|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Jul 11, 2017 23:45:01 GMT
I don't think he is arguing that, he is arguing the fact he gets paid x amount of money and how receiving differently is beneficial to the player. Well, his whole argument is based on inflation makes the later end of the contract worth less. When in reality, they come out on top in terms of percentages and shit like that. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Jul 11, 2017 23:45:34 GMT
I don't think he is arguing that, he is arguing the fact he gets paid x amount of money and how receiving differently is beneficial to the player. Well, his whole argument is based on inflation makes the later end of the contract worth less. When in reality, they come out on top in terms of percentages and shit like that. Or at the very least its a wash and we should just do it realistically. |
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Jul 11, 2017 23:46:01 GMT
Year 1: $10,864,485
Year 2: $11,625,000
Year 3: $12,750,000
Year 4: $13,875,000
Year 5: $15,000,000
versus
Year 1: $15,000,000
Year 2: $13,875,000
Year 3: $12,750,000
Year 4: $11,625,000
Year 5: $10,864,485
IMO I don't see why a player would prefer to have most of his money paid at a later date
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838 
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Jul 11, 2017 23:47:57 GMT
You are both right, James is right in terms of money and jhills is right in realistic terms. No owner pays up front, the pay how it benefits them first, not the player.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chauncey Billups on Jul 11, 2017 23:49:32 GMT
Year 1: $10,864,485 Year 2: $11,625,000 Year 3: $12,750,000 Year 4: $13,875,000 Year 5: $15,000,000 versus Year 1: $15,000,000 Year 2: $13,875,000 Year 3: $12,750,000 Year 4: $11,625,000 Year 5: $10,864,485 IMO I don't see why a player would prefer to have most of his money paid at a later date I think there can be certain mental factors for why a player might want to get paid that way |
|
Vlade Divac
Former Kings GM
Sophomore
Posts: 630
Oct 20, 2024 15:22:14 GMT
|
Post by Vlade Divac on Jul 11, 2017 23:59:51 GMT
Seeing you guys play stockbroker is very very interesting. However, if we are being real with each other, the main reason Brooklyn did this was because he has excess cap space now and wants to save his money in later years. While I do not think there is anything wrong with that, I can understand why Alex does not like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Jul 12, 2017 0:01:14 GMT
Year 1: $10,864,485 Year 2: $11,625,000 Year 3: $12,750,000 Year 4: $13,875,000 Year 5: $15,000,000 versus Year 1: $15,000,000 Year 2: $13,875,000 Year 3: $12,750,000 Year 4: $11,625,000 Year 5: $10,864,485 IMO I don't see why a player would prefer to have most of his money paid at a later date ------- It's guaranteed who cares. It's not like pro athletes are the best savers in the world it might be smart to have that last year larger in case your career ends. ------- Either way, my argument is this: MKG's real contract: 13,000,000 13,000,000 13,000,000 13,000,000 (Player Option) It would be more realistic if his D5 contract was, its the same setup as real life (same total amount as his D5 contract now): Year 1: 12,822,897 Year 2: 12,822,897 Year 3: 12,822,897 Year 4: 12,822,897 Year 5: 12,822,897 ------- The whole reason I'm arguing this is that if people start having these contracts all over the league it's gonna completely fuck free agency balance in the league. It's not realistic to have contracts this way. Imagine if every team's salaries on average went down ever year. It would be ridiculous. Literally sets the league up for having like like 4-6 superteams because on a rolling scale they are constantly adding cap room. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jul 12, 2017 0:45:46 GMT
Year 1: $10,864,485 Year 2: $11,625,000 Year 3: $12,750,000 Year 4: $13,875,000 Year 5: $15,000,000 versus Year 1: $15,000,000 Year 2: $13,875,000 Year 3: $12,750,000 Year 4: $11,625,000 Year 5: $10,864,485 IMO I don't see why a player would prefer to have most of his money paid at a later date ------- It's guaranteed who cares. It's not like pro athletes are the best savers in the world it might be smart to have that last year larger in case your career ends. ------- Either way, my argument is this: MKG's real contract: 13,000,000 13,000,000 13,000,000 13,000,000 (Player Option) It would be more realistic if his D5 contract was, its the same setup as real life (same total amount as his D5 contract now): Year 1: 12,822,897 Year 2: 12,822,897 Year 3: 12,822,897 Year 4: 12,822,897 Year 5: 12,822,897 ------- The whole reason I'm arguing this is that if people start having these contracts all over the league it's gonna completely fuck free agency balance in