Basketball Related Income Rules Everything Around Me
After actively and repeatedly avoiding any discussion of the details of Brandon Roy's contract negotiations, Kevin Pritchard's statements about LaMarcus Aldridge's negotiations in Jason Quick's piece were eye-opening.
He's talking! He's talking! After months of tight-lipped non-talk, what did KP open up about?
Basketball Related Income.
Guh. That sounds hard.
For a full definition of BRI, head over to Larry Coon's site.
So here's the situation:
- LaMarcus Aldridge's camp wants a max contract or as close to it as possible.
- The Blazers want to pay him as much below the max number as possible without insulting his character and sending him into a rage.
- To compromise, the two sides try to settle on a percentage of the Max number that most accurately reflects Aldridge's worth.
Professor Storyteller elaborates...
The problem might not be that the team and Aldridge's negotiating team can't come to an agreement about what 'percentage' of a max contract that Aldridge deserves, the problem might be agreeing on what that max deal will look like.
Quick is right on when he points out in his blog piece that Roy's extension amount is not static - it will be set next summer when the salary cap and other league figures are announced next July. A 'max' contract for Chris Paul and Deron Williams this year starts at just over $13.5 million. But given that nearly everyone expects BRI to drop this coming year, it's anticipated that the salary cap and the maximum amounts for players will also drop next summer - but nobody knows how much.
This creates a unique challenge in negotiations for players like Aldridge, who is probably not a max player but is close. Let's say that Aldridge's agent estimates next year's BRI will drop 2.5%, which would put Roy's max salary for 2010-11 at about $12.9 million. Now, his agent asks for 90% of what they estimate a max contract would be, or an extension that starts at about $11.6 million. The Blazers might even agree that Aldridge deserves 90% of a max deal. But what if their estimate is that BRI will drop 5%? That would give Roy a starting salary of about $12.1 million in 2010-11. If they agree to pay Aldridge $11.6 million, they're not agreeing to a 90% of max deal, they're committing themselves to a 96% of max deal. Because although Roy's max deal will adjust to next summer's figures, Aldridge's deal probably won't.
You can see why this might lead to an extended negotiation.
Both sides are trying to negotiate what they believe is fair based on estimates and projections, not on hard and fast facts. And my guess is that the Blazers are going into the negotiations projecting as conservatively as possible while Aldridge's team is going into the negotiations projecting as optimistically as possible. Leaving room for some complex negotiations.
I full court pressed Storyteller into the corner of a dark alley and interrogated the following prediction out of him.
My guess is that a deal on an extension gets done before the October 31st deadline. But given the uniqueness of the economic climate that the league finds itself in (before this summer, the salary cap had only dropped once - in 2002 - and has never before been projected to go down two years in a row), the negotiations over Aldridge's deal are quite understandably complex. So although an agreement could come tomorrow, I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't happen until very close to the deadline.
Storyteller also passed on this clarification from Quick's article regarding how Max contracts relate to BRI.
A max contract is not determined by 25% of Basketball Related Income (BRI) but rather 25% of a base figure that is calculated off of the estimated BRI figure.
Here's a quick summary: Basketball Related Income (BRI) is the amount of income that the NBA, NBA Properties and NBA Media Ventures brings in on a yearly basis.
Every July, the league accountants not only calculate the exact amount of BRI for the previous season, they also come up with an estimate of BRI for the upcoming season. It is this figure of estimated BRI that is used to calculate the salary cap and the maximum amount available for most players to sign for.
The salary cap is determined by taking the estimated BRI figure, multiplying it by 51%, adjusting that number for benefits and other CBA-mandated adjustments, then dividing by 30 (the number of teams in the league).
The base number for calculating maximum player salaries is determined nearly identically, only instead of using 51% of BRI, this calculation uses 48.04% of BRI, then adjusts for benefits and other adjustments before being divided by 30. In order to find a maximum salary amount, this base number is then multiplied by either 25% (for players with 6 or less years of service), 30% (for players with 7-9 years of service) or 35% (for players with 10+ years of service).
So a player like Roy (who will have 4 years of service) who earns a maximum contract won't be paid exactly 25% of the salary cap but something closer to 23% of the salary cap - because the base number for determining maximum salaries is a bit lower than the actual salary cap.
