Requirement based contracts

[GIVE_WADE_THE_MAX]

Is it possible to institute a clause into contracts so that a player would have to attain a certain production value in order to get the full amount of his contract.

With players way past their prime still earning max dollars I think this solution makes the most sense. In case of a player like Shaq who's career averages are 25 ppg and 11.5 rpg. If there were a clause stating that in order for Shaq to recieve the full 20 million annually he would have to acheive 80% production of his career stats.

So basically if Shaq did not average at least 20 ppg and 9 rpg he would not earn the full 20 mil on his contract. Obviously if Shaq is healthy then they would have to play him at least 80% of his avg per game minutes(36). If the team fails to honor the minutes given rule then they would be subject to the full contract amount.

Paying players past their primes and players who are injured really costs the NBA the integrity of their league. Who benefits from watching aged players suck it up at extraordinary salaries. No one but the player under contract.

In case of injuries. A player would have a one year grace period on injuries. Meaning if player x signed for 5 years and on the first year of the contract sustains an injury costing the team more then 58% of their games then that player would no longer have an injury exception. Player x could then be realeased in any other year of his contract that he failed to play 50% of his team's games. Player x would be able to carry his exception indefeinetely as long as he wasn't injured for more then 58% of his team's annual games in any given year.

[Eric12]

That would cause struggling players to ballhog, which would hurt the team's chance of winning and the team chemistry.

[MagicFan3]

That would cause struggling players to ballhog, which would hurt the team's chance of winning and the team chemistry.

Exactly. The Knicks would not win more than three games.

Either way, I doubt the players' union would ever agree to that in negotiations.

[GIVE_WADE_THE_MAX]

That would cause struggling players to ballhog, which would hurt the team's chance of winning and the team chemistry.

if a struggling player needs to ballhog to achieve 80% of his stat line then I'm sure hes not worth his contract anyway. THis rule wouldn't apply to players under 25 with rising potential. These contracts would be for players approaching or past their peak(27-30 yr olds). As an added incentive these contracts could be optional. Shaq could get a 20 mil contract offer from the Heat with requirements explicity stated or he could get a 13 mil contract from the Knicks for 3 years guaranteed.

[jefe]

Is it possible to institute a clause into contracts so that a player would have to attain a certain production value in order to get the full amount of his contract.

With players way past their prime still earning max dollars I think this solution makes the most sense. In case of a player like Shaq who's career averages are 25 ppg and 11.5 rpg. If there were a clause stating that in order for Shaq to recieve the full 20 million annually he would have to acheive 80% production of his career stats.

So basically if Shaq did not average at least 20 ppg and 9 rpg he would not earn the full 20 mil on his contract. Obviously if Shaq is healthy then they would have to play him at least 80% of his avg per game minutes(36). If the team fails to honor the minutes given rule then they would be subject to the full contract amount.

Paying players past their primes and players who are injured really costs the NBA the integrity of their league. Who benefits from watching aged players suck it up at extraordinary salaries. No one but the player under contract.

In case of injuries. A player would have a one year grace period on injuries. Meaning if player x signed for 5 years and on the first year of the contract sustains an injury costing the team more then 58% of their games then that player would no longer have an injury exception. Player x could then be realeased in any other year of his contract that he failed to play 50% of his team's games. Player x would be able to carry his exception indefeinetely as long as he wasn't injured for more then 58% of his team's annual games in any given year.

To answer your question (it is a question right?), yes. For instance, Damon Stoudamire's deal with the Grizz requires him to average 20mpg or appear in 55 games this season in order to earn the full amount he's due next season. If he can't meet either condition, he's only due 50% of his salary next year.

Stoudamire's contract is slotted at $4.6 million for next season. But that number gets cut in half if Stoudamire averages less than 20 minutes and appears in fewer than about 55 games this year.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/jan/20/stoudamire-grizzlies-closing-in-on-buyout-deal

But I think it's important to realize that owners will have to pay a premium in order to have these clauses in the contract - probably just an overall inflation of the player's salary each year.

[GIVE_WADE_THE_MAX]

-= original quote snipped =-



Exactly. The Knicks would not win more than three games.

Either way, I doubt the players' union would ever agree to that in negotiations.

screw the player's union. the are soft. Dont make Stern bring them to their knees again. During the last lockout I think Stern bled the players dry and they returned to the bargaining table with the surrender flags highly raised. Lets stop making the union to be more powerful then it is.

[cb4_89]

-= original quote snipped =-



if a struggling player needs to ballhog to achieve 80% of his stat line then I'm sure hes not worth his contract anyway. THis rule wouldn't apply to players under 25 with rising potential. These contracts would be for players approaching or past their peak(27-30 yr olds). As an added incentive these contracts could be optional. Shaq could get a 20 mil contract offer from the Heat with requirements explicity stated or he could get a 13 mil contract from the Knicks for 3 years guaranteed.