the league. It's not realistic to have contracts this way. Imagine if every team's salaries on average went down ever year. It would be ridiculous. Literally sets the league up for having like like 4-6 superteams because on a rolling scale they are constantly adding cap room. No player in the NBA does this because its dumb for a player to accept this because as the cap raises and their talents get better, they can expect to see their value and should see their pay increase. However, if the player knows he is only going to receive 200 million in his whole career, he would want as much of that up front as possible. If inflation, as you said, increases 3% each year, that player's total buying power at the end of his career isn't going to be 200 million dollars, its going to be considerably less depending on his longevity. But, if you pay the 200 million dollars in year 1, you can take 150 million or whatever he wants, and puts it into some sort of investment account where the return is usually guaranteed at 10% each year if he wants to be safe. Which means, he safeguards against the 3% yearly inflation increase, and earns money on that money for simply having it then instead of having it later. This only works if we assume he can get no more or less than a fixed amount. As soon as you start thinking about a player's value increasing and being worth more, this idea is lost, which is why it doesn't happen in the NBA. It does happen all the time in the NFL. That guaranteed number you see is usually in the form of a signing bonus for like 30% of the contract right away, and then the next 50% over the first two years. Its why you see the "cap hits" go down each year for a player. Taking the money up front is smart if there is no chance that your value will change or that you cannot receive anymore money than the given dollar amount. The basic idea revolves around the fact that A. because of inflation, your dollar buys more today than tomorrow and B. because of investments and such, your dollars can increase because you have it in accounts that give a return on that money. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jul 12, 2017 1:03:06 GMT
So, in short, is this contract unrealistic? Yes. But it isn't because a player would prefer to have his money later. Its because he sees his value increasing as well as the cap and wants his salary to reflect those changes, and he should ask for what he feels he is worth in year 1, and the team should give the increases relative to the cap.
Look at it this way. Dan Gilbert knows he's going to pay LeBron 200 million over the course of a 5 year contract, let's say. So, Dan knows this, so what does he do? Say the contract is for 40 million a year over 5 years. Dan takes 200 million, hands LeBron his 40 million for the year, and takes the leftover 160 million and puts it into an interest bearing account where he earns money on that money he is going to pay LeBron. Say Dan makes 10% on this each year and he pays LeBron at the end of each year.
Dan puts 200 million into an account giving 10% Return and LBJ puts his in the same account when he is paid
At year 1 end Dan now has 220 Million, but pays LeBron his 40.
Dan now has 180 Million for year 2, at the end of the year, Dan now has 196 Million, but pays LeBron his 40 Million to go on top of LeBron's now 44 million.
End of year 3, Dan had 156m in the bank, earned 15.6m on it, now has 171.6. LeBron had 84m in the bank, and earned 8.4 on it, LBJ now has 92.4m.
Dan pays LBJ his 40 million for year 3, now giving Dan 131.6, and LeBron now has 132.4
End of year 4: Dan earned 13.16m ROI (144.76m total), LeBron earned 13.24 ROI (145.64m total), Dan breaks LBJ off his 40, Dan now has 104.76m, LeBron sitting at 185.64m
End of year 5: Dan earned 10.476m ROI (115.236m total), LeBron earned 18.564 ROI (204.204m Total)
Dan pays LeBron the final 40 million of his contract, Dan now has 75.236m, LBJ has 244.204.
Dan saved 75.236 million dollars, and LeBron made an extra 44.204 million by investing his money years 2 thru 5.
So, the real reason front loading contracts doesn't happen, is that owners have to pay the players more because they lose the money on investing those funds.
And anyone out there saying this isnt real because there's no way Dan Gilbert has 200 million to put into a bank account and not touch, you have no idea how much a team makes in revenue, or how much his businesses make or how much he has.
Businesses do this all the time when they buy property they get a mortgage just like you or I, even big companies who could pay cash, they put it into the account and they may get 13%, and the interest on the mortgage may be 7%, they pay less than the mortgaged value. Businesses do this with everything, they keep very little cash on hand, if it all, but instead have it in very liquid assets, and earn on it.
