Perkins is a really interesting case study in NBA Salary management.
Here are the top NBA Centers, in terms of production, Perkins excluded, and their salary. The first number is this year, and the following numbers are each other year, as far as their contract goes, in no real order. I know some of these guys are arguably not centers, but bear with me.
Ming (when healthy) 16.4, 17.7
Kaman 10.4, 11.3, 12.2
Horford 4.3, 5.4
Duncan 22.2, 18.7, 21.3
Camby 7.7
Howard 15.1, 16.5, 17.9, 19.2
Lee 7
Stoudemire 16.4, 17.7
Bynum 12.5, 13.8, 15.2, 16.3 (team option)
So, my question to you is this:
How do you price Perkins.
He wasn't an All-Star, but his agent would argue that he is, and he was overlooked by voters. His agent would argue that he is going to make 2nd team All NBA defense this year, and his agent would argue that he shuts down Dwight Howard.
His agent would say, "you've given Rondo 55 or 5 years, and Rondo and Perkins are the only 2 palyers on your team who will be here in 4 years, so you better sign him."
I think the Celtics are going to have to pay Kaman money for Perkins - I think after this offseason ends they offer hiim 4 years, 44 million, much like they did Rondo's contract. Our books for the 2011/2012 season will look like this, and you can expect a hard cap at around 55 million after we miss the entire 2010-2011 season
Garnett - Last year of his contract, 21.2 million. Fuc& me.
Wallace - 6.8 million, last year of his deal, thats DEF a trade-able contract
Rondo - 10 million
So where does that leave Pierce? It leaves him not on the Celtics, thats where it leaves him. He's going to want at least 15/year for 5 years, he is playing very good basketball, it'd be hard to give him less. But thats reality, and players don't want to see the reality.
If the hard is at 60 milion, lets say its at 60, there is 21.2 + 6.8 + 10, which is 38 of the 60 million, on 3 players, 2 of which are completely over the hill. You'll need to give Perk his 10(ish), which brings you to 48 million of your 60 - and thats a high number.
How does this league adjust to this? How do you tell all this to Perkins this offseason as a reason why he needs to be paid Horford money, not Kaman money.
How do you tell David Lee this season, thanks for your work, but you're not getting a raise (actually, you tell him he can't play defense, that's how...)
Maybe im looking at things the wrong way.
3 comments:
Nick, can you forward this to Ainge? I really want to hear what he has to say about this... actually, can you forward it to Simmons too, I'd like to hear his thoughts as well.
I think the reason this isn't as bad as it seems is that the NBA won't be able to put a hard cap at $60m without some kind of grandfather clause for existing contracts. If you look at Simmons' most recent column, he has the top 25 worst contracts. Some of them are short enough or small enough to not make a big deal, but there are 10 or so teams that would essentially have to forfeit the first hard cap year because they can't afford a full roster under the cap, including some big markets. I don't see Stern letting that happen. I'd expect a hard cap with exemptions for some percentage of existing contracts.
Keely, I wrote this email to a Celtics email group I am a part of a few weeks ago - specifically check out #6.
"Driving home last night, chris broussard was on one of the Sirius sports channels talking about the owners collective bargaining agreement proposal, these were some of the highlights of their initial proposal to the players. Keep in mind, the players union essentially came right out and said, "we are going to be locked out," after reading this.
Players currently collect 2.2 billion in salary across all teams. The owners want that to be 1.5 billion in year 1 of the CBA. That is about a 30% drop in salaries.
Players currently collect about 57% of the income of the league - owners want that to be closer to 45%. I am not sure if these first 2 points make sense mathematically, but thats what I heard/read.
Owners want the maximum years on a contract to go from six, to four.
Owners want there to be a 100% hard salary cap. No Mid Level Exemptions, no Larry Bird rights, nothing. Essentially, what that means is if you have a hard cap of 50 Million, and you are the Cavs and have 48 Million promised to other players in year 1 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), you can only offer Lebron 2 Million. And this wouldn't go into effect in some hypothetical year, this would go into effect starting year 1 of the CBA.
No contracts would be guaranteed. Blake Griffin, for example, who got 6.8 guaranteed over his first 2 seasons could potentially just be cut (like in the NFL) and not receive anything (except signing bonuses, etc.)
And this is the craziest, ever. Owners want, as soon as this thing is signed, to be able to go back and take all of the 5 & 6 year deals, and have them renegotiated down to 4. In addition, they want to make sure that no team is over a cap. So, if you take the Celtics as an example, say they are going to be 8 million over the cap in year 1 of the CBA. They will start with 5 & 6 year deals, and say there are none, they will have to then find some of the other deals and renegotiate to get under the cap. That is completely, 100% insane.
My personal feeling on all this is really that the players are going to get public support and there will be a lockout. These conditions above are just starting points in negotiations, but I do think some of them are legitimately insane. Broussard said that nobody thinks the players have leverage on the owners side, but he keeps reminding them that some of these guys are excited about the idea of playing in Europe - with some of their best friends, and making limitless money.
The owners biggest beef is that they say owning a franchise is a money loser - they give away more than they take in...EXCEPT when it comes time to sell. Mark Cuban, for example, says he is losing money every year. Maybe he is. However, if he loses 5 million a year, for 10 years, he loses 50 million, but owners refuse to accept the fact that appreciation on the franchises they own is far greater than that. If he bought that Mavericks for 100 million, that franchise has to be worth 300 million by now, if not a half a billion.
They act as if that appreciation isn't anything - they act like if they money they sink into their team over time isn't part of the equation that gets them to a point of earning millions and hundreds of millions, just by being owners.
Anyway, its going to be interesting to see how this all shakes out - right now they are SO far apart."
Post a Comment