During this summer's free agency, I've seen a lot of comments regarding Michael Jordan and free agency. I looked around for information on the structure and length of Jordan's contracts (surprisingly not that easy to find). Hopefully this will allow people to create more informed opinions and put their arguments into better context. Jordan's rookie contract was a 7-year, $6.3 million contract In September 1988 (4 years into his rookie contract), Jordan's agent negotiated a new 8-year, $26 million contract for him. The motivation behind renegotiating Jordan's contract in 1988 was to put his salary in line with Magic Johnson (who as of that spring renegotiated his contract in a way that paid him $3 million a year). In 1984, Johnson had signed a 25-year, $25 million contract. However, in April 1988, Johnson reached an agreement with Laker management to condense the final $21 million remaining on his contract into a 7-year contract paying $3 million a year. Jordan did not become a free agent until the summer preceding the 1996-1997 season. He signed a one-year, $30 million contract with the Bulls for the 1996-1997. He then signed a one-year, $33 million contract for the 1997-1998 season, which was his last season before going into retirement for a second time.
Franchise 3, Thanks for the information. I've been interested in this conversation as I don't think it makes sense to compare Lebron and his "disloyal" and "uncompetitive" decision to Jordon and his loyalty to the Bulls and desire to be "the man." You're opening up a discussion, not only on how free agency has changed, but, in part, how Jordan likely contributed to reshaping the last fourteen or so years of player movement and outrageous salaries. I'm no expert on NBA free agency, but I think it has changed enough since the 1980s (Magic's 25-year contract! The longest in sports history) and early 90s. So I think the Jordan/Lebron comparison is moot. Place Jordan in this era of NBA economics, and I'm not convinced that he would make the same types of decisions he made in the 1990s. To add a bit more to the conversation, here are links to two articles, one from SI, on Shaq's free agency in 1996: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1008323/index.htm http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n12_v90/ai_18535140/ Shaq's situation differs from Lebron's. Magic fans seemed willing to let him go, and in leaving the Magic for the Lakers, he wasn't stepping into a dream team. Yet the tone of the SI article reads eerily like a few I read headed into this off season (and note the threat of a lockout hanging in the air). While Shaq likely did not sign entirely for the money, he did require Bryant to win the finals in 2000. I only have some tentative conclusions as I still need to learn more about free agency in the 20th century. I'm just trying to open up this conversation to move away from reductive statements about Jordon's motives being more pure, loyal, and/or competitive than Lebron's. I don't care much for Lebron, but I think "The Decision" is as much a product of post-Jordan/Shaq free agent processes and economics as he is a conceited individual. In other words, "The Decision" is a product of a number of various actors and interests in the contemporary NBA (owners, marketing firms, players, the union, the threat of a lockout, Stern, the specter of Jordan). When we hang it all on Lebron, or hold everyone else to a standard of being "the man," we're engaging in the same ugly deification of the individual that Lebron embodied in his ESPN special. Lebron is a vessel--a super-talented one at that--for the complexities of the current moment in professional basketball in the United States.
i didnt read all the posts specifically about jordan and lbj, but are you saying jordan was as "disloyal" because he wanted the flexibility to leave? I dont think thats fair to say, since MJ did it after being a 12 yr vet and having 4 rings...while lebron has zero rings and has been here 7 yrs, i believe. Jordan was at a different stage in his career and possibly already thinking of becoming owner. I think he worried about not having the ability to go play for the team he wanted to own, rather than leaving to go win elsewhere.
If he's doing anything besides providing information, I think he's saying that Jordan never had the opportunity to truly leave because he never hit free agency until late in his career. He could have not signed the extension in 1988, but he did so to get a massive raise. In other words, Jordan never was in the position of Lebron.
nor has anybody. and it's stupid for them to look back and say so and so... jordan said he would never do what lebron did. well, magic and bird were winning the moment they came into the L and had a "great" team surrounding them, so the thought to leaving or teaming up with other great players were never in their thoughts to begin with i'm sure.
I see... I agree that jordan cant say what he' do, since the situation wasnt the same or one he'd experience, but i think what the big 3 are doing is exactly why the situation is different. I dont blame lebron for doing it and i dont think he's disloyal or anything really...it is what it is, he had the option and he took it...but going back to my original point..the reason it's this way now is because players starting forcing trades when something didnt go their way. That definitely is something MJ and others can relate to. MJ, dream, they all had issues but stuck it out. After their era you had these "semi stars" and some stars asking to be traded or leaving for more money and soon enough the distribution of them was out of whack. Eventually (lately) the superstars had to do it as well since the semi stars they needed to win and build a team where grouping elsewhere. Technically guys like Drexler, pippen, and barkley started the trend, but i dont think other young superstars thought about doing it just yet, right after them, because these guys were already older/ proven and it was seen as something they earned or deserved...to be allowed out in order to win. So if anything this trend will grow even more...the good (but bad) thing is players are too greedy to ever allow a Team USA kind of team to be assembled, but 3 or 4 guys will continue to happen.
I really just wanted to provide the information so that people could view free agency in a more accurate context, especially considering how different things were back in the 1980s, and to spark some discussion. Feel free to draw your own conclusions and comparisons. I was pretty surprised about some of the figures I came across though: Magic's 25-year contract and the fact that it only averaged out to $1M a year, and the length of Jordan's contracts. It's pretty mind blowing when you look back and think that Jordan never made over $4M per year until his 12th season.
Yeah it is...and that was closer to what i think nba players should make though...its getting ridiculous now.
The purchasing power of money was a lot higher back then. Also, if the owner of a team makes $100mm b/c of player X, shouldn't player X be entitled to at least 20% of that?
I think player salaries should generally be valued dependent on some combination of: 1) the amount of revenue that player produces for his team, and 2) the replaceability of that player. So while player salaries have skyrocketed since the 80s and early 90s, revenues of NBA teams have also increased considerably. I would say many players are overpaid, but some players are vastly underpaid. The current system is probably close to a wash as far as net impact to a team's payroll.