You work for a big company? your employer already paid you for the year, its sitting in an account collecting interest or returns
|
|
|
|
Post by Chauncey Billups on Jul 12, 2017 1:25:40 GMT
Charles goin' balls to the wall
|
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Feb 27, 2018 17:45:24 GMT
I'd just like to point out - in researching what I might have to offer K. Midd this off-season, that he's actually on a decreasing contract lol. In fact, according to this: www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/players.htmlseveral players are on decreasing contracts, including: K. Midd P. Millsap E. Kanter G. Hill A. Crabbe J. Butler I. Mahinmi T. Harris T. Young J. Ingles M. Plumlee Z. Randolph and I'm sure many others but that appears to be all in the top 100 contracts. So seeing as more than 10% of the top 100 contracts in the IRL NBA are decreasing, and it is beneficial for the player to receive more money up front (as long as its guaranteed), then I don't see why we should have any issue allowing these types of contracts in D5. If a team has put themselves in a financial position to offer this sort of beneficial contract, then they should be able to. |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Feb 27, 2018 18:10:30 GMT
James if you don't max Middleton this offseason then I will
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Feb 27, 2018 18:12:34 GMT
James Kay - don't see why not, I was thinking the same myself, but realism is most important to me and if it's 10% of contracts in the NBA, then I'd prefer it to be near to 10% here at D5
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Feb 27, 2018 18:21:11 GMT
I have every intention of starting MKG so this is hypothetical, but serious question- am I still obligated to fulfill my starting role promise if I traded him and then reacquired him?
|
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Feb 27, 2018 18:22:02 GMT
James Kay - don't see why not, I was thinking the same myself, but realism is most important to me and if it's 10% of contracts in the NBA, then I'd prefer it to be near to 10% here at D5 100% of BRs are tradeable in the NBA  |
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Feb 27, 2018 18:22:02 GMT
Is that a starting role promise or just an offer? Just curious. I'm not sure there's a penalty for trading which is the main reason I could see Barber breaking that promise, so it probably doesn't matter, because I know he really likes MKG. Just curious! This is an amazing comment in hindsight. |
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Feb 27, 2018 20:02:13 GMT
James if you don't max Middleton this offseason then I will tbh not really worried about the pelicans poaching my longest tenured player |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 27, 2018 21:13:06 GMT
Is that a starting role promise or just an offer? Just curious. I'm not sure there's a penalty for trading which is the main reason I could see Barber breaking that promise, so it probably doesn't matter, because I know he really likes MKG. Just curious! This is an amazing comment in hindsight. I mean, thanks, but, when's the last time you signed a Free Agent of any significance and DIDN'T trade him by midseason the same year?  |
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Feb 27, 2018 21:35:27 GMT
This is an amazing comment in hindsight. I mean, thanks, but, when's the last time you signed a Free Agent of any significance and DIDN'T trade him by midseason the same year? I see what you’re trying to do, and it’s not going to work. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 27, 2018 22:21:58 GMT
I mean, thanks, but, when's the last time you signed a Free Agent of any significance and DIDN'T trade him by midseason the same year? I see what you’re trying to do, and it’s not going to work. Understandable you would think I'm doing that, but actually I'm serious. I may be forgetting someone, and if so, call it out. But, I feel like you trade every free agent you sign. Prove me wrong buddy! |
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Feb 28, 2018 8:09:26 GMT
Understandable you would think I'm doing that, but actually I'm serious. I may be forgetting someone, and if so, call it out. But, I feel like you trade every free agent you sign. Prove me wrong buddy! Guess I will bite. Sure, the Nets don't have a flawless track record of holding onto free agents. Very few teams in this league do (you'll have much more success going down this accusatory route with Brian Scalabrine). But we really only have two instances of trading a "free agent of significance" mid-season. 