And a lot of players aren't. You would just see the jermaine oneals of the world chucking the ball up every time they can to get their 17 and 8

[GIVE_WADE_THE_MAX]

But I think it's important to realize that owners will have to pay a premium in order to have these clauses in the contract - probably just an overall inflation of the player's salary each year.

if it is possible more owners should do it.

[MalReyn]

These clauses can and do exist, but for obvious reasons many teams don't offer them and many players wouldn't accept them.

The only time they would make sense (in my opinion) are when signing marginal players who inexplicably had great years right before their contracts were up. A way to lessen the risk of signing these contract-year wonders.

[jefe]

-= original quote snipped =-



if it is possible more owners should do it.

Well, in individual cases it would lead to overpaying in general: but on the whole (i.e. say an entire team is under these contracts), it probably balances out and gives a windfall to the most productive (and therefore probably most deserving) players.

[GIVE_WADE_THE_MAX]

-= original quote snipped =-



And a lot of players aren't. You would just see the jermaine oneals of the world chucking the ball up every time they can to get their 17 and 8

like the Pacers have better options anyways. A more interesting example would be the situation that occurs in SA and Boston. What would happen to the KGs and TDs. In those cases Im sure the team would just pay the full amount of the contracts becuase they know their stars offer more then just the stats visible in the box score.

[MagicFan3]

-= original quote snipped =-




http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/jan/20/stoudamire-grizzlies-closing-in-on-buyout-deal

But I think it's important to realize that owners will have to pay a premium in order to have these clauses in the contract - probably just an overall inflation of the player's salary each year.

I think it's a fair requirement if it's relating to PT; it would be to encourage the player to get into shape. The problem is having to pay that large inflation if they manage to do it. I suppose it would be worth it though.

[Phobo_Phile]

If it were the case it would take almost all 30 owners standing collectively to do it. If Team A wants all these clauses (without paying him more or paying him not that much more) and Team B doesn't. I think a lot of players convince them to go with team b. Or at least their agent would convince them too. There are a few players that would love the challenge, but then again you are running into problems with ballhogging and what not.

[asdfgh]

If a team wants to put an incentive like that in a contract and a player agrees to it, then they can do it. You're not suggesting anything radical here.
Marcus Camby for example has such incentives in his contract.

[pillwenney]

-= original quote snipped =-



like the Pacers have better options anyways. A more interesting example would be the situation that occurs in SA and Boston. What would happen to the KGs and TDs. In those cases Im sure the team would just pay the full amount of the contracts becuase they know their stars offer more then just the stats visible in the box score.

Of course they do. Pretty much anything is a better option than a guy just chucking up shots desperately looking to get his required stats. Yes, JO is overpaid anyway, but making him try to chuck up shots to see how overpaid he can be won't help anything. The same thing goes with Shaq. But it doesn't change the fact that they are still hurting their team by trying to pad their stats.

And it's not just with points. If one were to do this in any statistical category, it could easily hurt the team. If there were a clause on rebounds a player might very well leave his man defensively too often in an effort to pad his rebounding stats. With assists, a player may not shoot when he has a good shot, instead looking to get an assist. With steals, the guy might play passing lanes way too much, thus leaving his man way too much. With blocks the player might go after everything in an effort to get a block, often leaving his man under the basket and becoming foul prone. Even incentives on FG% can lead to a player being afraid to shoot.

The only thing statistically here that would make any sense to me would be FT%. But even then if a poor free throw shooter were given incentives to shoot 60% from the FT line, and he had accomplished that with 1 game left in the season (after being, say, a career 50% shooter), and he still didn't really feel comfortable with his shot, he might really try to avoid contact, which could completely change his game, and if it's an important game, it could really affect his team, even if it's only on one play.

But even then, I could see it generally being a good idea with FT%, because everybody has to shoot free throws at some time or another.

And the thing that I think it really makes sense with is conditioning. Giving a player incentives to stay in playing shape can't really have any negative affects that I know of.

[Showtime:Part2]

i think the rule should be that unless you had surgery, you don't get paid for missing games. contracts SHOULD be incentivized but economically it can never work. if you've taken game theory you know that if I was to offer an incentive based contract to a superstar, some other team would swoop in and offer a guaranteed contract for the same money.

[penbeast0]

Sure it will work and it does . . . when an owner is willing to pay a serious premium over other contract offers to a questionable player (health, attitude, whatever) and the player takes the incentives in order to get the premium. It's a tradeoff, peak value v. guaranteed return, and savvy players/agents and owners make these kind of decisions regularly.