Here's the link to a very long, very interesting read.
Some Spurs-relevant parts are here:
(A fifth player joined the less-than-120% club this year; Spurs draft pick and England frontline seamer James Anderson. After about a month of negotiations, San Antonio eventually signed Anderson to a contract that pays a maximum of 120% of the scale in the first year, but only 115% in the second year, and 117% in the third (fourth year salaries are calculated as a percentage of the third), all years of which contained more significant performance incentives than usual. This is the kind of thing Memphis are accused of being doing, if not an even more extreme example. Furthermore, this now means that three of the five players to have received less than the full 120% have been Spurs picks. They've actually gone through with the deed Memphis stand accused of trying, and they've done so on an annual basis. In the cases of Mahinmi and Hill, San Antonio could invoke the "no one else was drafting you that high, so live with it" excuse. Not so with Anderson. San Antonio have better leverage, given their strength as a franchise and the fact they aren't doing it with lottery picks, yet it is the same practice.)Thoughts on any of this?The Spurs use this creative manipulation of the rookie salary scale protocol all the time. In fact, they're worse for it; there were no incentives that George Hill could meet in order to get his 120%. He was getting only 80% regardless (and since 80% of the third year of George Hill's rookie contract actually worked out to less than the minimum salary, he had to be bumped up to that by the league instead.) The Spurs knew what they were doing here, just as they did when they did it to Anderson last week. The only people who didn't know were the fans, and that's because no one sought to tell them.
When San Antonio do it, it's "shrewd." When Memphis do it, it is "cheap," and representative of a moribund franchise that needs contracting. This is the prevailing at ude born out of a desire to disparage the Grizzlies at every juncture, symptomatic of a wider problem of favouritism for certain executives by certain media. For example; Daryl Morey is a vastly superior general manager to David Kahn, but why did the very similar mistake signings of Ryan Hollins and David Andersen, and their subsequent correcting trades, get different levels of press? Because Morey is good and Kahn is bad, thus Morey's mistakes are all minor while Kahn's are all major. There's an element of truth to that logic, yet it is all overblown.
The same is true of the Spurs' and Grizzlies' handling of this year's first round draft picks. If it's wrong when Memphis do it, it's wrong when San Antonio do it. And since it's not wrong when San Antonio do it, it's not wrong when Memphis do it either. It's not going to be wrong when any team does it. Perhaps more of them should.
Playoffs = shrewd, no playoffs = cheap.
also, please note correct usage of the English language:
If it's wrong when Memphis does it, it's wrong when San Antonio does it. And since it's not wrong when San Antonio does it, it's not wrong when Memphis does it either. It's not going to be wrong when any team does it. Perhaps more of them should.
There is a of a lot left out of that blurb that could make a huge difference in what to make of this article. And the article is too long to read this late, but my two cents:
I tried to skim the article for anything other than the ominously pejorative phrase "performance incentives," and didn't see anything.
You can't make an informed opinion either way because the incentives aren't specified. The George Hill incentive could have been entirely reasonable like make 35% of your three pointers and he gets a huge boost. If I were Hill I wouldn't have balked at that and it would have made sense after his retched rookie summer league. Meanwhile Memphis may have included incentives that were impossible to reach like make the all star team in a rookie year. There can be a world of difference between the two and if Hill, Anderson, and Ian didn't balk at the deals it was their choice to enter into their respective deals or not.
So even if George Hill might have only started with 80% of his rookie pay scale guaranteed, the Spurs likely made the incentives achievable with the player's input on expectations.
What Spurs FO did with Anderson is lame and stupid.
Unless that's what was needed to keep the Spurs under the tax. In that case, the Spurs had every incentive to try and eek under that line. I would've saved the money by paying Bonner or Neal a little less, myself.
Since when did the Spurs have nearly impossible to reach rookie incentives like the recent Memphis contracts:
Point no. 3 seems to be nearly impossible to fulfill and it just takes about a weeks worth of injury to fail there. Also don't see how Henry's going to be able to get decent minutes in the Memphis rotation.As reported by Tillery in the paper the incentives are as follows:
1.
Participation in summer league.
2. A two-week workout program with the team's training staff.
3. Satisfying one of the following: play in NBA rookie/sop re game during All-Star weekend, or earn an all-rookie selection, or average 15 minutes in at least 70 games
This is why Xavier Henry and Greivis Vasquez are refusing to sign their rookie contracts. These three conditions are the difference between a happy family and potential playoff quality team and the train wreck franchise that actually makes the L A Clippers look stable.
