Discussion in 'Pistons and NBA' started by SKluck, May 14, 2006.
Much ado about nothing.
Ben Wallace has only been one of the best bargains in professional sports for the last 5 years. On and off of the court. Whether he is at the top of his game is arguable, but he is still at the top of his profession. Whatever the outcome it sorta keeps things in perspective Win Now.
Detroit should take a look at how Utah fared- they had their 3,4 core players set for many years and sticked too long with Stockalone without countable success. If we keep on Ben for too long, the same could happen in Detroit. One has to know when it's time to move on to younger players so that history doesn't repeat itself like in the mid- 90's.
Probably. Regarding the organization's credibility... The organization will lose credibility once they stop competing for championships. You don't come to Detroit for the weather, the lifestyle, or the payday (unless you're Pudge). You sign with the Pistons to compete for championships. If the organization starts making decisions that impede the ability of the players to compete, then it loses credibility with the players. If overpaying Ben keeps the team in the championship hunt, then Joe's got to do it. If overpaying Ben cripples the team in the long run, then Joe's got to pass on resigning him. It's not easy to predict the future, but this is Joe's next big opportunity to look like a genius.
This is why I hate the NBA's guaranteed contracts. The NFL has it right IMO. Give guys big bonuses and the ability to RENEGOIATE contracts. That way you can give guys a fair deal and not have this poison of people trading for expiring contracts and crippled by dud players.
If you are an owner, sure. The player's union is still steamed they gave the owners that much power. You can re-negotiate in the NBA. It's just rarely used. Guaranteed contracts make the owners and GMs accountable for what they give out. Smart franchises like the Spurs and Pistons have figured out the system. Overspending, crap franchises like the Knicks destroy themselves. You and I differ on this radically. I think the NFL system is garbage, and that the NBA system is great. In the NBA, they have given owners the ability to spend to keep their free agents without big loopholes like "franchise tags". You also see a lot less holdouts. The rookie scale contracts (bonus-less woohoo!) are spectacular compared to the BS that goes on in the NFL with agents holding up teams trying to get big contracts with huge bonuses from the get go.
Luck, nice of you to bring up the NFL. Joel is about to get over on the Lions and I don't think the Org. can stop it. Risk to player is way to high to compair with NBA. The money is just stupid. Very inflationary. That's why I've said regulate them. Cro, nice to see you go BBJ about BBen. The issues are keen but I think JD is lookin' 3 years down the road. He wants BBen for more seasons. Flip will have to deal with it. ...I say we use BBen for 2 more years. By then JD will have his next center. Amir?
ehhh, I don't think we'll have a problem. Detroit is where journeyman players come to fullfill their potential. Where is Ben Wallace at without Detroit? Still a role player who doesn't get significant PT because of his lack of offense? Where is Chauncey? Still the shot-chucking guy who never met expectations? Is Sheed still the "Jailblazer" that the league/media hates? Is Rip still the one-dimensional player from Washington? All of our main recruits have turned around their careers here. I'm sure other NBA players notice. Again, there is a HUGE difference between "undercutting" and "overpaying". The part I don't like is when anything but overpaying becomes undercutting. He should be payed what he's worth. At this point there is no way he's worth the max. He should get a deal in the 43-45 million over 4 years area. Even that is going to be well overpayed in year 4, but it's less ridiculous that some of the other deals being mentioned that would pay him more than freaking Lebron James will make when he gets re-signed.
you definitely make a good point FP, but i'd rather overpay a little since our cap situation is doing really well, and i don't mind rewarding ben for what he's done for the franchise (especially since davidson is so freakin rich haha). plus he's still in his prime and should be for another couple years.
I'd have to side with Dober on this one... it is much ado about nothing. Both sides want to get it done... You don't have to hand over the check book... you just have to compete with the market... which is very thin with contending teams having significant wiggle room. Mr. D ain't letting Ben go anywhere... if he wants to overpay that's just another weeks worth of glass to sell :^)
Hahahaha, translation: "I told you so".
I'm not smart, just informed. I really dig this contract stuff. It appeals to the marketer in me.
