Did Lebron James Make the Right Decision?

[Superman]

With respect to Supes' suggestions, if the NBA had a player's union as strong as, say, Major League Baseball, it wouldn't be as significant an issue. In my personal opinion, I think that the union should negotiate that free agents should not be allowed to sign for less than a certain percentage below their relative market value, unless they're staying with their original team. Like when Duncan took a little less than the max so that San Antonio could build a better team around him. And, yes, even Dwyane Wade should be commended for doing the same thing... But, while there are all kinds of people trying to defend James and Bosh's decision from a player standpoint, and a free agent standpoint, I think that, overall, it hurts the players' bargaining power to have max players signing for significantly less than the max to form the Superfriends on one team.

I mean, some people got paid this summer, but as you'll recall the chronology of it, that was before James and Bosh changed the game. And, now that they have, it's going to be to the detriment of the "midcard" teams of the NBA. Certainly, the Heat and the gd lakers will still be able to get quality players to sign with the for the vet minimum, or the LLE, and that's good for them, not so good for the Pacers and Bobcats and Hornets. Which, in turn, hurts the players: You're not going to continue to see "glue guys" like Sefalosha end up on a midcard team, because they're not going to sign with a midcarder for low dollars, and midcarders aren't going to pay them a lot when they know that there's only two, maybe three teams that are actually in contention.

This is a completely arbitrary number, but I think ninety percent works: I think that the player's union should negotiate for the next CBA that players cannot sign for less than ninety percent of their market value, unless they're staying with their original team and/or the team that has their bird rights.

How do you determine market value?

My soft objection is that no star free agents in their primes are taking less to play for a contender. Seems like we're fixing a problem that doesn't exist. I don't care if Matt Barnes takes less to go to the Lakers. I think that's his prerogative. The more effective way to fix it is to make it impossible for a team that's $35+ million over the cap to keep adding players.

 

[bloom]

Rumor has it that 3 of the 4 coaches on the 2004 Olympic squad wanted to make him the first guy cut from the roster, and not because of lack of talent, either.

I wonder what kind of statement that would have made at the time.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

How do you determine market value?

:: shrugs ::

Don't nuke it, Supes; determine market value however it's been determined before now. Seems reasonable enough to me. There is clearly some kind of pay scale that already exists, because all players don't get paid the same amount of money. So, presumably, there is some sort of criteria, whether it is written down or not, that determines market value, which is accepted by the league at large. So, use the mechanism that's already in place: according to criteria X, Player #1's market value is $Y million dollars, so you negotiate for the next CBA that he can only sign for less than ninety percent of Y if he stays with the team that has his Bird rights.

As far as your objection to stopping tax-heavy teams from adding players... at the risk of possibly offending some people, that seems to me as being a little like a battered wife telling the judge that she doesn't want them so send her husband to jail, she just wants them to make him stop hitting her. You can't do it. Short of a hard cap, I don't think you can ever make owners who are willing to pay the tax not do it.

 

[Superman]

:: shrugs ::

Don't nuke it, Supes; determine market value however it's been determined before now. Seems reasonable enough to me. There is clearly some kind of pay scale that already exists, because all players don't get paid the same amount of money. So, presumably, there is some sort of criteria, whether it is written down or not, that determines market value, which is accepted by the league at large. So, use the mechanism that's already in place: according to criteria X, Player #1's market value is $Y million dollars, so you negotiate for the next CBA that he can only sign for less than ninety percent of Y if he stays with the team that has his Bird rights.

We just saw Darko Milicic get a $20 million contract. Rudy Gay and Joe Johnson got grossly overpaid. It's kind of hard to determine market value. Also, it differs from one team to the next. If you're desperate for a backup point guard, you'll pay Beno Udrih $32 million over five years, even though most other teams might not come close to that offer. I'm not trying to nuke it, I just don't know if you can say "this is market value for this player".

As far as your objection to stopping tax-heavy teams from adding players... at the risk of possibly offending some people, that seems to me as being a little like a battered wife telling the judge that she doesn't want them so send her husband to jail, she just wants them to make him stop hitting her. You can't do it. Short of a hard cap, I don't think you can ever make owners who are willing to pay the tax not do it.

You misunderstood me. I was saying that I don't think players signing for less is a huge deal, because it's usually role players that do it. You don't see very many star players in their prime taking significantly less money to go play for a ring. Even with LeBron and Bosh, they wound up making more than they would have just signing outright, even though they took less than they could have from their Bird teams. It's not exactly like they decided to go play for the Lakers for the veteran minimum. The only time you see that happen is when a player is past his prime, like Malone and Payton in 2004. I thought Ray Allen might leave the Celtics for less money, but he signed for $10 million per. It's just not a prevalent issue that players leave a ton of money on the table.

