FIBA Play and Contract Negotiation Leverage

Post #1 » by **yosemiteben** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 3:32 pm

Curious to hear the board's thoughts on the extent that positive FIBA play provides / provided actual negotiation leverage for folks like Faried or Thompson who are coming up on contract extensions.

I'm inclined to think it provides very little leverage, but curious to see if I'm in the majority or the minority.

Prokorov · Post #2 » by **Prokorov** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 4:50 pm

yosemiteben wrote:Curious to hear the board's thoughts on the extent that positive FIBA play provides / provided actual negotiation leverage for folks like Faried or Thompson who are coming up on contract extensions.

I'm inclined to think it provides very little leverage, but curious to see if I'm in the majority or the minority.

well it couldnt have hurt faried , he got paid

i think klay would get a huge, maybe max deal either way

Scalabrine · Post #3 » by **Scalabrine** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:15 pm

I think the fact that they get selected to team USA and get playing time only helps. It assures mgmt that what they see, others see in a particular athlete. Other than that, I don't think how they play in the games really has much effect.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums mobile app

nomansland · Post #4 » by **nomansland** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:22 pm

NBA organizations are smart enough to know that amazing FIBA play doesn't necessarily mean it'll translate to the NBA.

Maybe the Nuggets tried to get Faried into a deal now in part because of his play this summer, but if he'd waited I bet he could have signed a bigger deal with another team regardless.

Winsome Gerbil · Post #5 » by **Winsome Gerbil** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:27 pm

Guess it depends what you mean by contract negotiation leverage. if you mean some sort of threat to play FIBA ball instead of the NBA = none. If you mean playing well at the FIBA Worlds...I definitely think that helped Faried. Helped, let's say, Denver's front office to justify the contract to themselves. Not sure it has helped Klay much, but then again his play was less of a surprise.

Post #6 » by **yosemiteben** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:42 pm

Fair points. I think by helped I mean a player is able to extract a greater bottom line dollar amount in his contract than he would have been able to absent that player's performance in FIBA play.

oldfriendbear · Post #7 » by **oldfriendbear** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 6:22 pm

It can't hurt. If the guy is in a domestic league instead of the nba, he's playing for thousands instead of millions. One decent game like carlos arroyo in 2004 and that's global exposure and interest from better leagues around the world. Even if the domestic league wants to keep you, you have more negotiating power due to the one game.

I dunno Andre blatch's salary in china(I think) but it couldn't have hurt that he played in fiba(for an Asia team too) so more name recognition = more salary.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Post #8 » by **jbk1234** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 6:24 pm

yosemiteben wrote:Curious to hear the board's thoughts on the extent that positive FIBA play provides / provided actual negotiation leverage for folks like Faried or Thompson who are coming up on contract extensions.

I'm inclined to think it provides very little leverage, but curious to see if I'm in the majority or the minority.

Zero leverage. I expect it to go in the other direction. The NBA owners get none of the money and assumes all of the risk of injury. I wouldn't be shocked if we went back to to college only players on the squad.