Wizards in the Media Thread

[fishercob]

The problem is, those kinds of contracts only make sense from this end. Once you are in year four of a contract and earning only $3 million when you could earn $5 million a year from someone else, you lose your sense of loyalty real fast.

In other words in year four, the $10 million you get in the first year is irrelevant. It's sunk.

Completely disagree, Zonker. It's all about the time value of money. If I offer you $20 or $20M over a period of four years -- paid out any way you like -- you're going to take all the money up front. Given CPI increases, inflation, the power of compound interest, etc., the player is much better off getting more money up front as opposed to less.

In year four you're a very happy camper knowing that you already have $17M in your bank account (bearing interest, etc) instead of $15M.

Also if your next contract is limited to some percentage change from what you got paid in your previous contract, last thing you'd want to do is have the last year be low.

Not sure about this. Nate, Kev, et al?

[Zonkerbl]

I'm not saying the player won't happily agree to accept the contract. I'm saying four years from now the player will no longer be happy with it.

[fishercob]

I'm not saying the player won't happily agree to accept the contract. I'm saying four years from now the player will no longer be happy with it.

They'd be no less happy than any player earning below their market value in a given moment -- stars still on their rookie deals, legit superstars whose earnings are constrained by max salary rules, etc. However, unlike the rookie deal guys, their unhappiness would be tempered by the fact that they already have big money in the bank.

[Zonkerbl]

No, that's my point. They (or to be precise, their agents) will rationally ignore the money they have in the bank and focus on what's fair for them now. They will be just as unhappy as all the other folks you cite.

[montestewart]

^
There probably are some NBA thickheads that would resent the declining salary even though the total money was as good or better, because they're thickheaded. I hope that's the exceptional player, rather than the norm.

[Nivek]

Under the old CBA, a free agent's maximum salary could not be less than 105% of the salary he earned in the final year of his previous contract. For a guy who thinks he's going to be a max-level player, taking a front-loaded deal might not make sense because it could affect his next deal. For a guy like Nick, it probably doesn't matter.

[fishercob]

No, that's my point. They (or to be precise, their agents) will rationally ignore the money they have in the bank and focus on what's fair for them now. They will be just as unhappy as all the other folks you cite.

OK, so they're just as unhappy as Derrick Rose, Blake Griffin, Lebron, etc. Doesn't seem to be affecting their production, does it?

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

^
There probably are some NBA thickheads that would resent the declining salary even though the total money was as good or better, because they're thickheaded. I hope that's the exceptional player, rather than the norm.

I suspect that's the norm, monte.

I believe a declining salary is a great way to have a dissatisfied player down the line. Only wise people take what they make and increase it. The vast majority of NBA players will spend their paychecks quickly. Buying everybody else things and buying jewelry that can be stolen is where many will go wrong. Most will invest poorly and, at the end of their contracts, they will be hurting for cash and dissatisfied.

It's not just NBA players, either.



http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/dish/20 ... ear-career

Although he has a better playoff winning percentage than Peyton Manning, 18-year NFL quarterback Mark Brunell is facing a financial nightmare.

Action News Jacksonville reports the current Jets backup and former Jaguars hero has managed to run through $50 million as an active player and will have to start a 9-to-5 job as soon as his NFL career is over.

If a guy can play 18 NFL seasons, earn $50Mil and be broke, I'm sure the average NBA player is more than capable of doing the same. It's not guys buying fancy cars and bling who are the only ones suffering, either.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Sorry to go off topic, fish.

I think the Wizards should amnesty Lewis "with the quickness"-- as soon as the opportunity presents itself.

I could see Lewis going to the Celtics. He and Ray Allen were long-time teammates. Boston doesn't have many players under contract, and they can field a team off shooters that would be dangerous.

[Zonkerbl]

No, that's my point. They (or to be precise, their agents) will rationally ignore the money they have in the bank and focus on what's fair for them now. They will be just as unhappy as all the other folks you cite.

OK, so they're just as unhappy as Derrick Rose, Blake Griffin, Lebron, etc. Doesn't seem to be affecting their production, does it?

Who mentioned production? I'm just saying -- you won't necessarily get away with it. Instead of getting a player whose cap number is less than they are actually worth, you might get a player who skips town and you'll have to replace that player with an overpriced free agent. Depends on how the contract is structured and what the various team and player options are.

Guess I should have been clearerer.

[fishercob]

No, that's my point. They (or to be precise, their agents) will rationally ignore the money they have in the bank and focus on what's fair for them now. They will be just as unhappy as all the other folks you cite.

OK, so they're just as unhappy as Derrick Rose, Blake Griffin, Lebron, etc. Doesn't seem to be affecting their production, does it?

Who mentioned production? I'm just saying -- you won't necessarily get away with it. Instead of getting a player whose cap number is less than they are actually worth, you might get a player who skips town and you'll have to replace that player with an overpriced free agent. Depends on how the contract is structured and what the various team and player options are.

Guess I should have been clearerer.