As for the hard cap, I agree that it's hard to keep owners from going over without making it against the rules. I'm sort of a proponent of a hard cap. I think it has its pros and its cons, and I think there might be a way to do it and make it more flexible than the NFL's hard cap, but I do think it's a fundamental change that the NBA needs to make.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

As far as your objection to stopping tax-heavy teams from adding players... at the risk of possibly offending some people, that seems to me as being a little like a battered wife telling the judge that she doesn't want them so send her husband to jail, she just wants them to make him stop hitting her. You can't do it. Short of a hard cap, I don't think you can ever make owners who are willing to pay the tax not do it.

You misunderstood me. I was saying that I don't think players signing for less is a huge deal, because it's usually role players that do it. You don't see very many star players in their prime taking significantly less money to go play for a ring. Even with LeBron and Bosh, they wound up making more than they would have just signing outright, even though they took less than they could have from their Bird teams. It's not exactly like they decided to go play for the Lakers for the veteran minimum. The only time you see that happen is when a player is past his prime, like Malone and Payton in 2004. I thought Ray Allen might leave the Celtics for less money, but he signed for $10 million per. It's just not a prevalent issue that players leave a ton of money on the table.

As for the hard cap, I agree that it's hard to keep owners from going over without making it against the rules. I'm sort of a proponent of a hard cap. I think it has its pros and its cons, and I think there might be a way to do it and make it more flexible than the NFL's hard cap, but I do think it's a fundamental change that the NBA needs to make.

I didn't misunderstand you: the above paragraph which you quoted does not address the "players taking less" issue at all. My admittedly tactless comparison to an abused wife wanting her husband to stop hitting her was in response to the singular comment, "The more effective way to fix it is to make it impossible for a team that's $35+ million over the cap to keep adding players," because I don't think that you can make a team that's $35M over the cap keep from adding players, because the rules allow for a team to add one (?) player a year over the cap, using the exception and, as long as the owner is willing to pay the luxury tax, they have the right to do it. But, with respect to those comments, if you don't think that it's a big deal, then we have different working definitions of "big deal."

 

[Superman]

I didn't misunderstand you: the above paragraph which you quoted does not address the "players taking less" issue at all. My admittedly tactless comparison to an abused wife wanting her husband to stop hitting her was in response to the singular comment, "The more effective way to fix it is to make it impossible for a team that's $35+ million over the cap to keep adding players," because I don't think that you can make a team that's $35M over the cap keep from adding players, because the rules allow for a team to add one (?) player a year over the cap, using the exception and, as long as the owner is willing to pay the luxury tax, they have the right to do it. But, with respect to those comments, if you don't think that it's a big deal, then we have different working definitions of "big deal."

Okay, to table the issue about teams adding players even when they're over the cap, I think the NBA should do something to curtail that, although in a less restrictive way than the NFL does.

As for players signing for less, what players are taking less than "market value" to go play for a contender? Who is it that's leaving money on the table to go to a team that's in better position to win? It's usually players that aren't in very high demand (Matt Barnes), or players that are over the hill and chasing a ring (Gary Payton, Karl Malone). We're not talking about players in their primes leaving millions of dollars on the table to go to a winner. Even in LeBron's case, he and Bosh took more than what Miami could offer them outright because of the sign and trade. It amounts to 88% of the max they could have signed for with the Bird team, which is probably close enough to make the 90% rule work with another salary dump by Miami. Or they could have just signed outright with Miami and been at max for a non-Bird free agent.

That's what I'm saying isn't a big deal. And the only reason I'm saying that it's not a big deal is because players taking less than market value doesn't happen all that often. If it does, please show me who is leaving money on the table, and how much. To my mind, it doesn't happen very often.

It's also worth noting that Payton and Malone hopped on the Laker bandwagon the year before this current CBA was finalized, so if the players' association or the NBA wanted to do something about it, they probably would have tried back in 2005.

 

[Superman]

FWIW, this is what I posted in the Heat vs. Lakers thread about a hard cap:

As for building dynasties, in short order, Miami will be at $70 million. If you want to fight a hard cap, then institute a crippling luxury tax, one that progressively increases the restrictions on a team that's over the cap. Set the tax threshold at the cap, and make the tax percentage increase every season that you remain over the threshold. With yearly increases in player salary, a team has to scale back after a couple of seasons. And for the billionaire owners who don't care about a $40 million tax payment every year, you take away the MLE and the ability to hand out extensions once a team is over the cap.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

As for players signing for less, what players are taking less than "market value" to go play for a contender? Who is it that's leaving money on the table to go to a team that's in better position to win? It's usually players that aren't in very high demand (Matt Barnes), or players that are over the hill and chasing a ring (Gary Payton, Karl Malone). We're not talking about players in their primes leaving millions of dollars on the table to go to a winner. Even in LeBron's case, he and Bosh took more than what Miami could offer them outright because of the sign and trade. It amounts to 88% of the max they could have signed for with the Bird team, which is probably close enough to make the 90% rule work with another salary dump by Miami. Or they could have just signed outright with Miami and been at max for a non-Bird free agent.

