ESPN promoted the Detroit v. Chicago series as a referendum on Ben Wallace. After two games (both at home), Joe Dumars looks like a genius. However, I think the argument is different; it's not about Ben Wallace, but about NBA contracts in general.
When Steve Nash entered free agency, he was 30+ years old with a history of injuries and a chronic back problem which forces him to lie on his back when he is not playing. Mark Cuban balked at paying him a five-year deal, which seemed like a smart financial move at the time. Nobody anticipated Nash moving to Phoenix and putting together arguably the best three-year stretch of any PG (certainly any 30+ year old PG).
When Ben Wallace entered free agency last year as an over 30 big man with limited offensive skills, Detroit balked at the length of his deal and the price Chicago was willing to pay.
In each case, the player had played on deals which underpaid them for their productivity. They had earned a bigger payday. The contributions of Wallace helping the Pistons win a championship and Nash to revitalize the moribund Dallas franchise cannot be overstated. And, while playing in their primes, they were underpaid. It seems only fair that they are compensated with their last contracts.
But, that is exactly the problem. With the length of NBA contracts, very few players are paid what they are worth. Deron Williams is grossly underpaid right now, as he is on his rookie deal. Shaq is grossly overpaid, as he is on his "lifetime achievement" contract.
The Sacramento Kings rewarded Brad Miller and Mike Bibby with big contracts during the Kings glory days or 2001-2004. Now, each appears to be past his prime. Miller was already an unathletic big man in a game quickly shifting to emphasize quickness, and now he battles plantar fasciitis. Bibby carries too much weight, has lost some of his quickness and shows a completely indifference toward defense. Yet, the Kings owe the duo $25 million+ over each of the next three seasons. $25 million+ for two past their prime players.
Bibby and Miller signed their deasl while in the middle of their prime years, their mid to late thirties. However, with the way contracts are structured, with percentage increases on an annual basis, a player who has a reasonable,if expensive contract during his prime has several year at a higher rate when he is past his prime.
Let's say a player's prime lasts three years. If he signs a seven year deal, even if it is signed just as he is entering his prime, he plays four years when he is past his prime, but making more money than when he was in his prime and considerably more money than when he was approaching his prime.
This summer, Chauncey Billups will be an interesting test case. Billups has played the last several seasons at an elite level. One assumes he has been at his peak for the past couple years. And, during this time, he has been grossly underpaid, considering his on court value. He is one of the top three PGs in the league, and the one with a championship ring, yet he's been making middle of the pack pay.
So, he deserves a big payday. He has earned a big payday. However, the responsible question, since one is given a contract for the future, not the past, is: Will he continue to play at the same level and for how long? Will Billups be like Nash and Kidd who seem to improve even as they reach their mid-thirties? Or is he starting the descent of his career, where he remains productive, but maybe not worth $10million+ per season?
Is Detroit better off re-signing Billups and hoping his career path resembles that of Nash and Kidd or trading him right now, at the height of his market value, to acquire young talents with reasonable contracts who are nearing their respective peaks? With the lack of great free agents on the market, Detroit could name their price to any number of teams who would jump at the chance to acquire Billups and worry about the end of his deal later (Dallas, Houston, Denver, Orlando, Miami, Los Angeles Lakers, etc.).
Let's say Billups has two more years at his peak and then a gradual decline. And, let's say he signs a six-year contract which starts at $12 million dollars. When he is 36 years old, will he be worth $15 million per season? At 36, and being paid $15 million per season, will he be better than a package of Andrew Bynum and Jordan Farmar playing in their peaks?
That's the NBA dilemma now. Cuban guessed wrong on Nash. I think Dumars guessed right on Wallace (though Paxson did not necessarily guess wrong, though he is still one player away. However, he did need veteran leadership). The length of deals means almost nobody is paid what they are worth. And, missing on one player with a max deal can cripple a franchise financially; just look at the fall of the Sacramento Kings who rewarded its stars with deals that now, a couple years in, look terrible fiscally and in terms of performance.
An NBA GM must be able to evaluate his personnel and determine who is still reaching his peak, how long he will stay at his peak and will his decline be gradual or precipitous. And, this is the area where the great teams (Spurs, Pistons) excel. Smart GMs buy low and sell high and do not allow emotions to hand out "lifetime achievement" contracts which cripple a franchise fiscally and eliminate financial flexibility.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Good point. On some level, these guys deserve a "lifetime acheivement" bonus, but if I was a GM, I would always come back to the thought that I could "let somebody ELSE pay them that bonus!"
The long-term contract thing always bugged me. Wouldn't some of these players take more money per year for less years? Isn't it a better deal to definitely overpay a player by a little bit for two or three years than it is to take a chance you'll be enormously overpaying them for six or seven?
Not these days, when being overpaid for 3 years provides the opportunity for your club to buyout your contract, and you free to pick and choose where you choose to play and make even more money, ala C-Webb and Jalen Rose.
Great article. In some cases though I would add that teams are searching for a revenue increase (through ticket and merchandise selling, and media contracts) by having some 'lifetime achievement' deals signed. However, these are not real teams , but only money-making machines (or at least want to make).