One more thing - if a player's previous contract paid him more than the above calculation of a max contract for him, he doesn't necessarily have to take a pay cut. The CBA allows for players in this situation to be able to make 105% of their previous year's salary as their 'maximum' amount. Sort of a grandfather clause for players who are already making a large amount of money. So if Player X made $15 million in 2008-09 and the calculation of a max salary for him in 2009-10 (using the above equation) is $13.5 million, he doesn't have to take a cut to $13.5 million - his 'maximum' amount is 105% of $15 million or $15.75 million.
Voila. You are now more informed. Thanks Storyteller! Here's a link to his site.
-- Ben (benjamin.golliver@gmail.com)
69 comments
|
Do you like this story?
Comments
My option isn't there
I’m going to worry, but I’ll take it in stride and hope that it provides motivation. I don’t think any sane individual who cares about this team wouldn’t worry a little. We expose ourselves to the risk of losing him. Additionally, the irony is that if LMA plays out of his mind he then warants a max contract and the blazers just cost themselves more money by waiting.
Most players re-sign with their teams, but strange things happen (carlos boozer to utah anyone?)
I’m not going to panic but I will say it’s a bad move by the Blazers if they can’t wrap it up and how bad will really depend on how much Aldridge feels slighted.
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
by ratbastird on Sep 11, 2009 10:35 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
The Cleveland Cavaliers didn't have Bird rights on Carlos Boozer, which won't be a problem here if ...
LaMarcus Aldridge becomes a restricted free agent in 2010.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
My take on this is very similar to yours
I want this deal to be done and history so that the focus is entirely on having the best season possible. I worry that one party or the other will be unnecessarily stubborn in these negotiations and cause undue problems.
I understand that the TrailBlazers are a business, but the business is about basketball – please give me more basketball and less business!
These negotiations sometimes seem to be too much about sweating every little detail and not enough about the biggest thing of all – A Championship!!!!!!!!!!
Hey LMA – So what if you make .65376548922% less than exactly 90% of a max contract – SIGN THE DAMN THING ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Blazer's Edge Ambassador to The Dream Shake Blog
LMA Rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I <3 LMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LMA - Putting the POWER in POWER FORWARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The concussion must have jarred him into "Destroy All Opposition Terminator Mode!" - BlazersOrBust
by LaMarvelous on Sep 11, 2009 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Great insight!
Thanks for the breakdown, it was really helpful to understand.
I didn't mean to turn you on
Other
I don’t worry about everything, but I’d sleep better at night with LMA signed by the deadline and focusing on his game. I’m hoping our roster is far enough removed from the likes of Randolph and Wallace who were motivated by contract years rather than the chance to win multiple championships.
Is there a way to structure the contract as insentive laden as Roy’s?
Regarding this quote:
Because although Roy’s max deal will adjust to next summer’s figures, Aldridge’s deal probably won’t.
Why not?
wanderlust
because
there is no (known) provision in the CBA to allow non-max contract extensions to be signed NOW but have their actual amount be determined next summer by the then-known BRI figures. You can’t execute a contract that starts at “90% of what a max deal would” (as far as we know anyway). You have to have a set dollar amount.
so, the only way we know of for a deal to be signed NOW but have it’s figures be adjusted next summer, is for it to be a full max deal
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
gotcha
then we should start him at 85% of 25% of 50.4mil, or 10.71mil.
ESPN has two articles portaining to a 2.5-10% deacrease in BRI. 50.4 mil splits the difference.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4312837
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4379864
wanderlust
However elsewhere here Storyteller has repeated the actual formula for max player contracts and it is not 25% of salary cap
Interesting stuff.
yeah i didn't get that part
was he referring to it’s not 25% for brandon cus of all the incentives?
wanderlust
The league reduces the formula because of benefits (retirement, etc.) paid and other personnel costs
Or at least that is my understanding. If you simply use Storyteller’s formula for whatever you think the BRI is going to be you should be able to calculate the projected player max. It has nothing to do with incentives. Since the max is set the incentives might have to be reached to get to the max if you use incentives.
I doubt that's true.
I suspect they can write the contract to be a % of max, because as far as I know there is nothing in the CBA to prohibit it. I suggested this earlier today (see below). You just have to write the contract in a way that it doesn’t violate anything that is disallowed by the CBA. I don’t see how that would be much of a problem.
They could also add a clause that the contract amount would be no less than some specific dollar amount (to protect LMA), and no more than some specific dollar amount (to protect the team), limited by the yet to be determined maximum salary.
Writing contracts based on some parameter that isn’t known at the time of the contract, but is known before the payout date, is very common in business. I’ve negotiated such contracts involving millions of dollars. In fact, just a couple of examples pertaining to individuals – you can get a home mortgage that fluctuates based on future parameters, or buy Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) that essentially pay interest based on the future CPI (consumer price index).