Why Memphis deserves to be on, not only for the Pau Gasol collusion but just being a bunch of dumbasses:
In a live interview with Chris Vernon on 730 Fox Sports in Memphis, Heisley abrasively made the case for his decision to hold off on signing Henry unless the Kansas product agrees to fairly unprecedented performance-based incentives. When Vernon asked why Heisley is taking a stand with Henry's contract despite giving maximum rookie-scale contracts to 2009 draft picks Hasheem Thabeet and DeMarre Carroll, Heisley answered that he just found out about the rule allowing negotiation in rookie contracts this summer when employees in the Grizzlies' front office made him aware of it. "I've never seen the collective bargaining agreement," Heisley said. "Would you sit down and read it?" Vernon answered in the affirmative; I imagine many Grizzlies fans listening at home have indeed read the CBA. And they don't own $250-million NBA franchises.
IIRC didnt Blair have an incentive in his contract that kicked in if he was named MVP of the rookie/sop re game?
BTW he should have won it!
spurs lowballed hill?
I believe that was a Nike shoe deal IIRC.
[QUOTE=Samr;4594352]
(A fifth player joined the less-than-120% club this year; Spurs draft pick and England frontline seamer James Anderson.
QUOTE]
I don't understand this sentence. I didn't read the article but it seems like they meant "England frontline seamer Ryan Richards."
There's another James Anderson who happens to be an English cricket player. Pretty sure that's the "joke" he's making.
The writer of the article is English. In the portion you quoted "San Antonio" represents the collective noun "the San Antonio Spurs", thus the verb tense used is normal in British English.
In addition to being English, the writer tries to be funny. There is an English cricket player named James Anderson, so it was a joke.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cri...a-crumble.html
[QUOTE=TimmehC;4595164]Wow. How could I have missed that. You're right though. I just assumed "frontline seamer" was some other name for an NBA big man. Had to google it to find otherwise. Thanks for explaining.
Thanks, Mel. It was my understanding, also, that the writer is an Englishman. His quote is:I'll think about your perspective on it. My perspective was, and may still be, that the collective noun is the San Antonio Spurs team/the Memphis Grizzlies team or the San Antonio Spurs franchise/the Memphis Grizzlies franchise. In the case of a singular noun, "does" seems to still apply as the proper usage in the Queen's English, don't it?"The same is true of the Spurs' and Grizzlies' handling of this year's first round draft picks. If it's wrong when Memphis do it, it's wrong when San Antonio do it. And since it's not wrong when San Antonio do it, it's not wrong when Memphis do it either. It's not going to be wrong when any team does it. Perhaps more of them should."
Might could be, ain't like I'm some kind of grammarian.Thanks, Mel. It was my understanding, also, that the writer is an Englishman. His quote is:
I'll think about your perspective on it. My perspective was, and may still be, that the collective noun is the San Antonio Spurs team/the Memphis Grizzlies team or the San Antonio Spurs franchise/the Memphis Grizzlies franchise. In the case of a singular noun, "does" seems to still apply as the proper usage in the Queen's English, don't it?
From TFA:
The Spurs use this creative manipulation of the rookie salary scale protocol all the time. In fact, they're worse for it; there were no incentives that George Hill could meet in order to get his 120%
Yea I saw that in the article but there were no details as to what the incentives were unless I'm being a dunce.
I think he means there's no incentives possible to get the full 120% scale in the last two seasons. Hill was simply signed for 80% for years 3 and 4, with no way to earn anything more.
Ah, thanks
George got 120% for his first two seasons and the 80% for the third. No incentives are available for him to go above that. The contract was structured in that way, presumably, to create the maximum amount of cap space for the summer of 2010.
Not sure I understand how the Spurs are 'worse for it' as a result. Clearly George is worse for it, but the only way the Spurs could suffer would be in the summer of 2012 when George hits FA.
I don't think that George is too upset with the contract considering he has stated he wants to stay with the spurs for his entire career.
I think he meant that the Spurs are worse than Memphis when it comes to creative manipulation of the rookie scale.
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks.
I ain't ever been prouder.Might could be, ain't like I'm some kind of grammarian.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
