How have unprofessional players screwed over your team?

[coin24]

^^^ I used to love watching those early 00s Blazers teams, shame they could never get it together...

Even now, if they had there whole roster healthy they would be top 2-3 team in the west... Must be tough being a Blazer fan...



Actually, the pacers after they blew the team up after the brawl.... damn theyve had a bad run aswell..



Anyways its not like we're going to see any games for a long time now

[Toizumi]

^^^ I used to love watching those early 00s Blazers teams, shame they could never get it together...

Most people did back then.. how could someone not like them with plays like these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C0iK_3FgAY

A lot of fun to watch. Solid on both ends of the court, great in transition and they had good finishers.

Even now, if they had there whole roster healthy they would be top 2-3 team in the west... Must be tough being a Blazer fan...

It's ok since we have good guys on the rosters and have been winning. The injuries hurt us of course, but we've been a playoff m for the past few years and after those Zach Randolph led teams we had mid decade, everything 'll do

Actually, the pacers after they blew the team up after the brawl.... damn theyve had a bad run aswell..

Anyways its not like we're going to see any games for a long time now

Good one.

The brawl cost them the season and in a way messed up their future, but in the long term it only really cost them Ron Artest (who was traded the season after). He would've been a big part of their future and they were contenders for winning the east that year, so the brawl hurt the pacers, but they didn't trade away any of the guys that were involved in the brawl.

Jackson and Tinsley had that stripclub shooting thing as well though right? Enough contreversy and stupid unproffesional stuff within the organization back then

[Sarcastic]

http://people.bu.edu/arupsen/rice_sen_CONTRACTS.pdf

This study shows the contract year phenomenon is not as big an issue as people think in the NBA.


Did Steve Nash start to get lazy after he signed as a free agent with Phoenix in 2004? He won back to back MVPs, no?

Did Shaq start to get lazy after he signed as a free agent with the Lakers? MVP, 3 rings, 3 FMVP.

Did Albert Haynesworth continue to play his ass off for the Redskins because he was scared to get cut due to his non guaranteed contract?

[StroShow4]

The Gilbert Arenas/Isiah Knicks examples aren't really examples of players screwing teams. Those are examples of teams screwing themselves.

[Fatal9]

http://people.bu.edu/arupsen/rice_sen_CONTRACTS.pdf

This study shows the contract year phenomenon is not as big an issue as people think in the NBA.

I would suggest you actually read the results of your linked study.

The two results they found in that one were (and I quote this):

A) These results re-emphasize that player productivity is negatively associated with time until contract renewal.

Meaning the productivity increases as time until contract renewal decreases. Or in other words productivity is lowest when time until contract renewal is longest.

B) [I]We final that relative to the year prior (i.e., the final year of the previous contract), player productivity falls by 16%, lending support to the hypothesis of decreased e

[Sarcastic]

Did you read the whole thing? It's ok if you didn't.

3. in spite of this shirking, the multi-period guaranteed contract may be Pareto efficient

The model lends a sound economic justification for the existence
of multi-period contracts in spite of the effort effects: with uncertain output, these contracts act
as insurance for the agent and, in return for bearing some of the risk, firms benefit by paying a
lower wage

[HylianNightmare]

rashard lewis sucking after he got off his drugs
doug christie pouting when he got shipped to the magic

[Fatal9]

You realize whether a contract is Pareto efficient/inefficient doesn't depend on the productivity of the player right (it only leaves open to the possibility that contracts with a player producing less may still be mutually benefit to both sides)? Secondly, the second sentence you quoted is followed by this paragraph which suggests incentive based contracts:

[I]To the extent that multi-period contracts give reduced effort incentives, one might wonder if there is any economic justification as to why NBA contracts, and those in other labor markets, are written in this fixed-wage manner. Indeed, an optimal contract should include all (free) contingencies which provide information regarding the agent

[Sarcastic]

Jesus Christ man, finish reading.

there may exist
efficiency reasons for paying fixed-wages because any attempt to specifically engineer incentives
to motivate hard work in every period may conflict with other team or league-wide profitability
goals. Thus, including an array of bonuses is not "free" since their presence may give rise to
new sources of inefficiencies. Including additional year-by-year player bonuses in the NBA for
surpassing a prespecified points-scored threshold, for instance, may motivate the player to shoot
at every opportunity which, in-turn, conflicts with sound teamwork that is valued by fans and is
critical for overall franchise success

[Fatal9]

Jesus Christ man, finish reading.

How about you point by point go against what I'm saying and what the results found, instead scouring the article for possible inferences, suggestions and warnings that may support what you're saying (and passing those off as results).

