up skill. The Kings would also be interested in draft picks because they want to build a young team, the Lakers don't have any picks to trade with and Odom isn't exactly young.

2. After the whole Donaghy debacle on accusing refs of fixing the 02 series, do you think the Maloofs would risk trading with the Lakers and receive more scrutiny from their own fans?

3. Maybe Artest will eventually realize he can't demand money that equates his 'actual value', but not this year when he still has about 8 mil left to take. The only realistic way the Lakers can get Artest is by MLE as there's slim chance the Kings will deal him to the Lakers, and I just don't see him opting out.

4. Artest is too unpredictable. Even if you discount his history of his temper, he's also Rodman like in terms of pulling off stunts. Remember how last year he said he wanted to retire due to personal issues when there were still 20 games left on the season? Or how he's going back and forth about opting out? Things like that hurt team morale. The Lakers have already experimented with Rodman and it didn't quite exactly work out, Mitch would quadruple think this before dealing for Artest.

5. Artest stops ball movement, between Kobe, Bynum, and Gasol, he's not going to get alot of touches. Can he learn to play in the triangle offense? Even with his mad respect for Kobe I don't see Kobe guiding Artest the way Jordan guided Rodman to play for the team.

Even though Odom doesn't fit with the Lakers very well, he can still produce off rebounding, being a complementary scorer, as well as his all around play. The Lakers should not feel desperate enough to deal away Odom, and not for a headcase like Artest.

[milesfides]

1. Sac needs a true 4, Odom is a hybrid 3/4 who has average post up skill. The Kings would also be interested in draft picks because they want to build a young team, the Lakers don't have any picks to trade with and Odom isn't exactly young.

How many "hybrid 3/4"s average a double-double every game and help his team reach the Finals? Odom's done pretty well at PF in the Western Conference. And Odom's younger than half the guys on the team, same age as Salmons, 28, and among the core young guys like Martin, Garcia, and Udrih, they're only a couple years younger than Odom.

2. After the whole Donaghy debacle on accusing refs of fixing the 02 series, do you think the Maloofs would risk trading with the Lakers and receive more scrutiny from their own fans?

That makes no sense at all. Why would the Maloofs be under scrutiny from their own fans? Because they conspired to fix their own losses? They'll do a trade if it helps them.

3. Maybe Artest will eventually realize he can't demand money that equates his 'actual value', but not this year when he still has about 8 mil left to take. The only realistic way the Lakers can get Artest is by MLE as there's slim chance the Kings will deal him to the Lakers, and I just don't see him opting out.

I agree that a trade is more likely than Artest opting out and signing for the MLE. But I think a trade is far more viable than you think. It's pretty safe to say that many teams probably wouldn't touch Artest. And there were questions with his own chemistry with the team, particularly how he impacts the growth of Francisco Garcia and John Salmons. One thing is clear, the Kings have a lot of swingmen, not a lot of quality power forwards. How many power forwards in the league can average 15-10-5 in the Western conference, and how many of them can be obtained with Ron Artest?

4. Artest is too unpredictable. Even if you discount his history of his temper, he's also Rodman like in terms of pulling off stunts. Remember how last year he said he wanted to retire due to personal issues when there were still 20 games left on the season? Or how he's going back and forth about opting out? Things like that hurt team morale. The Lakers have already experimented with Rodman and it didn't quite exactly work out, Mitch would quadruple think this before dealing for Artest.

You're forgetting Rodman won 5 championships. He finally flaked out at the end of his career, when his basketball was fading as well. Artest is in his prime, and he's hungry for respect. Rodman is a great analogy, give me Rodman in his prime any time, we'll take the risks.

5. Artest stops ball movement, between Kobe, Bynum, and Gasol, he's not going to get alot of touches. Can he learn to play in the triangle offense? Even with his mad respect for Kobe I don't see Kobe guiding Artest the way Jordan guided Rodman to play for the team.

Why not? Artest said he likes playing defense more than offense. He CAN dominate the ball at times, but why wouldn't he, when he was arguably the best player on the Pacers and on the Kings? As he said in the interview, he felt he HAD to score a lot of points to help the team win.