That's what I'm saying isn't a big deal. And the only reason I'm saying that it's not a big deal is because players taking less than market value doesn't happen all that often. If it does, please show me who is leaving money on the table, and how much. To my mind, it doesn't happen very often.

It's also worth noting that Payton and Malone hopped on the Laker bandwagon the year before this current CBA was finalized, so if the players' association or the NBA wanted to do something about it, they probably would have tried back in 2005.

Of course the player's association isn't going to do anything about it, they don't care about competitve balance. In fact, looking at what's going on in Miami, it seems clear to me that the players don't care about competition much at all.

And if you don't think that Matt Barnes took significantly less money to play for the gd lakers, or that Udonis Haslem took significantly less money to stay with Miami, then I will just state that you and I have divergently different opinions on what their respective market values are. Those are two important role players that do all the little things that teams need to do in order to win in the playoffs. Let me go ahead and withdraw from this conversation: you seem to be saying that it's okay, as long as the megastars don't do it, and I'm saying, not really. I don't think that we're going to reach détente on this.

EDIT - Apropos of nothing, it amuses me that Kobe Bryant seems to trend towards wanting Mitch Kupchak to try to sign all the players (Artest, Bell, Barnes) in the league that are willing to get in his face.

 

[Superman]

Of course the player's association isn't going to do anything about it, they don't care about competitve balance. In fact, looking at what's going on in Miami, it seems clear to me that the players don't care about competition much at all.

And if you don't think that Matt Barnes took significantly less money to play for the gd lakers, or that Udonis Haslem took significantly less money to stay with Miami, then I will just state that you and I have divergently different opinions on what their respective market values are. Those are two important role players that do all the little things that teams need to do in order to win in the playoffs. Let me go ahead and withdraw from this conversation: you seem to be saying that it's okay, as long as the megastars don't do it, and I'm saying, not really. I don't think that we're going to reach détente on this.

I don't think it's okay, I just don't think it's something that anyone in a position to do anything about it will do anything about. For every Matt Barnes who takes less, you have a Raja Bell who says "**** you, pay me." I don't think Matt Barnes taking a couple million less is going to be a sticking point at the negotiating table for the next CBA. That's what I mean when I say it's not a big deal.

** I just looked up the Haslem deal, and it seems like he left a total of $14 million on the table to stay with Miami. That's a big deal. That's a signing that helps Miami be a complete team, and without it they'd be in really sore straits. But that's not the reason it's a big deal. With Drew Gooden and Hakim Warrick and Channing Frye setting the market at about $30-32 million for that caliber of a player, and with Dallas and Denver offering him that much, it's apparent that his Miami deal was a huge discount. That's "significantly less", to play for a contender. I was of the impression that he left $4 or 5 million on the table, but it was waaay more than that.

EDIT - Apropos of nothing, it amuses me that Kobe Bryant seems to trend towards wanting Mitch Kupchak to try to sign all the players (Artest, Bell, Barnes) in the league that are willing to get in his face.

Curious, isn't it?

 

[Superman]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/conceited-prick-thinks-other-conceited-prick-not-c,17774/

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Outstanding.

 

[Mad D]

 

[jalfa]

EDIT - Apropos of nothing, it amuses me that Kobe Bryant seems to trend towards wanting Mitch Kupchak to try to sign all the players (Artest, Bell, Barnes) in the league that are willing to get in his face.

“Kobe has been the driving force behind this. I have been talking to Kobe back and forth like we were boyfriend and girlfriend for the last two weeks and sending us texts and talking. It feels good when you have the best player in the world in your corner and Kobe is definitely in my corner. He sent me a crazy text message today saying something like, anyone crazy enough to mess with me is crazy enough to play with me. So I think that was a good tone to set and I think I am ready to be a Laker.”

http://sportsradiointerviews.com/20...the-table-i-knew-that-i-wanted-to-be-a-laker/

 

[Gargamel]

Haha. Nice.

 

[hrdboild]

"Don't think for one min that I haven't been taking mental notes of everyone taking shots at me this summer," James wrote on his Twitter page. "And I mean everyone!"

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/68628/20100810/lebron_says_hes_keeping_track_of_critics/

This is exactly how not to help your case Lebron. Good stuff.

Oh, and that Paul Shirley article linked on the previous page was a surprisingly good read. It's only peripherally about Lebron. His comments about professional sports in general are well-considered.

 

[Spike]

I too, have been taking mental notes of everyone taking shots at me this summer. Game on Lebron; game on.