Comments on: Exploring NBA Contracts Based on Performance, Rather Than Potential

By: Mikenstein

Mikenstein — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:35:51 +0000

I love the idea here, however it leaves out an important portion of what a player’s salary represents: expected ticket sales. Fans’ perception of players ability, or more accurately, their likability, drives salaries more than expected win shares do. Otherwise, how do you explain the Clippers. In all seriousness, for years, the signed players (albeit not the max salary types) to large-ish contracts, but never really planned on winning much. That may have changed in L.A.’s other team, but that is how it seemed for years.

By: Woodrow Howe

Woodrow Howe — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:43:38 +0000

Win shares as an incentive/bonus coupled with a base salary is an innovative solution. It still gives players peace of mind knowing that a paycheck is coming their way even if they’re injured or having an off year. This method is really just a more accurate way of measuring a player’s worth in comparison to NBA executives eye-balling the situation. Still, the biggest problem to fair contracts is free agency. Unless players are signing yearly contracts, then teams will still overbid on players to get them on long-term contracts for more than they’re really worth. However, the teams save the money they would have paid to injured and non-contributing players.

By: Roger Pimentel

Roger Pimentel — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:12:49 +0000

Late thought: it’s possible that the big contracts are valuable to some young players, as it gives them a reminder of what’s expected of them. Tying salary directly to performance, in a non-immediate way, rewards the self-starters and any other players that don’t need a carrot right in front of them.

I haven’t decided if that’s good or bad.