Ron Artest shot 38% from three this season, he's averaged 3.5 assists, he can post up, yeah, he has all the tools to be a capable triangle player.

Even though Odom doesn't fit with the Lakers very well, he can still produce off rebounding, being a complementary scorer, as well as his all around play. The Lakers should not feel desperate enough to deal away Odom, and not for a headcase like Artest.

But Odom is not going to be the same rebounder when Bynum returns. He's going to move to the perimeter, especially to give Odom and Pau space. And while there's no question Odom could be a complementary, all around player, Artest can as well - and more. Because Artest is arguably the best perimeter defender in the game.

Everything else is gravy.

[snaquille oatmeal]

if Artest decides to opt out (which is the scenario that is already understood by all here) the Kings would not have much say in it. they can either let him go for nothing or a sign and trade to a team of Rons preference, if in this case it is the Lakers and since it is up to Ron the Maloofs would not have much of a choice, but to deal with the Lakers. would the Kings want Walton and Vladrad or Odom?

[rpa]

your post told me nothing reguarding post season pay/bonus by teams.
it would make sense that the salary cap and yearly salaries and such are for the regular season and when teams make the playoffs and/or win the chip that there is a worthwhile bonus. show me a link that specificly states that teams do not pay extra for the playoffs and/or winning the chip and I will write your name on my next sig.

check that, I will have the mighty Trixx write your name on my next sig.

http://dberri.wordpress.com/2007/05/06/ ... w-edition/

You can choose to believe it or not as it's not an ESPN, etc. type source (I do believe what it says, thus why I'm posting the link). The key paragraphs:

Basically I think the following is based on a great story. Players in the NBA have already been paid so the playoffs are mostly volunteer work. Yes, some are playing for future contracts, but I don’t think that story explains why veterans like Jason Kidd try so hard to win these games.

The NBA paid its players $1.8 billion this year. This works out to $4 million per player. And if a player plays all 82 games, about $50,000 per contest. But there is a little known fact to consider as we enjoy the 2007 NBA playoffs. The entire $1.8 billion has already been paid to the players. Players in the NBA are only paid for the regular season. The playoffs, which will last for two months, are strictly unpaid overtime.

Well, its not entirely unpaid. There is a pool of money the NBA gives its teams. The entire pool is $10 million. And no, that is not $10 million per player. It is $10 million for every team. And this money is split not just across the players, but also given to coaches and staff employed by each team.

Lastly, I probably could go find this in the CBA but I'm way too lazy to read through so many pages of a legal document (I've done it before; it's miserable work)

[rpa]

if Artest decides to opt out (which is the scenario that is already understood by all here) the Kings would not have much say in it. they can either let him go for nothing or a sign and trade to a team of Rons preference, if in this case it is the Lakers and since it is up to Ron the Maloofs would not have much of a choice, but to deal with the Lakers. would the Kings want Walton and Vladrad or Odom?

Just FYI here:

A little over a decade ago the Kings were in a nearly identical situation (when Webber was on the free agent market). Over the 2nd half of that season and the first part of the summer all we (Kings fans) heard from Knick fans (among others--they were just the most obnoxious of the bunch):

"The Kings will have to take SOMETHING for Webber--would you rather have Allen Houston or nothing"

My point here? It was reported a number of times that summer that one of the reasons Webber returned to the Kings (not the least nor most significant) was that Petrie played hard ball and basically said "sign elsewhere for less money if you want; I refuse to agree to ANY sign & trade". I also think that by holding onto Artest rather than trading him (at the trade deadline) Petrie made the decision that the situation could arise where Artest walks for absolutely nothing.

[Gerald3Wallace]

yeah..it definitely seems like artest wants to play with odom...saying their childhood friends and it would be a no brainer if he had a chance to play with odom and kobe..

cmon artest...OPT out! bring odom off the bench..aND WE SET

[Gerald3Wallace]

oh yeah..artest said he felt like competing against garnett cause he was disrespectful when he came in sacto..\
well...we'll see them in the finals next year(we will, but iono about them)

[miggs]

I just heard that interview and here's what i got:

1) Wants to get RESPECTED like a top 5 player

- He would get that treatment here in LA, c'mon it's LA, we love our Lakers
- Plus, playing alongside Odom and Kobe, man! you know he'd get treated amazingly well

2) Wants to COMPETE against KG

- WE will be competing against KG year after year!

