Did you hear what happened to Frank Thomas? The White Sox cut his salary because of a dimishing skills clause. Why the hell didn't they do something like this with Cato? I mean, he has shown improvement at the end of last season and it sounds like a little this year so far, but what about those two seasons of whining before? Is this legal under the CBA?
I have absolutely no direct knowledge about this subject...so, naturally, I am going to give a response: I would imagine it was a specific clause in Thomas' deal, and would be only applicable to those whose contract contains said type of clause. ( Like some players have a weight clause, etc.)
The NBA's Collective Bargaining Agreement bans such clauses unless agreed to by both the team and the player....and even then, they probably aren't valid.
mfclark, OK, after nailing me once on the Larry Coon FAQ regarding the Bateer trade, payback time has come. (You knew it was going to happen, right? ) The CBA does not "ban such clausees unless agreed." That would make this a fully guaranteed league. The <b>default clause</b> (unless <i>otherwise agreed</i>) is that termination for reason of "Lack of Skill" is in every contract except 1st Round, Rookie Scale contracts. You must negotiate to get guarantees against "Lack of Skill" into your contract. See Les Alexander's contract offer to Hakeem Olajuwon, last year. And if you don't believe, see the purpose of "Exhibit 2" in all Uniformed Player Contracts.
HP, You can always terminate a contract for lack of skill, sure, even if the contract is guaranteed. You simply have to pay the player for the duration of the contract and take the cap hit if you waive a player with a guaranteed contract; if it is unguaranteed, then the player is simply gone. However, in MLB's case, most of Thomas' money is now deferred. You can do this in the NBA as well, if you negotiate a buyout with the player. That amount still counts against the cap through the duration of the contract, however. Most contracts in the NBA account against lack of skill, but even for those without the guarantee, it's still not the same as the team invoking a "diminished skills" clause and reducing a player's pay for the upcoming season by a great amount. It's Thomas' option now to decide if he wants to become a free agent, something that appears likely; in essence, the White Sox didn't waive him. I'm sure the Rockets would love to have some of the money back from Cato, or to spread out the cap hit over many seasons in a deferred buyout. Knocking down a player's salary and keeping them under the same deal, however, is forbidden under the CBA...it's either all (keep them) or nothing (waive them and maybe, just maybe, be able to re-sign them. But in most cases, that doesn't happen).
mfclark, Can't say I'm following the Thomas contract much. How much did his salary go down? If I'm not mistaken, any amount of an NBA contract may be tied to a "Likely" performance bonus, and 25% can be tied to "Unlikely" benchmarks. This has nothing to do with termination, rather it is a matter of collecting your bonuses. For instance, Rodman had to be available for 78 games or something. Sure, that was before the new CBA, but that Rodman clause would still be allowed. Thus, it is a semantics issue of calling it a performance bonus ("likely" or "unlikely") versus "diminishing" someone's pay. Plus, we probably shouldn't consider salary cap issues since MLB has no such thing. It is a matter of whether performance can be tied to pay, that's all. Besides the salary cap issue regarding bonuses is only a matter of defining a 25% limit and defining what is "likely" versus "unlikely." In the NBA, as you pointing out, termination for skill without pay is a default clause in contracts and performance benchmarks are allowed. I only see a difference in wording the clause, not its effect.
Thomas' salary went from about $10,000,000 to $250,000. The NBA allows for performance bonuses, yes, but does not provide for performance deductions like Thomas' contract entails. I agree with you - there is a bit of similarity in the diminished skill clause in his contract and the wording in the CBA. There's also a lot of differences, however, in how that goes about...a lot due to the differences between whatever MLB has and the NBA's Collective Bargaining Agreement. The White Sox still want Thomas...but not at $10,000,000 a season right now (though they'll pay it to him later). He gets the choice of whether to stay or not, unlike in the NBA, where the team either keeps them at full salary or waives them.
Diminishing? Diminishing from what? his powerhouse 01 and 02 seasons? Shoot, by the time he signed his contract, his preseason 10 block games were back in the rearview mirror. His skills have pretty much been the same ever since: crappy!
Guaranteed contracts just baffle me. So you get millions of dollars whether you play well or not, or even if you don't play at all? How crazy is that? Where is the incentive, the motivation? I don't get it. Many players are just going through the motions.
