Friday, July 4, 2014

Sacrifice Grunt: Doug Smith is the exception that proves the rule

I just had to FJM this. I tried to let it go. I tried to write my Blogger password on a sheet of paper then swallow it then poop it out while squatting out of a helicopter over the Pacific Ocean.

See I was just in too darn goofy a mood after the very reasonable signings of CAPTAIN KYLE Lowry and Patrick Patterson  these last few days. I'm lightheaded. It's like I've sniffed too many thundersticks.

But then Grunty...



NBA players "sacrificing" money may turn out to be much ado about nothing

You remember these posts. Something might be happening but it might not be a big deal. Your President of the Basketball Writers Association of the Galaxy, folks.


I would take far more seriously this seemingly major concern about NBA players being willing to take less money on contracts than they might have made because they want to band together with others to form what they see as super teams build solely for championships if, you know, it was true.

I'll happily (angrily) spell out what is not going on in run-on sentences.

That would be troubling in a couple of ways. I think other players would rightfully be miffed because it would skew the market and probably end up costing them some money in the long term. 

Who is costing whom money now? The fact that Tony Parker (making $12.5m) could have negotiated for more has no tangible effect on the competitive market for other players except for some GM trying unsuccessfully to convince another player to do the same. And there's no evidence this is happening for the average player or if it is, that it's effective.

It would be upsetting to GMs and owners who are used to being the ones to set the market, although I don’t mind the players exercising more control while not circumventing any rules because they are the product and the reason to the unreal wealth anyway. I can see it’d be upsetting to agents, who would lose money for themselves but I’m not a big fan of some agents anyway so that’s not a big problem.

I mean, these are words, Straw Doug. You have written words. I'll give you that. All words.

But the fact is, it doesn’t seem to be happening, at least not if you believe the writers I believe who’ve been all over the story since before free agency began.

Considering the four biggest free agents have not signed anything there's absolutely no way to agree or disagree with this.

It now seems that LeBron James is bent on making the largest salary he can, even if it means moving again; Carmelo Anthony is talking the good talk about wanting to win while looking for as much cash as he can get.

That is not the narrative that's being reported (though of course, who the fuck knows?) What's being alleged is that LeBron wants to sign for the maximum possible under the cap, and still wants the Heat to have flexibility to sign players and improve the roster with the implication that Wade and Bosh should sign for less to do so. If true, it's a reasonable, if not artful argument.

We don’t know what the other two out there that people are worried about – Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade – will ultimately do but I don’t see either of them as “maximum” salary players at this point in their careers anyway. Maybe at one point they were but times change and I don’t think there should be any entitlement to a second “max” contract just because some player got a first one.

Wade is much beyond his peak and may not have more than three years left in the league, pending his body. Bosh has settled into a certain class of playing. Both players would be offered max deals outside of Miami (though it's possible no team would guarantee Wade four years, but... Lakers). 

Times and circumstances change and so should the market.

So, a mid-column recap: players aren't conspiring to take less money (devils!) to build super teams (super devils!!) to win championships (666!!!!!!!) and they shouldn't but they're not and they shouldn't. Also, the players who might want to aren't worth the money anyways so they wouldn't be giving up money because they don't deserve that money so there's no conspiracy and there was no conspiracy to begin with because... grunty. 

I guess Dirk Nowitzki taking far less than he could have might be the exception that proves the rule but I also suppose that’s understandable given his place in Dallas, just as it’s understandable and accepted that Tim Duncan does what he does in salary in San Antonio.

"No dogs allowed on subway before 6 p.m." is an exception that proves a rule. You just mean "an exception." Please beg a question soon... 

Also, two players are taking less salary to build super teams to win championships (Dirk, Tim) but that's okay because they do what they do.

(Funny how we don’t hear a lot of criticism of them, isn’t it?)

Wait, I forget which side we're straw arguing? We shouldn't complain about money sacrificing?

Anyway, as with several things, I’m a bit of a hard-ass when it comes to maximum value contracts on principle; I’d say there are a handful of players – James, Durant, Duncan, maybe Tony Parker, Blake Griffin, possibly Chris Paul – who are worthy of them anyway. 

HARD. ASS. Tim Duncan deserves $23 million. at age 37. Chris Paul, maybe? Otherwise teams should lose their own free agents and miss out on others' because of the principle. A man has to have principles.

I think they should be not a reward for past performance but deals offered for what people bring to the table now. They should be reserved for the special players and I wish a majority of GMs thought the same way.

They did think that way, Grunt Fart. It resulted in a lock out that made me sad and weepy. Players, overall, are getting paid less, compared to the revenue owners reap. The ceiling (maximum salary) was lowered. LeBron James--worth, maybe $50 million a year, can't make half of that. If that's not special, what the fuck is?

To get back to the original point, I would imagine when all this free agency stuff shakes out in the next week or so, the guys who should get the biggest money will get the biggest money and the others will get something less. And if that means a reduction in salary, it won’t be because they have conspired to do it, it will hopefully be because that’s the most logical financial move for teams.

Things will happen. Probably the way everyone who's talking about them happening will happen. But it won't because it's much ado about nothing. But when it does happen exactly like (wrong) people say it will it will be because these players are not as talented and have realized this and are using pay cuts to conveniently claim to the world that they are sacrificers. GMs should agree with Grunty, he wishes. And they do. But of course they don't.

As it should be.

Principles!!!!!

No comments: