Moratorium, please: No more using "max contract" argument RE: Francis

the players that have above max contracts are ones that got them before the CBA(collective bargaining agreement) went into effect.
There is a limit these days to what a player may be payed...

but the Rockets can offer more years for a contract than anyone else...therefore...more money since with every year there is a certain percentage increase.

I dont have the numbers...maybe one of the capologists will answer with more details.

but rest assured...there is no team that can make a better deal for Yao than the Rockets. period.

 

Unless its a S&T, I believe that the Rockets could offer Yao the max at 7 years versus. Another team could only offer him 6 years via FA.

The Rockets will surely invoke their 4th year option, which means Yao wont be a FA until the summer after the 2005-2006 season. And even then, since the Rockets invoked their team option, Yao will be a restricted FA.

If Yao decides he doesn't want to negotiate with the Rockets, he could accept a 1 year tender offer from the Rockets after his 4th season (as long as he doesnt sign an offer sheet from another team). Then, he would become unrestricted after his 5th season.

So the bottomline is, Yao isn't going anywhere unless a) We S&T him somewhere (Yao would have to force a trade, or the Rockets just dont want him anymore) or b) The Rockets decide not to match a contract offer from another team after Yao's 4th season or c) Yao only accepts a 1 year tender after his 4th season.

Very similar to the Lamar Odom situation this summer, where the Clippers decided not to match the Heat's offer and let him just walk.

 

Its not my argument! I would rather one be paid for doing something that they like doing because there is a higher chance of them doing it well!
I just think that the upper levels of Basketball Players are paid far too much and that also goes for most professional athletes.

 

Because they are athletes??

If you were one of the best in your profession, would you not command one of the top salaries that your profession allows/offers????

 

Wrong. That naive. One of the greatest misconceptions.

A salary is negotiated at a single point in time. That salary is based on many current conditions...not just one's capabilities. Both sides are pulling in opposite directions to get the most favorable result. And both sides will use any excuse necessary to gain the advantage. That is where the agent comes into play and why a good agent is golden.

As such, to compare two salaries that were signed years apart has little meaning. The easiest example is KG's salary to Steve's. One factor that went into KG's salary was cap rules. Without those rules, we might have paid more. The fact that Steve's salary is significantly less isn't ONLY related to talent. It was current market conditions. That's why AROD got a huge deal and nobody likely will ever again (for a long time) because it's now proven that nobody is worth that much money.

 

Naive??

1) Im not compairing specific salaries, nor am I comparing KG and SF. Might want to re-read my post.

2) I was asking Yetti to explain why athletes in general are overpaid in his opinion, despite them being among the best in their given sport.

 

This is an interesting post...
SF is not over paid when Rox could not make the playoff,
and he is over paid when we make the playoff?

It is not hard for SF to get his number....what's hard for him is playing in JVG's system...and HE LISTENED and is willing to do anything to help this team win...!!!
So, He deserve it!

The only bad thing he did this year is going the superbowl...that dispointed us a lot!

 

Okay, I did. You might want to re-read your own post.

To paraphrase your statement: You said highest talent deserves the highest salaries.

That is very often not true.

Salaries are negotiated. It is common that less deserving people get more money. That happens because of timing, because of negotiation skills, etc. There are tons of reasons why "less talented" people get paid more. It happens everyday in every profession.

And the crazy thing is, often those are equally legimiate reasons to justify salaries than talent alone.

Now, if one were not living up to their potential...that is one thing. But not living up to their salary? That really is an irrelevant statement.

 

krosfyah,

I don't see what any of that has to do with the question i asked.

Yetti said that most professional athletes don't deserve what they get paid. The point I was making, rhetorically, was that athletes are paid what they are paid because they are the best at their profession.

Obviously, negotiating abilities and market forces have a subjective effect on a given player's salary. No dispute here. To say that most athletes are overpaid is "naive".

 

If I read you correctly, you said about "we might have paid more." I think you are talking about Francis...if so....you are correct!

It was due to the cap rules that PREVENTED Francis from ASKING for $100 Million. Before the bargaining agreement the so called "market" was out of whack!

Back then...all you needed was a "star player" *title* on a particular team. So, KG, although some say is worth his money, asked for what the market would give him. Francis would have done the SAME THING if he'd would have come in to the league the same year as KG. He would have been able to re-negotiate his rookie contract just before the new collective bargain agreement was reached. The Rockets are lucky. Imagine a $100 million dollar contract for Francis! It would have happened if the the new league caps were not in place.

"Talent" isn't the main issue back then. It was "entitlement." Or rather, a feeling of "entitlement." Today, the "star player" title gets you a "max-contract" that is CAPPED. All other money will be ancillary; shoe deals, sports drinks, jerseys, etc...

Funny thing is....In LeBron's case, it turns out that his "supplementary deals" will be worth more than his veteran contract in two more years. Unless they bump it up to $90 or $100 in a couple of years. Heh

 

krosfyah,

By the way, codell's post about was just a statement about salaries in general. He wasn't debating wether or not a particular player's "talent" is related to salary. Or if "market conditions" are a factor. It was just about whether or not ANY PRO ATHLETE "deserves" to get paid millions or not. "Deserves" is a subjetive view. And that's what Codell was arguing in favor of the athletes. It was a rebut to Yetti.

The "naive" comment was uncalled for. Take Yetti's post and Codells post in context.

 

I think the car analogy is a good one, but I'd describe it thusly: we paid market value for a Mercedes, but are upset that a few others paid market value for Lamborghinis. But we also have a couple of backup junkers on cinderblocks in the front yard that, combined, we bought for a lot more than the Mercedes.

And when we find ourselves in financial straits we blame, not the oily used car dealer who stiffed us on the lemons, but the cost of the Mercedes.

 

Hey you telling me that you wouldnt want to offer Yao the max contract.

 

I just looked at that ONE comment. I didn't read your previous posts. Sorry if I missed the context.

But just reading that one comment, pretty much sums up how I see many people discuss athletes.

I'm just tired of people saying he isn't worth a max contract. My argument is that it is a pointless argument. A player is paid on potential, really, since it projects their salary years in advance. And it is a universal law that everybody doesn't always live up to their potential. It's an inherent risk for any business owner.

My point. Okay to be frustrated if Steve isn't playing well. Quit complaining that he isn't worth the money.