No, but on that level JD would be doing something unethical himself. Joe knows he owes Ben a nice, fat contract to make up for the past years. And I've heard many times from announcers and other media coverage that Ben wants to stay in Detroit and that he's a team-orientated guy who's willing to take a hit. In contract negotiations, you're right, emotions need not step into the vicinity; however, morales are probably as important as the deal itself. How can you ever lay down a big investment with someone you can't trust? Put yourself in a situation where you have loads of money and you're willing to buy someone's goods. He yanks your chain, telling you how great the stuff is, how much he wants to work with you for so and so amount of money, and then he goes on later to strike the deal with someone else. Would you feel like you were treated well? Would you ever want to work with that person again? Business is about repeating your customers most of the time - so be weary of mixing the idea of "practically" with bad morales/ethics - it leads to bad reputations and no one will work with you. Why do you think people hate lawyers/agents so much? (And this coming from a prospective law student, LSAT scores granting...) Agreed. If Ben does demand more money, than the Pistons are at a disadvantage and not approaching the deal fairly at the table. That is bad ethics, using your advantage for your personal gain. If things go smoothly and Ben doesn't demand too much, all three parties can be happy with the outcome: Ben with his millions and his new cars, Dumars with the satisfaction of the flexibility of a few extra million to make moves for the future, and a winning team for the Fans because of JD's flexibility. Agreed - but its not the issue of Davidson's billions that I care about. Its the flexibility of his contract in the future for trades and the cap that is more important. In no way would I ever want to see Ben or any of the Pistons 5 leaving, but when it comes time for Dyess to retire, a few million off Ben's contract can go a long way in finding a replacement. There's a difference between Tay's contract and Ben asking for a max deal. He deserves his dues, I've never said he didn't - but part of Ben and who he is, is his hidden leadership. You can't see it, cause he doesn't say much - but his unselfishness and team orientation was what drove 'Sheed to straighten up and what makes the Pistons play hard every night. Picture this: Ben asks for a max deal, JD is in a position where he has to accept. Chauncey's contract comes up, he's probably just as important as Ben is, he asks for a max contract too - JD's in a position once again where he HAS to accept. So we have solidified our starting five with huge contracts - but what about the bench? We KNOW that the Pistons can't win without a bench, no team can. You bring up great points and they're all very valid. Don't mistake my using of my business ethics class in a condescending way - I was just using it as a basis for my opinion and hopefully some litigation for my arguments as well; one thing I could tell you that I learnt that was of great help is that ethics is based upon the individual. What I may feel is unethical, may be practical for you. I'm just a firm believer of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" theory. If you look out for your own collective interest without any intervening by a 2nd or 3rd party (in this case Ben's high priced agent)...you help out yourself and the overall economy (or in this sense, the Pistons organization). And to rebuttal your example, picture this: You're one of five top CEOs of your company. You helped build this company from the ground up and saved it from bankrupcy. You're in the middle of a multi-million dollar project that you've been working on with the rest of your CEOs for years and almost have it done. Your company is also one of the best in the world. Problems come, one of your CEO's (the one who got everything started) gets an offer from another company and he's flirting with the idea. He's already rich, but he wants more money. If you give him what he wants and match the offer, you jepordize your project's future - you don't give him what he wants and he walks and you're in an even worse position, but he might be replacable. What do you do? There's not one answer. Sometimes good business is losing money, if you can get more money out of it later.
Ben didn't hire a powerful agent because he wants to take a home team discount. The Mavs will go after him just like they go after everyone.
You obviously missed the "i was right" part of this thread. He's paying Tellum by the hour. Power agents don't work by the hour to negotiate big deals.
But is that smart business for Ben? Why should he take a hit? It's naive to think that Rip will take a hit on his next contract. Or Chauncey. Why does Ben have to bend over? You don't. But trust is not built at the negotiating table. As far as I am concerned, Ben trusted Joe for the last two years. There is no morality to making money. Only legality. Even Bill Davidson has dealt in the shadows to build his empire. Ben gave everything he had. Now it's time to pay. No free rentals. Once you get out of the classroom, and cut your teeth on harsh reality, I believe you will see this differently. My family is full of business people. Some failed, some mediocore and some very successful. I've been in business myself for almost a decade and am always learning. You provide great service, you offer a great product, and you never, ever, ever sell yourself short when it comes to pricing. The Golden Goose is a unique product. You can't go out in FA and find a Ben Wallace. There won't be 2 or 5 4-time DPOY All-Stars looking for new homes. This is why people invent and patent. Because selling a commodity has fixed margins (see minimum contracts). But when you are THE source, with a valuable good, and no competition on the market, your value skyrockets. I want to hire you. I promise to be nice to you, give you lots of room to operate, but I expect you to work as well as the best workers in "this" field, and if you don't mind, I'm going to pay you less than market value because it makes MY company stronger, and you really don't want to gain too much from your hard work. Not when I can be gaining from it. Still want the job? This is the classic case of screwing the nice guy. Because he sacrificed for a couple years, it's assumed and expected that he keep on rolling over. Fair enough, I can see how he set himself up for this, but it's certainly not ethical or moral to not max out the most important player in recent history of this franchise. Again, who do you replace him with? Not really. The Pistons are already over the soft cap. Even with Cato coming off, Tay's new deal kicks in next year, and they don't have any more than the MLE to offer, which they would have if they are 1 million or 100 million over the soft cap. I don't take it as condescending. I hope you won't take this as condescending, but what happens in the real world and what happens in the classroom are two radically different paradigms. The only business ethic I know is profit. If you aren't profitable, as profitable as you can be, then you aren't very successful. Donating to Unicef or sponsoring a local midget Hockey Team is all gravy after that. If the CEO leaving jeopardizes the project (applicable in this discussion), you pay. If you can pull off the project without him, and the finances could compromise the future, you MAY let him walk. It's a funny thing about valuable and unique assets. They are a lot easier to retain than they are to reacquire. Again, who do you replace Ben with? It's never good business to lose money. Ever. You need to wash that out of your system. Anyone with pockets deep enough and a disposition to play around losing money probably should be living it up and not trying to play big businessman. Business is about making money. As much as possible. That's it.
Did I mention I Hate lawyers... always gotta be more complex than it should be... and it will cost you per word.
Ah, better to be more complex and spend a little dough, than spend time in a cell with a guy who calls you Alice right? :P
You're alright rdang... just going off past experiences... I spent over 80K to a Lawyer 3 years ago to help fight an unethical Lawyer (who bought the property) in an estate transaction when my brother died... they left my head spinning and my pockets empty. Yeah they help represent... but they should not be allowed to use their status to take advantage of innocent folks. Sorry back on topic: Having a hard time getting a handle on the concerns of overpaying Ben... why? were we going to save salary for another Max FA?... there's no purpose... the Lux tax is not nearly as big of a hit to owners as it used to be (they all share the proceeds now). At least the $'s will go to a guy that gives all out effort.... I'm really starting to wonder about Sheed's comitment to hard work.
You thinking that CBill aka Smooth aka Mr. Big Shot aka the Pistons #1 is worthy of a max deal? Sheed hasn't been lazy this year, he just doesn't always step up. It's no different than Tay or CB. The difference is, when he is on, he's the best player on the team from a talent perspective. Sheed will be the first one to go if things go sideways this playoffs.
Separate names with a comma.