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Sep 11, 2009 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions
RT: Is there a way to structure the contract as incentive laden as Roy’s?
Quick was on with Wheels at noon and said the Blazers and Tellum were talking about a pro-rated idea that would adjust what LMA made based on the league revenue next July. They said this has never been done before.
I’m sure both sides want certain “fiscal assurances” out of the deal and the chance of LMA “getting mad and wanting to play elsewhere” are zero
At least Canzano and Quick aren’t turning this into a front-office vs. player debate like with Roy
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
and
since the agency wants to see LMA paid like a “potential” NBA all-star, it only makes sense that they put some language in the deal to “reward” him if he makes the ASG “X amount of times” over the life of the extension
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
LMA...
I voted other.
LMA is going to be a superstar, no doubt. He might have even been in the All-Star game if he played for another team and was that teams “Batman” instead of “Robin” (which btw I think is a rediculas metaphor, but I digress). Why the Blazers are stalling over a couple percentage points of a max deal I still don’t get even after reading the article. If they really want him they’re going to have to pay.
Trying to predict the future here the only problem/question I have is what effect will giving LMA his payday have on the Blazers future financial ability to re-sign GO. If someone could tell me that there’s absolutely no correlation between signing LMA to a big contract and the Blazer’s future plans to re-sign GO, then I would not be concerned at all about the LMA deal. Somehow though I doubt that’s the case…and big men with GO potential IMHO are more valuable then big men like LMA only because they are harder to come by. (No knock on LMA there, it’s just a matter of supply and demand).
I think after listening to Quick last night on the BFT
and reading his article today is that LMA will be signed soon. The team and LMA seem to both agree on his value, not they are just trying to figure out what the BRi will be to get a number. If the league is smart they will put in the next CBA the ability for teams to do extentions based off a percentage of the max deal or a percentage of the BRI just like a max deal.
What is interesting to me is could a player like LMA sign an extention this summer for say $12.5 million starting salary next year with raises after that? If they could, and the BRI goes down enough, then LMA would actually be paid more than Roy next year.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
I think there has to be a contingency when signed to the effect of “starting salary at 12.5 unless it exceeds the maximum salary structure.” The max is the max.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 11, 2009 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Exactly
If LMA negotiates now for a deal that turns out to be more than the ‘max’ allowable, his deal becomes a ‘max’ deal. Which is part of the negotiation….
by Storyteller on Sep 11, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Couldn't LMA's contract actually be written using X% of max rather than a dollar figure?
I don’t have time at the moment to scour through the CBA looking for an answer, but it seems logical that it could. Since contracts can be expressed as 100% of max, it would seem they could also be expressed as say 85% of max.
This seems so obvious that there must be more to the problem. i.e. while they may say they agree on the percentage, one side or the other must not be comfortable unless they can agree on a hard dollar figure now. The agreement on a percentage sounds more conceptual than real.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Sep 11, 2009 11:12 AM PDT reply actions
This is actually one of my questions for Tom Penn
(I’m going to stop collecting questions this weekend and finally send the email on Monday)
I don’t remember ever hearing about such a contract, but I don’t know of any prohibition in the CBA. Which, of course, is the reason for asking such a question of a real expert.
If such an idea were part of the negotiation process, I’m sure it would be part of what the Blazers were offering and not part of what Aldridge’s agent is asking for. I think that Aldridge’s team would rather go forward with a static number, not a % of what the maximum available would be.
by Storyteller on Sep 11, 2009 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions
It’s common to sign (high) second round picks for 120% of the scale. So it wouldn’t be impossible. Though I assume at the end of the day a player contract has to include a concrete base salary. And it doesn’t change your initial point: The Blazers and the agency might have similar views regarding LMA’s worth as expressed as a fraction of Roy’s salary, but have divergent views regarding how the BRI, the cap and everything develop in the next year(s). If the Blazers feel like they have to pay him $1 million too much per year, they will be reluctant to sign it.
There's Gotta Be More To Life
The difference is
that when a 2nd round pick is signed, he’s not signing for a % of what might be available a year from now, he’s signing for a set amount today. Sure, the set amount might be a percentage of another figure, but it’s still a static figure.