2016 Offseason: Signed and traded Reggie Jackson 2015 Offseason: Signed and traded Greg Monroe Both Jackson and Monroe had huge drops in production right after I signed them and both are now viewed as "bad contracts". We don't have a great history in Brooklyn of signing marquee free agents, and the two biggest names we have signed have both flopped. Am I just supposed to hold onto these guys even though we aren't a tanking team and we aren't attracting better free agents? We would be in purgatory right now, loaded with bad contracts on low-production players. You can call me "unloyal" for trading them, but every single GM in this league would have traded them. I think it is less a reflection of me not being loyal, but moreso a reflection of those players have massive declines and playing themselves off the team. In the 2017 offseason, we signed MKG and Lance Stephenson. Both of these guys were with my in my Utah days as well. I could not pass up an offer of a 1st round pick for MKG, but I immediately went out of my way to get MKG back upon trading him. Mark and I were immediately discussing ways to get MKG back to Brooklyn right after the trade was approved. We have been extremely loyal to these players IMO. I am sure you view yourself as loyal, but is what you have done any better? You traded Batum after signing him in order to make way for Bledsoe. You traded Favors in order to make way for Capela. You traded Oladipo. You traded Love. As soon as a player shows any sign of age, you immediately ditch them for the younger version. I mean, come on Walt, just look at your signature. You have an entirely new starting 5 as compared to 2 years ago. I am not saying it is a bad thing, it is actually your duty as a GM to try to improve your team. Just don't try to pin a "not loyal" card on someone else when it is simply the nature of the league. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 28, 2018 12:25:32 GMT
Understandable you would think I'm doing that, but actually I'm serious. I may be forgetting someone, and if so, call it out. But, I feel like you trade every free agent you sign. Prove me wrong buddy! Guess I will bite. Sure, the Nets don't have a flawless track record of holding onto free agents. Very few teams in this league do (you'll have much more success going down this accusatory route with Brian Scalabrine). But we really only have two instances of trading a "free agent of significance" mid-season. 2016 Offseason: Signed and traded Reggie Jackson 2015 Offseason: Signed and traded Greg Monroe Both Jackson and Monroe had huge drops in production right after I signed them and both are now viewed as "bad contracts". We don't have a great history in Brooklyn of signing marquee free agents, and the two biggest names we have signed have both flopped. Am I just supposed to hold onto these guys even though we aren't a tanking team and we aren't attracting better free agents? We would be in purgatory right now, loaded with bad contracts on low-production players. You can call me "unloyal" for trading them, but every single GM in this league would have traded them. I think it is less a reflection of me not being loyal, but moreso a reflection of those players have massive declines and playing themselves off the team. In the 2017 offseason, we signed MKG and Lance Stephenson. Both of these guys were with my in my Utah days as well. I could not pass up an offer of a 1st round pick for MKG, but I immediately went out of my way to get MKG back upon trading him. Mark and I were immediately discussing ways to get MKG back to Brooklyn right after the trade was approved. We have been extremely loyal to these players IMO. I am sure you view yourself as loyal, but is what you have done any better? You traded Batum after signing him in order to make way for Bledsoe. You traded Favors in order to make way for Capela. You traded Oladipo. You traded Love. As soon as a player shows any sign of age, you immediately ditch them for the younger version. I mean, come on Walt, just look at your signature. You have an entirely new starting 5 as compared to 2 years ago. I am not saying it is a bad thing, it is actually your duty as a GM to try to improve your team. Just don't try to pin a "not loyal" card on someone else when it is simply the nature of the league. I honestly didn't read past "accusatory". I know you and I have had it out a few times, and I guess I wasn't clear. I don't blame you for trading the guys you've traded, and I'm not trying to taint your record either. Honestly. I simply couldn't remember you holding on to a free agent signing. It was more of a "isn't it funny" type of thing. It truly wasn't a "Hey all Player Agents, don't bother signing with him, he'll trade your guy away!" Sorry if it came across that way. I'll read the whole thing now |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 28, 2018 12:28:59 GMT
Yea, I read the rest. Again sorry if I was smearing your name :/
I was really just talking about the comment you quoted me on, and how it was an easy comment to make, sort of down playing the "amazing"-ness of the comment, since you have generally been a trade machine,and especially with your free agent signings.
It was more about downplaying my comment and not at all about trying to get into what you have now gotten into.
Sorry Barbs
Edit: And lastly, since we did bring it up (inadvertently for me) - I agree if the player is no longer worth their contract, you can't be blamed for trading them away. None of us can.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Apr 13, 2018 20:29:25 GMT
|
|
Charlotte Hornets
Detroit Pistons
New Orleans Pelicans
Boston Celtics
Brooklyn Nets
Minnesota Timberwolves