As you said Detroit and San Antonio are great examples of real basketball teams and maybe the league would be much better if all clubs thought their way.
The deal Wallace signed descends in value each each so he gets paid less as he ages. The Lakers knew Shaq's deal was coming up, which is why they kept the younger star instead of the older one. It was proper for the ledger, if not the win column.
Teams who sign top tier players away from other teams ALWAYS overpay. Not role players so much. Teams don't mind paying max dollars to max performers. Often it doesn't work out in terms of money for value, although the Suns hit the jackpot.
Bibby's contract was clearly a stretch, even at the time. But the window for a ring was right now and Bibby was an important part of that huge 2002 run.
Miller's was a bit more understandable. Even though he was creeping towards the end of his prime, he was damn cheap for an All-Star level center (and he was an All-Star in Sacramento). This season was a disaster, and next year could be worse. The Kings should have frontloaded the deal, if possible -- if Miller was set for $20 million over the next three years, it'd be much easier to trade him this summer. But then the Maloofs would have been paying luxury tax in 2004 and 2005, and that's a big disincentive.
Interesting on the Wallace deal. My feeling has always been that if you overpaid, but it brings a championship, it's worth it. If not, it's a bad deal from the team's perspective. Ben Wallace is only a good signing for the Bulls if they win a championship while he is an important member of the team. Otherwise, they traded away a cheaper, younger version of himself without addressing their biggest need (post scoring).
Shaq is worth the money because he won a championship in Miami. However, I wonder if Miami would be better off with Wade, Odom and Butler as opposed to Wade and Shaq.
I think teams who acquire or sign players like Webber and Rose and then eat their contracts, allowing them to sign with championship contenders, should automatically fire someone in the personnel office that signed off on the deals.
It's one thing for the Kings to sign Webber to a deal as a sort of "lifetime achievement" contract because he helped make the franchise relevant. However, it's another for Philly to acquire his contract and then release him.
I disagree regarding Miller's contract. Miller is oe of the most overrated players in the NBA. He benefited from the Kings system, which absolutely maximized his talent. In a different system, he is nowhere close to an all-star performer, which is why Chicago and Indiana were more than happy to trade him and why he did not see any time on Team USA.
Defensively, he has always been a liability. He is not a presence around the basket and he cannot step out and hedge or trap pick and rolls effectively.
He is what he is: a good passing high post center with a reliable outside shot. Is that really worth a long term deal starting at over $10 million a year? Shouldn't the Kings management have learned from the Raef LaFretz project, as at least laFrentz was a decent shot blocker around the basket.
Kings management wants a defensive coach, but the defensive problems start with the Bibby/Miller combo. Neither is an effective defender. Adelman employed a system that maximized their offensive skills and attempted to hide their defensive weaknesses. And, it worked so well that each earned a contract which pays them far more than they are worth in any other system. However, with Adelman gone, they play in a different system, so they are no longer worth their deals even with the Kings.
When the Kings made the coaching change, they should have maximized Miller's value and traded him at that point before his flaws were exposed in a new system. Now, he has almost no value as a trading asset and is only productive in certain roles which may or may not fit with the new coach.
I find less fault with Bibby's contract because it was an attempt to win a championship at the best possible opportunity and his decline has ben more precipitous than one would imagine. He really should be just leaving his prime, and some may suggest he has played at a plateaued level for the past two seasons, but I see a definite decline from 2002-04 to the past two seasons and one can only assume the decline continues. Of course, he's not that old, so if he works in the offseason on his quickness, loses a little weight and stops whining at the officials every time he gets bumped, he could approximate his best years, especially if the new coach can motivate him and use him effectively in his new system.
I agree with pretty much everything you wrote- my only question is (and this truly is a question, cause I have no idea) how does this impact players and injuries? Say a rookie signs a 2 yr contract- but then blows the hell out of their knee in the 2nd year (anybody ever heard of Shaun Livingston?)... What happens if it's apparent that their third year wont involve any playing time, and a team decides not to resign. Can shorter contracts potentially really screw developing/injured players?
Bec: Of course, which is why players and their agents sign the longest deal possible. It's not the players or agents problem if they or their client is overpaid, but it most certainly is their or their clients problem if he fails to maximize his potential earnings because of an injury.
That's why the job of a GM is tricky. The Player's Association is not going to reduce the maximum number of years on a contract unless they get a higher percentage of income (i.e. higher salary cap). The owners don't want a higher cap. The owners, most of them, don't care if they overpay one player, because they just underpay another so they remain under the luxury cap threshold.
The only people who truly care are the fans who want their team to be competitive and feel cheated by an end of he bench player with a bloated contract or an underperforming superstar making millions. And, the GM, HC and players may care, but, in reality, it's partially the GM's fault, so he can't really say anything and the other players might care because they want to win and a bad contract may prevent the acquisition of a player who can help them win, but they can't complain because it's their teammate and they want the opportunity to be grossly overpaid. The HC is screwed, but he has a long term deal and chances are he'll be the scapegoat for the contracts so the GM can keep his job, so he makes sure he is overpaid as well so he continues to make a living while he is unemployed because the owners don't care who makes what, GM's make mistakes, players don;t want to give up any money and fans have very little say because they keep buying tickets and going to games because there isn't a better alternative.