The CBA is clear about signing extensions for the max and how they are calculated. As I said before, I don’t remember an extension being signed for a % of the max. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t legal – in fact, my hunch is that it would be legal. And, as you say, I’m not sure that both sides of the negotiation would see such a provision for setting his initial salary in the same light.
by Storyteller on Sep 11, 2009 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions
I would guess
that it is only illegal if there is a specific provision against it in the CBA (which seems highly unlikely).
And you are right, LMA’s agent would be less enthusiastic than the team. They want a set amount, and if they don’t get it, they want to bump the percentage higher.
The solution may end up being something like a percentage of max, but with an absolute floor amount.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
Certainly.
They could add a clause, in addition to the % of max, that the final contract amount would be no less than some specific dollar amount (to protect LMA), and no more than some specific dollar amount (to protect the team), limited by the yet to be determined maximum salary.
This kind of contract happens all the time in business. I’ve negotiated multi-megabuck contracts with payouts based on parameters undetermined at the time of the agreement (but obviously known at the time of the payout), and that included floor and ceiling amounts to protect both sides. No big deal at all.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Sep 11, 2009 9:43 PM PDT up reply actions
But I seem to remember this is King Stern's kingdom and the league can withhold approval of any contract he deems bad for the league
But I have no knowledge of what he might think.
Exactly. I don't know if that is true
but probate court this is not. I suspect the league front office has provisions in the contract to “deal” with gray contingencies. My first instinct is that they’d approve if they really feel the BRI is going to take a serious hit. Be interesting to see how it plays out if they can really just make the call.
What about a compromise?
LMA is given an agreed upon % of the max contract with a lower limit set
ie. 90% of max with a minimum salary of 11 million
"It's not who jumps the highest -- it's who wants it the most" Buck Williams
"and if EVERYONE confronted with a tough, disgusting situation pulled out, I don't think I would have been born." Mortimer
by Fund A Mental on Sep 11, 2009 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Sure. Plus there can be a specific max dollar limit to protect the team.
Floor and ceiling limits are used all the time in business.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Sep 11, 2009 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions
there is no precedent
Quick was on with Wheels at noon and said the two sides were discussing this option. The league office would have to rule on the proviso, I’m sure
BTW, Quick had the same idea to “bring back Sabas” that you had yesterday, after he and the boys talked about Ostertag. Their comments were almost word-for-word with what you wrote
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I was joking for heavens sake. Was he?
I included bringing back Dale Schlueter, who played for the Blazers in 1970. And Mark Eaton, who retired in 1993. And Malone who retired in 2004 at age 40. I hope it was clear I was also joking about Sabas.
But was Quick serious? Sabas is 45 years old!
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Sep 11, 2009 9:12 PM PDT up reply actions
I just listened to the podcast of Wheels. Quick is stealing my material.
.
If next week he mentions a certain invisible, six-foot three and one-half-inch rabbit ,,,
(however, he’s probably too young, and not a movie fanatic, to get that reference)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Sep 11, 2009 10:13 PM PDT up reply actions
He'd probably think that you were referring to Frank from Donnie Darko.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
I'd rather have the Mailman at 45
than Ostertag at any age
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I wrote a fanshot on this a few weeks ago
It seems to me like it would make more sense in almost any situation.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
The Lebron sweepstakes
I haven’t seen anyone mention the importance of this yet (then again maybe I just missed it). There are a lot of teams gearing up to have cap space next summer. It’s possible that LBJ, Dwade, et all will all move teams and eat up that cap space. It’s far more likely, though, that those players will stay with their current teams and there will be some MAJOR losers in free agency. In this case it’s almost a certainty that someone will way overpay for the second tier (ie Aldridge). If you’re Aldridge and everyone in Portland has told you that you’re the #2 guy in a Championship run, don’t you assume that Portland will match? So you sign the offer sheet from NY….. And now Portland has to pay max money to match a year from now. In my opinion this is why Aldridge’s position is so strong.
I wrote about the 2010 sweepstakes over a year ago
calling it a crap shoot of sorts. You make a very good point.
I’m trying to put together an initial prediction of which teams look to have cap room and how much they might have – I’ll be posting it in a few days. But regardless of the final numbers, IMO there are going to be several teams (at least) who walk away from the FA market next summer either with empty hands or very disappointed at what they’re walking away with. After all the hype, there’s going to be disappointment.
by Storyteller on Sep 11, 2009 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree - I wrote a fan post a few months ago about the cost of not extending for a superstar
and concluded that over $23M difference in available money would make it much more unlikely that any of these guys move unless they are truly despairing of their organization’s ability to acquire and support a championship roster. I realize the mindset of many fans are set because of the media hype that these guys may all move so these numbers may not convince anyone of the perceived reality. To me that is a lot of money to leave on the table knowing an injury anywhere in the next contract may prevent the player from ever signing another contract.
this is a small concern
Portland is willing to pay near-max money for Aldridge – there is little doubt about that. So, worst case, someone offers him a max deal next summer as an RFA and we are forced to match, and pay a LITTLE bit more than what we wanted to. We aren’t talking anything like him getting offerred 10 million for another team when we only wanted to pay 5 million. It’s more like 11 million vs 12 million.
