Henry Abbott – at TrueHoop – typically offers a list of links each day. But Thursday has just about come and gone (it is gone on the East Coast) and no bullets appeared. So here are some late Thursday bullets.
- Let’s begin with what did appear at TrueHoop today. Henry offered a handy chart describing how the various offers in the NBA lockout negotiations will impact player salaries. In the discussion, Henry notes that some of what David Stern has said recently about the owners’ offer “is somewhere between splitting hairs and a ruse”.
- Maurice Evans — in an interview with Sam Amick of Sports Illustrated – has even stronger words to say about the owners’ offer. One argument the owners make is that they have shared their financial information with the players, and these statements establish the owners’ claims. From what Evans has to say, the numbers from the owners is not convincing the players.
- Sticking with Sports Illustrated… Zach Lowe has a very good discussion of why a hard cap bothers the players. Zach’s discussion quotes several people who provide explanations of the players’ position.
- Zach Lowe’s article also links to a column by Mike Wise from the Washington Post. This column notes that the owners have a problem with guaranteed contracts to players like Eddy Curry. The owners seem to understand that guaranteed money reduces a player’s incentives. I would note, though, that these same owners say they want a system that will guarantee each team a profit. So apparently they can see issues with incentives in other people. For themselves, such issues remain hidden. Perhaps a post on this issue would be a good idea.
- Let me close with a non-lockout link. Alex Konkel (i.e. the Sport Skeptic) has a very interesting post on how long a team who is out of the playoffs has to wait to see the postseason again. According to Alex, future playoff spots go to teams that are either very good or very bad today. If your team is in the middle the future is less happy.
– DJ
Posted in: Basketball Stories
Wages of Wins Journal 
A.K.S.
August 26, 2011
Your comments about the Mike Wise article do not appear to me to be accurate. As far as I can tell, the owners do not “want a system that will guarantee each team a profit”. They want a system that reduces one component of their expenses (player salaries). Whether the teams make a profit would depend on the remaining expenses and revenues — just as it does now. Certainly if the main expense component is reduced, owners are more likely to make profits. But “guaranteed”? No.
Moreover, I think you misstate the owners’ main problem with lengthy guaranteed contracts. Yes, there is some element that they reduce incentives for the players to play hard. But more important, I think, is that, given the salary cap system, if an owner makes a mistake in giving a lengthy guaranteed contract, it has dire consequences for improving the team for a long time. That is, not only does the owner waste money in paying a player who doesn’t help the team, but more importantly it prevents the team from acquiring and paying OTHER players who could help the team for a long time. A mistake thus not only is a waste of $X million (which many owners could probably live with), but it is also is a severe impediment to future competitiveness.