Quit unconditionally supporting the players on everything, it's pathetic to see some of the arguments you're making on here. I almost feel like I'm being trolled here. Contract years players exist and exist much more in NBA compared to other sports. This is not arguable.

Productivity of players goes down significantly after they sign new contracts, fact. Productivity of players rises as contract renewal approaches, fact. And the study you posted (and every study done on this) finds this to be true. Most NBA fans don't even need studies to tell them this because they've followed the league and their teams closely enough to see this happen every year.

And incentive based contracts can be structured not only on individual performance but through a combination of team performance as well. Regardless, shorter and non-guaranteed contracts would be the cure to this problem. I'm NOT for non-guaranteed contracts because I do believe that players overall deserve some level of security (but maybe more team options though, but in a way that protects the player in case of legitimate injuries during the duration of the contract). Shorter contract lengths will be part of the cure to this problem. The owners are absolutely right in demanding them, maybe there would be more sympathy for the players had they not taken advantage by duping teams like this.

[JohnnyWall]

Three divas turning us into a media-whore joke of a team.



Wait, nevermind... I'm not actually a Heat fan

[kurple]

It wasn't his unprofessionalism that ****ed us, but the KMart contract was terrible and made it impossible to add good FA's when he was always injured

[Sarcastic]

How about you point by point go against what I'm saying and what the results found, instead scouring the article for possible inferences, suggestions and warnings that may support what you're saying (and passing those off as results).

Quit unconditionally supporting the players on everything, it's pathetic to see some of the arguments you're making on here. I almost feel like I'm being trolled here. Contract years players exist and exist much more in NBA compared to other sports. This is not arguable.

Productivity of players goes down significantly after they sign new contracts, fact. Productivity of players rises as contract renewal approaches, fact. And the study you posted (and every study done on this) finds this to be true. Most NBA fans don't even need studies to tell them this because they've followed the league and their teams closely enough to see this happen every year.

And incentive based contracts can be structured not only on individual performance but through a combination of team performance as well. Regardless, shorter and non-guaranteed contracts would be the cure to this problem. I'm NOT for non-guaranteed contracts because I do believe that players overall deserve some level of security (but maybe more team options though, but in a way that protects the player in case of legitimate injuries during the duration of the contract). Shorter contract lengths will be part of the cure to this problem. The owners are absolutely right in demanding them, maybe there would be more sympathy for the players had they not taken advantage by duping teams like this.

Just because you don't get it, and hate the rich players for making money for basketball doesn't mean I am wrong.

Let's say we move to a model where everyone is on a 1 year contract, and has to prove himself every year. First thing you would have to do is get rid of the caps since pay is directly tied to performance. No more team salary caps, and no more caps on max salaries. Someone like Lebron James is now going to be trying to stat pad at every opportunity he has. He will be looking to put up 40/15/15 every night so he can maximize his pay. So instead of paying Lebron his $15 million or whatever he made last year, he will now be demanding $50 million plus every year. This is going to happen league wide with all the stars, and team salaries are going to go up everywhere.

Guaranteed contracts help both sides of the equation, and this is what the paper was getting at. It allows the owners to save money from having to pay out extra every year because players are blowing out their numbers, and it helps the players out by taking away the risk that comes with not hitting certain numbers. It also brings about selfishness, which goes against the principles of team basketball.

Let's say you were to implement team incentives as well. What could end up happening with that situation is that more and more stars could decide to band together and create even more super teams, while leaving everyone else in the dust.

Another possible problem with this model is what would stop a team from deciding to force a player to sit down before reaching certain goals? We already saw this with Nate Robinson on the Knicks. He was benched before hitting goals he had in his contract, and was promptly released by the team.

I believe Vince Carter was released from Phoenix in a similar situation.


If you really want to watch selfish basketball, you can always watch And 1.

[PowerGlove]

I have no ill will towards Vince, as an organization, we sucked. Ran his cousin out of town, a player who could have given us the greatest SG-SF combo in NBA history. Constantly put him on shitty teams, blew draft picks like crazy.

[gasolina]

He will be looking to put up 40/15/15 every night so he can maximize his pay. So instead of paying Lebron his $15 million or whatever he made last year, he will now be demanding $50 million plus every year. This is going to happen league wide with all the stars, and team salaries are going to go up everywhere.

ok so why didn't Lebron do 40/15/15 in his last year w/ Cleveland? All you assumptions are hypothetical and exaggerated. Why not focus on facts like actual stats of NBA players in their contract year and the dropoff after?