Sad.
It seems as if there are always a lot of good free agent values out there, let alone trades.
When David Lee had his second or third 18-rebound game off the bench, but was still the third or fourth forward on the Knicks, why didn't somebody quickly offer a pick and a role-playing veteran in order to obtain him? I think the Spurs got a steal when they got Jackie Butler from the Knicks - he's not playing right now, but he's basically the lottery-level talent/project that they've been unable to obtain for the past nine years, due to their consistently high finishes. Mikki Moore and Raja Bell showed flashes of brilliance while playing for a last-place Utah team in '03-'04. Its entirely possible that trades are harder to make than I think they are, but I'm amazed at how often players with obvious talent ride the bench on bad teams. A team (like the Spurs or the Pistons) who are able to steal away a couple of guys like that can afford to overpay a superstar or two if they've surrounded them with enough good values.
I think there is alot of things that are being left out on Miller and Bibby's contracts. Both they were overpaid at the time. On the other hand they both came at a time when the kings were at their peak. It's just so happened that the dropoff of the team has happened (in part due to miller's lack of not being vlade divac which is of course part of the problem)in part that it's been in transistion. As far as frontloading contracts goes it seems to me that only teams under the cap can afford to do that. Which of course gives them the competitive advantage down the road. However to me the real issue is that since Divac came to the team the kings have overpaid guys continuously. If they keep doing that there will be a real problem.
I am not blaming the Maloofs or Petrie entirely for the contracts they gave out. They pursued a championship and for that I give them credit. However, they never took the final step. After Jim Jackson came and had a good season, they let him walk. Keon Clark added shot blocking which we have only recently seen in Justin Williams, but he was allowed to walk. So, they were willing to overpay "stars" but not pay role players.
Also, I believe the Kings succeeded because they did not have any stars (which also may be why they never won a championship). They had 7-8 pieces who fit together well, played together and complemented each other. They were very much like the current Detroit Pistons, ecept the Pistons have more defensive-minded players and the Kings had more offensive-minded players.
Unfortunately, the Kings decided to pay Bibby, Miller and Webber like stars (and even Christie to an extent).
And, now the Kings are suffering the repercussions of those deals and they do not have the championship to show for it, like the Heat do with their grossly overpaid superstar, Shaq.
My criticism of the Kings is tha Maloofs squashed a trade this year that would have rid them of Bibby's contract and they never (publicly) pursued a deal with Miller last summer. Instead, all the blame was placed on Peja, though if healthy, he is more likely to regain his top form than the other two (though, again, none of the Kings were ever truly All-Stars, especially in the West, but were all very good next level talents, again, a lot like Detroit where, in my eyes, Billups is an all-star and Hamilton, Wallace and Prince are all next level talents who are great players, but not stars).
Terry: I agree. I imagine before tis year, Kevin Martin was available for a reasonable price. Ronnie Turiaf probably could have been had from the Lakers. Devin Brown and Matt Barnes are my favorite examples: every year, they get cut. But, then they resurface and end up earning minutes because they do things other players don't. Darrell Armstrong, Anthony Johnson, etc. these types of players are always available, and every once in a while, one of them turns into a Raja Bell, Ben Wallace or Bruce Bowen and is a first team all-defender.
I'm weary of giving Detroit too much credit on their deals. Sheed, Rip and Prince signed to reasonable deals but if Billups walks they've lost two key elements of their championship core. This team may have won the year they passed on Carmelo, Wade and Bosh but if they don't win again, they will have an old roster that is handsomely paid.
Consider this: a top-tier player could get 2 max deals over the course of a career. That means 14 years at over $200M.
Is anyone really going to argue that the player in question, regardless of who he is, is going to be worth that over the course of a career?
Limit the contracts to five years, 3 for 1st round picks. Cut back on team options that give GMs the chance to screw over a rising player for a year or two of chep wages.
Hersey:
Joe D isn't perfect, but he's about as good as it gets. He trades Grant Hill and acquires Ben Wallace. Hill ends up hurt most of his career and Wallace ends up a catalyst for a championship. He trades Stackhouse for Hamilton, I believe, which worked out well. He acquied Sheed for virtually nothing and he proved to be the missing piece of the championship puzzle.
Drafting Milicic, and then trading him, proved to be a poor decision. The trade, getting rid of he and Arroyo, may have been a bad deal because they need some young talent.
The biggest mistake, however, could be allowing Okur to walk as a free agent in order to save money to re-sign Wallace. Losing Wallace, imo, was not a mistake. It was a smart business decision. Losing Billups would be tough, especially if he walks for nothing. Losing McDyess, another savvy signing, would be a big blow too. And, losing Webber would be a negative at this point. Webber and Dale Davis were good acquisitions as well.
Few GMs, in hindsight, are perfect. However, Dumars is certainly among the best.
Post a Comment