Also note thought, that in that scenario, even though we may be paying more in year one, over a 5 year deal, its actually not the case. This is because other teams could only offer him 8% raises, while we can offer 10.5. So, in this example, a 5 year deal starting at 11 million with max raises from the Blazers has a total value of 66.550 million. A 5 year deal starting at 12 million with max raises from another team has a total value of 69.600 million. So, we are talking about a difference of $610,000 per year overall. This is hardly a major concern at all.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
toxic offer
the only problem I could forsee is if another team made LMA an offer like KP gave to Millsap, but in this case the “guaranteed balloon payment” would coincide with the first year that Oden’s big extension kicks in, that could put the Blazers into deep luxury tax hell and send the Vulcans into panic mode
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
the Vulcans have already made noise
about wanting the Blazers to “break even”
and Paul isn’t going to be around, forever
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I agree
This is why he is in a strong position. It also gives him another year to make his case for a max contract.
On the other hand, he risks major injury. A career ending injury would be devastating if you’ve played it that way.
That’s why if he can get close to max now, he should take it. But he will be thinking he is likely to get max or close to it next summer, so he won’t be taking much less than that now.
On the other hand, if he plays at max or close to max level this year, it isn’t exactly going to hurt us to match a max contract, since we’re offering him fairly close to max now, I’m sure. So the team’s position is strong, too. In fact, if he looks like getting max next summer, we may just sign him to it so that we can set the structure rather than someone else.
So in a sense, both parties are probably thinking, “We might be better off if we wait,” but both are feeling a little risk here, too. We want a happy player. He doesn’t want a disastrous injury.
I think a deal gets done for close to max.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
worried, but not about keeping him long term
if we don’t extend him now, we will next summer, either directly then or through matching an RFA offer. I have no major worries about that at all. The chance of him playing for the QO in 2010-11 seem VERY remote.
My concern would much more be on the affect on his and the team’s play this year. It would be natural, and not at all a character flaw, that he would have internal conflicts throughout the season. This COULD, either consiously or subconciously, manifest itself in a variety of negative ways – he could be exerting too much pressure on himself to perfrom, hurting his game. He could try “too hard” at time, and be prone to trying too much to “get his” – again, not necessarily purposely. This could result in team turmoil as well as losses. All this would be my concern.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
by douglast on Sep 11, 2009 12:31 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Agreed
It’s not the end of the world if no extension is signed. But I’d much rather have him extended, for the reasons you bring up.
by Storyteller on Sep 11, 2009 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions
I offered this suggestion in another thread last week
What if the Blazers offer LMA the max amount possible in 2010-11 (paying him the same amount as Roy in that one season), but instead of giving him the maximum raise in later seasons, give him a smaller raise or even no raise at all. This does a couple of things:
1) It eliminates problems about negotiating a starting point for salary, leaving only negotiation about what yearly raises should be.
2) It gives LMA a bit of ‘up-front’ money. Instead of a contract that pays him $10 million, $11 million, $12 million, $13 million, $14 million – he’d get $12 million each year. Or instead of $11 million, $12 million, $13 million, $14 million, $15 million – he’d get $12 million, $12.5 million, $13 million, $13.5 million, $14 million. Same amount in the end but puts more money into LMA’s hands today.
3) I’d argue that it would be in the Blazer’s interest long-term to do so. Since there won’t be any major luxury tax issues for the team over the next couple of years but there could potentially be those issues in a few years when extensions for Oden, Fernandez, Batum, etc. kick in – why not pay Aldridge a little more today and a little less down the line? Reducing the future tax issues just a bit.
by Storyteller on Sep 11, 2009 12:36 PM PDT reply actions 5 recs
brilliant!
Or even modest raises, like 1 or 2%. Same general point. GREAT idea.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
Not bad
If he gets an option on the fifth year, though, you want him to be raking it in pretty well that year so he has incentive not to opt out.
So if you do this, maybe you hold the line on that — no opt out.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
Yeah, you shouldn't allow an opt-out under Storyteller's plan (which I also like).