You did not explicitly mention production, but that's the bottom line, no? And in the examples you gave, the players' unhappiness seemed to have to effect on how well they played. If the risk of signing Nick or Javale to a frontloaded contract is that they'll feel unappreciated and not want to re-sign again in 4 years, I'll take that risk. Money has a way of curing the boo hoo's (provided the new CBA allows for big raises from one deal to the next).

As an aside, can you imagine if Wiz management told Nick's or Javale's agent that they were considering such an offer but were concerned that the player in question would blow all their money early? There would be lots of "how dare you's" and claims of implied racism IMO.

[Zonkerbl]

Uh, what examples did I give? Now I'm completely lost.

And why would Wiz management say anything about a contract offer they have no intention of giving? Ow, my brain!

Now, if Nick or JaVale's agent came to Wiz management and asked for a declining contract, that's different. Now it's not a question of will the player accept it, but should management accept it. I would accept it as long as the player can't opt out. And while explaining why I wouldn't want the player to opt out, I would say straight up to the player -- I don't want you skipping town for more money, because then that defeats the entire purpose of structuring the deal this way, where you get more than you're worth in the first year.

[fishercob]

Uh, what examples did I give? Now I'm completely lost.

And why would Wiz management say anything about a contract offer they have no intention of giving? Ow, my brain!

Now, if Nick or JaVale's agent came to Wiz management and asked for a declining contract, that's different. Now it's not a question of will the player accept it, but should management accept it. I would accept it as long as the player can't opt out. And while explaining why I wouldn't want the player to opt out, I would say straight up to the player -- I don't want you skipping town for more money, because then that defeats the entire purpose of structuring the deal this way, where you get more than you're worth in the first year.

Your old screen name indicated that you didn't have a brain. Now it's hurting? Flip-flopper!!!!

I mis-spoke (typed?). You did not give examples. I gave examples and you commented on those examples.

Why would the Wiz management say anything to that effect? I'm not sure they would. But I can envision a scenario in which they would. You seemed to be cautioning against front-loading a deal b/c it would lead to unhappy players, and therefore would not be in the team's best interest.

Agent: Why don't you frontload a deal so my guy gets big money up front and you save some cap room in the out years.

Exec: It's an interesting idea that we've considered, but don't think it makes the most sense in this situation.

Agent: What about this situation makes you think it wouldn't make sense?

Exec: We're just not sure your client would be happy in the long run.

Agent: Huh? Isn't that my job to determine? But, why don't you think he'd be happy?

Exec: We know enough about him, his posse, his party and spending habits to have legit concerns that he;s not a long term planner. We don't a problem on our hands in three years with him thinking he's underpaid.

Agent: (Chuckles) Got it. I'm trying to save you money long term, but you're not interested because of how my guy's financial planning skills don't meet your standards...

To your final point, yes, I would be totally up front with the player and his agent. Tell them that because of the time value of money, frontloading a deal is a more valueable contract than a flat one or a backloaded one. The reason you're giving it to him is to manage the cap long term so that we can keep the best pieces of the core together and add talent. Essentially, taking a front-loaded deal will enable you to play on a better team AND make more money.

[Zonkerbl]

If I were an Exec I'd have to be some kind of (Please Use More Appropriate Word) to say something like "We know enough about him, his posse, his party and spending habits to have legit concerns that he;s not a long term planner." And it doesn't even have anything at all to do with the point I'm making.

I'd be like, Agent Falk, I don't trust YOU not to come back in three years and say "My client could get twice what he is getting paid right now on the free agent market."

Why does everyone think negotiating is all about belittling the other side? That's a recipe for failure.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Maybe there could be a stipulation requested and agreed to by players/agents/union to pay declining contracts with much of the early money paid directly to certificates of deposit.

Suppose a player were going to make $10M in year one, but only 10Mil over the remaining 3 years. Instead of giving that player too much, too soon, why not just pay 5Mil to the player the first year and pay $5Mil directly to a 3-yr term CD? That way, towards the end of the deal that player gets the $5Mil with interest. He's not broke or hurting for money. This could help both the teams with their cap considerations and also save players from themselves.

Couldn't that work?

[Zonkerbl]

It's not about players' inability to save. The solution is really very simple -- no free agency, restricted or otherwise, until the contract expires.

[fishercob]

It's not about players' inability to save. The solution is really very simple -- no free agency, restricted or otherwise, until the contract expires.

Huh? Isn't that the nature of a contract? It's not like the NBA has any sort of a problem with guys holding out. Maybe in the NFL you sign a guy to a deal with a big bonus, and in two years he outperforms his deal and asks for more money, threatens to sit out, etc. That just doesn't happen in the NBA.

[Nivek]

It's not about players' inability to save. The solution is really very simple -- no free agency, restricted or otherwise, until the contract expires.

That's already the case. Players get can have their deals extended after a certain number of years, but that just adds on to the contract -- it doesn't replace whatever's left on the deal. And they can do buyouts, but that's something different altogether.

[Zonkerbl]

Didn't PRECISELY THIS SORT OF THING just happen with Blatche's contract? Why did we renegotiate it?

[Nivek]

Didn't PRECISELY THIS SORT OF THING just happen with Blatche's contract? Why did we renegotiate it?

Wiz EXTENDED Blatche. They didn't renegotiate it, they added to it.