3) He said that Kobe and Odom are "his boys", sounds to me like a guy who can't wait to get in a Lakers uniform

I think Artest wants to get one last big pay year. He seems to realize that he won't command the kind of money that his agent seems to think he's worth. His agent obviously wants a bigger contract for Artest cuz that means for money for him but Artest seems to want to win NOW! I know the Maloofs won't deal with us, it'd be too painful for them lol I don't like Artest's attitude one bit, he seems great on paper but after hearing that interview and recalling my daydreaming yesterday, i can really see Artest in a Laker uniform next season, if not then the year after I really do think we can pick him up for the MLE, i highly doubt this off-season but i'm very confident about next off-season

[microfib4thewin]

I don't take into stock of anything he says nowadays. He's been going back and forth between opting out and staying for months, anything coming from his mouth is nothing but a smokescreen.

[Dr Aki]

"The Kings will have to take SOMETHING for Webber--would you rather have Allen Houston or nothing"

My point here? It was reported a number of times that summer that one of the reasons Webber returned to the Kings (not the least nor most significant) was that Petrie played hard ball and basically said "sign elsewhere for less money if you want; I refuse to agree to ANY sign & trade". I also think that by holding onto Artest rather than trading him (at the trade deadline) Petrie made the decision that the situation could arise where Artest walks for absolutely nothing.

but webber was paid significantly more than what artest is currently being paid

you see this situation in AI, baron, marion, those with contracts with significantly more money than what theyd get on the free market

theres only a difference of 3mil between artest's next season and the MLE, hopefully there are opportunities for ronron to make up the difference in LA rather than in sacramento

maybe kobe might find 3mil nothing compared to winning several more rings

[rpa]

but webber was paid significantly more than what artest is currently being paid

you see this situation in AI, baron, marion, those with contracts with significantly more money than what theyd get on the free market

theres only a difference of 3mil between artest's next season and the MLE, hopefully there are opportunities for ronron to make up the difference in LA rather than in sacramento

maybe kobe might find 3mil nothing compared to winning several more rings

1) You're forgetting a few parts of that summer with Webber. The Knicks weren't the only team interested in Webber; both the Pistons & Pacers were on the short list as well. The important thing to remember is that the Pistons had cap space to offer Webber a huge contract (near max). Now, I don't remember the exact value of it vs. the contract he got with the Kings but it wasn't that big (on a year by year basis)

2) It's not JUST $3mil. Most likely it'll come down to roughly $25-30mil over 5-6 seasons. Once Artest signs with the Lakers he loses his Bird rights (for 3 years). Chances are, though, that he'll sign a 5 year MLE deal (as opposed to a 3-year deal and then try to get a big extension at the end of it) because at the end of a 3 year deal he'll be on the wrong side of 30 (nearing 32) and he's taking the chance that he keeps his level of play up to the point where he COULD get that sized deal.

So, basically, Artest would be taking a 5 year, ~$31mil deal to finish out his career as opposed to $50-60mil over the same period if he dealt with the Kings. A Difference of $20-30mil (a BIG difference).

[Dr Aki]

2) It's not JUST $3mil. Most likely it'll come down to roughly $25-30mil over 5-6 seasons. Once Artest signs with the Lakers he loses his Bird rights (for 3 years). Chances are, though, that he'll sign a 5 year MLE deal (as opposed to a 3-year deal and then try to get a big extension at the end of it) because at the end of a 3 year deal he'll be on the wrong side of 30 (nearing 32) and he's taking the chance that he keeps his level of play up to the point where he COULD get that sized deal.

So, basically, Artest would be taking a 5 year, ~$31mil deal to finish out his career as opposed to $50-60mil over the same period if he dealt with the Kings. A Difference of $20-30mil (a BIG difference).

i highly doubt hed get anywhere near that amount in free agency, this year definately and not next year

lakers could just give him a 2 yr deal and resign him using early bird rights