I also mentioned that in the original thread that had Storyteller’s proposal. In Roy’s case the last year is over $19M, so there is less incentive to opt-out.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Sep 11, 2009 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions
"The Blazers want to pay him as much below the max number as possible without insulting his character and sending him into a rage. "
Ben knows this how? A source would be nice. I’d like to know if the Blazers are really trying to lowball LMA to just short of his rage threshold, or if that is Ben’s hyperactive and somewhat insulting prose…
Jason Quick on 95.5
He was just on and insinuated that management may actually be questioning the league on the feasability of a percentage based non-max contract, like many above have mentioned.
Could be pretty interesting if we were the first to sign such a contract. This could really set a trend if it turns out to be legal. That said, I’m sure the teams are all for it and the players not so much, especially since the agents are probably saying, “No way the BRI goes down that much next year!” while secretly suspecting that it will. What a fiasco.
Here’s to LaMarcus wanting to get his deal done badly enough that he’s willing to roll the dice a bit on the BRI as long as he feels his percentage is fair.
Except Quick phrased it as a "good faith" agreement to pay a percentage of the max.
“Good faith” is absurd (sounds like Quick is a business yokel). This sort of future-parameter based payout is done all the time in business contracts. Unless there is some specific prohibition against it in the CBA it would almost certainly be legal. I suspect that either they haven’t agreed on a specific percentage (only on the concept of a percentage, or approximate percentage), or the sides want additional floor and ceiling dollar amounts that they haven’t agreed upon.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Sep 11, 2009 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions
I still believe David Stern will decide if the league wants to go to % of max contracts before it can be done
The part of the league rules that empower King Stern would seem to allow him to prevent anything that he deems not good for the league.
This could indeed account for the holdup.
I think it's a safe assumption that this is the strategy every employer uses with their employees.
You pay them just enough so they won’t walk out, or be so grumpy they’ll perform poorly. Any more would be considered bad business.
Disclaimer: everything I know about basketball I learned on Blazersedge.
Ya think? There is no possibility at all that paying employees better than that
will result in improved performance and productivity and more than make up for lowball wages?
I work for a company that has that philosophy
Morale is great and productivity is very high.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
No you don't understand, the way to get the most from people is to grind them down until
they no longer resist. then when you stop they will thank you.
That’s how great businesses are built!
That creates an interesting question: Is LaMarcus 90% as good as Roy?
Maybe not. For example his PER is a whole 5 points lower (24 to 19) and his VA over 200 points (588 to 342), and those are stats that ‘like’ players like LaMarcus and defensively he doesn’t have much more impact than Roy.
But on the other hand, if Roy goes down with injury, can other players currently on the roster pick up 90% of what he is doing? Can other players pick up 90% of what LaMarcus is doing? Is he 90% as important as Roy for the team? Probably.
There's Gotta Be More To Life
His replacement cost is much closer to Roy than his actual value, for sure.
If we’d signed Millsap then I’m sure the Blazers would be much more aggressive in negotiations.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
That would work (in reverse) if every ticket holder were willing to pay $1.5K extra per year per seat
We could then afford to be $15M over the luxury tax limit ($30M cost with tax). With the talent we have coming up that will not be enough but they could peg ticket prices to a % of salary cap varied by the seating desirability so that the fans have the uncertainty of the ticket costs just like the players. Hmm – not too edible for most folks but the prices do have to ramp up as the demand has exceeded the supply.
I have little doubt that the Blazers will eventually extend him
Even if he becomes a free agent, he’ll be restricted and I believe the Blazers would match. What I worry about more is the psychological effect that would have on LaMarcus. He seems to somewhat sensitive and I don’t think it’s beyond the realm of possibility that he would feel slighted over something like this.
SOME PEOPLE ARE LIKE SLINKIES. NOT REALLY GOOD FOR ANYTHING BUT THEY BRING A SMILE TO YOUR FACE WHEN PUSHED DOWN THE STAIRS.
It is really a shame that Jason Quick doesn't understand the CBA (or ask Storyteller)
Here is what Quick wrote:
When a player signs a maximum contract – like Blazers guard Brandon Roy did in August – the first year of his contract is approximately 25 percent of that year’s BRI. The league typically releases those figures in the first week of July.
Approximately 25% of BRI would be $3.608 billion X 25% or $902M … I don’t think so Jason!

by 






























