Not quite sure how to feel about Antawn Jamison's new contract. It sounds like folly to offer a big money contract to a 32 year-old, but there's been no deterioration in his skills so maybe it'll pay off. But who were the Wizards bidding against here?
« Numbers Tell | Main | Steele on White Guilt »
A Country for Old Men
30 Jun 2008 08:07 pm
Comments (10)
According to Ivan Carter's posts on the contract its no front-loaded and in may in fact be a bit of the opposite with less money in the beginning and increasing as it goes along (to be able to pay Arenas more early on).
I don't have a real problem with how much its for. He made 16 million last year and the per year is less then that. The length isn't ideal (3 years would have been better) but as you noted Matt his skills haven't dropped off.
8m per is higher than anybody else would have offered him...in all likelihood. Yeah, it's possible Jamison would have been insulted and Philly would have gone after him if Josh Smith fell through. But that's a big if. Teams wouldn't be so afraid of "insulting" players if it were done more often.
Why is 8m an insult to a good but not great player such as Jamison, who can't be the best player on a genuinely contending team? Ginobili makes 10m per...and Jamison, imo, isn't in his class.
Given the Byzantine nature of NBA salaries, this is a wonderful title for the post.
32 is old? Sheesh, that means I'm old.
I'd like to see an economist analyze this concept of players being insulted by offers that only one team is willing to make. My impulse is to blame the agents, since there have been players who have thrown their careers down the toilet in the name of being offended by offers. Shandon Anderson threw away millions in his attempt to extort the Utah Jazz. He ended up playing on bad teams and making a fraction of Utah's frugal offer.
One could also posit that some players may hate the job. Of course that seems crazy, but the injuries (and today, multiple surgeries and long treatments and rehabs) and being bashed in the media as a part of millions of people's hobby can be unappealing to some people. So players demand to be compensated for this annoying job, or else they leave the game or become a role player on another team; that would explain why these players end up leaving the league after absurd contract demands (e.g. Sprewell).
Another part of the puzzle is cheapskate owners. We have multiple owners in the league who are so shameless that they'll sell first round picks. And then they'll over-pay players. These are contracts they'll be dumping in two years. I fail to see the business sense of that; maybe they really think that people come to see Jamison and that the team will make their money back on him, whether they win a lot more or not.
Oh, and 8 million is kind of an insult (in a relative sense that doesn't invole bringing up what schoolteachers make). Jamison is coming off a career year. Okafor (and players like him) is demanding 12 mil and will probably get at least 10. I understand players' frustrations with owners coming to them with "you're old, or will be soon". When players are young, teams get them very cheap, by league rules. The #1 pick comes cheap. So when exactly should they get paid a decent share of team earnings--for some small window when their stats are great and they come up for a new contract 3-4 years before their prime?
If Josh Smith fell through? I think Atlanta keeps him and we go for Brand. And I doubt we would've been interested in Jamison even if we couldn't get either.
I for one am very happy that they resigned Jamison first. I think that the biggest mistake the team could have made would have been resigning Arenas and letting Jamison go. At this point, I would not mind seeing Arenas leave, he has too many question marks with his knee problems to invest the kind of money that he is demanding. Jameson is a leader, and he is the kind of unselfish player that coaches love. He was not a starter for his whole career (remember, he was coming off a 6th man of the year award when we got him) and his durability might be greater than someone who had been playing most of the game for 12 years. Whether or not they keep Arenas, I definitly see this team back in the post season next year.
When considering salaries in the NBA, you have to factor in replacement costs. As in, "if we don't give Gilbert $100 mil and Jamison $50 mil, what will cost us to replace them?" Because teams can pay their own free agents more than anyone else, you almost always have to overpay to get good or great players to switch teams. So it's not just about what Gilbert and Jamison are worth, it's what they're worth vs. what it would cost the Wiz to get comparable players in place of them.
Mike
More than being too much money, I think it's too much time. Three years at the same annual rate would have made more sense. And yeah, it's a lot of money, but keep in mind we're still talking about a paycut here.
As with Arenas, it isn't about "bidding" on the open market because they're not treating either player as a commodity. They're trying to make them happy and send a message that they're valued. Teams do this all the time with their own free agents when they think it's worth it--they lock them up before the bidding really begins. Often, it's too much money, but this is still better than the absolutely ludicrous contracts that were being handed out a few years ago (think Jason Richardson, Richard Jefferson & Erick Dampier).
Also, the "leadership" thing with Jamison is not a throwaway talking point. It's for real. He's the grownup, the worker, and everyone on this team looks to him. When Arenas came into the league on the Warriors, Jamison was there. There is literally not one other veteran player in the NBA who you could bring in and get Gilbert's attention. And Gilbert's not the only guy on this team who needs leadership--you've got DeShawn Stevenson, Brendan Haywood, Andray Blatche, Nick Young. Daniels and Butler have good heads on their shoulders, but I'm not sure they can lead a crew like that.
Comments closed July 14, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I wouldn't be so quick to take these deals at face value. NBA contracts aren't the laughable mirage of NFL contracts, but there are often interesting details.
For example, a front-loaded contract (similar to Kirk Hinrich's in structure) that pays $20m, $15m, $10m, $5m over the four years would be a great deal for everybody.
Also, is there a team option in there?
Whatever the details are Jamison should play at a high level for 2 more years, then turn into an acronym like RLEC (Raef LaFrentz's Expiring Contract). Carrying a dead weight contract is just part of the modern NBA, and most teams can shoulder them with little problem (though with LOTS of bitching from their fans).
Posted by matthewcc | June 30, 2008 8:31 PM