[Memphix X Bait] Michael Heisley embrarasses himself on the Radio

Gosh what a noob

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=191996


:grin:

 

Heisley's issues aside...

It makes total sense for teams to incorporate more incentive-based compensation in the rookie contracts.

Why is that such a bad thing? An argument can be made that a player needs financial security to focus on basketball, but why seperate? Ensure that focusing on basketball achieves the incentives.

Very easily done, and overall a great idea executed in a horrendous way by Mr Heisley.

 

It does make sense if all teams does it. But if most other teams give the extra 20% automatically and you don't, then it's just bad PR. While draft picks generally have no leverage when it comes to bargaining, it does set a bad precedent for future drafts, when players may skip working out for your team because of it.

The problem is that the bad publicity is very high cost despite very minute savings(relative to the NBA of course). As rookies make relative peanuts in the first place. Saving a few bucks here at the cost of future goodwill with prospects just seem like a bad long term business decision.

 

Then, they should make it required in the new CBA instead of optional.

 

I think forcing rookies to sign on to incentives is smart business, actually, but Memphis isn't a team in position to start the change. For them to do it, other teams will just take advantage by plucking off disaffected players when they become free agents.

But, if a team with a strong free agent pull (say, the Lakers) started putting incentives in rookie contracts, I could see it spreading across the league. Laker rookies might be initially offended by the incentives, but they'll buck up and be happy to be a Laker and will likely want to stick around when they become free agents, making the inclusion of incentives costless for the team. And then, as more teams do it, it will become more palatable to the players (as an inevitability if nothing else).