12/21/24
May 19, 2004
The best explanation I have ever read about why young players entering the NBA is a problem, how it became such an epidemic and what can be done to help curb it was on Mark Cuban's blog.
I stuck around and read some of the other articles and followed some of the links and have to say that it quickly became one of my favorite new blogs. I have always guessed that Mark Cuban's image isn't true to what he is really and like and the blog definitely proves it. The little he lets you in lets you know a bunch about how he thinks and where he's coming from. It isn't from left field the way some media outlets would have you believe.
posted by gilcintron to basketball at 02:29 PM - 13 comments
Cuban's blog rocks.
posted by garfield at 02:39 PM on May 19, 2004
One link is to the article...the other is to the main page. I guess it could be considered a double post. I guess it could be considered a double post.
posted by gilcintron at 02:41 PM on May 19, 2004
I dig the Cuban blog too. I'll check it out 2-3 times a week (skipping over the benefactor posts). But relating to the point Cuban makes about the problem of young players entering the NBA (which is what I think gil really wanted to discuss here, jg, which makes it seem like not a double, the same as people linking to multiple Jim Caple columns or what have you on seperate occasions): Bear in mind, I read the post yesterday or the day before (and I haven't got time to re-read it right now). I believe his main thrust was to take away guaranteed salaries based on draft position, correct? I see what he's saying, but the NBA and contracts being what they are, I think it could get worse if that weren't there. I believe that those guaranteed salaries aren't just minimums, but maximums as well, correct? These maximums keep teams in larger markets with more available money from saying to, say LeBron James "Hey, we'll pay you double what the Cavs offer", keeping some bit of parity in place. There could be an argument made for taking away the minimums and keeping the maximums (which again, I *think* exist but I'm not 100% on), but doing away with both could lead to some serious exploitation.
posted by Ufez Jones at 03:06 PM on May 19, 2004
Oh and just for the hell of it ()()()(). There just weren't enough parentheses in my post.
posted by Ufez Jones at 03:09 PM on May 19, 2004
I like to think of those as your alternate personality trying to break through. (I read them as a menacing whisper.)
posted by yerfatma at 03:38 PM on May 19, 2004
Going back to Cuban's article and how he spoke about the media outlets blowing things out of proportion. I've always wondered who writes the headline, is it the writer or an editor? Case in point: If any of you have received this month's Playboy, there is a teaser for the Derek Jeter interview inside. I'll try to do the placement on the right side of the cover justice here, (I'm at work and don't want to risk searching their site) but here is how they printed it up. Dereke Jeter: "My Dad beat me- at everything." My initial reaction was that Jeter's father was smacking him around. But when you get to the quote inside, it reads fluidly: "My dad used to beat me at everything. We'd play checkers, and he would beat me. He would never let me win. Never. We used to watch 'The Price Is Right' and we'd play the showcase showdown. I didn't know how much a refrigerator or a new car cost - I was six years old. We'd sit there and he'd beat me, and then I'd walk to school. I think my dad was teaching me lessons. Things don't come easily." Sorry for the super long post, but now that I read this, what kid gets to watch the Price is Right (11AM EST time) and THEN walk to school?
posted by usfbull at 04:44 PM on May 19, 2004
some schools have half-day kindergartens with a morning and afternoon session.
posted by goddam at 05:17 PM on May 19, 2004
As a guy who worked in PR for 2 years I can say honestly that the majority of newspapers, magazines and television people I worked with were never news-driven, but simply revenue-driven. I could buy editorial coverage with the right advertising purchase. Not all of them, mind you - and more often than not, the smaller ones.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 05:20 PM on May 19, 2004
I think the guaranteed rookie contracts were put in the year after Glenn Robinson pulled down a 10 year, $68M rookie contract. The current structure keeps the top few guys from commanding such high deals, at the expense of guaranteeing three years to the lower end of the first round. I doubt the player's association would buy into a rookie cap that didn't include a minimum as well.
posted by mbd1 at 05:27 PM on May 19, 2004
There could be an argument made for taking away the minimums and keeping the maximums (which again, I *think* exist but I'm not 100% on), but doing away with both could lead to some serious exploitation. Isn't this what the salary cap is there for? I would think that would take care of many of the overpaying concerns. But the article wasn't really about how much these kids got paid at all, it was about guaranteeing their paycheck. Guaranteed money for athletes has to be the stupidest thing ever, but for rookies coming in and getting splinters in their ass it's even dumber. As Cuban mentioned, teams saddled babysitting a 19 year old bust for 4 years, while the team could desperately use the roster spot, because they can't dump him is not helping the game one bit. I am all for letting High School kids in the league, but if they aren't good enough to be there (like 90% of them coming out) they should be cuttable. But why stop at rookies, or the NBA...the guaranteed contract needs to be killed across the board.
posted by pivo at 05:43 PM on May 19, 2004
I've always thought that Cuban was a shmuck, but then I read his blog and realized he's actually a putz.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:41 AM on May 20, 2004
I think the point is to remove guaranteed rookie contracts so that the busts don't eat up roster space for the duration of their contract. Lets assume, just for hypothetical reasons, that each team has one bust on their 15 man roster (12 active, 3 IR) if that bust didn't have a guaranteed contract he could be released and proven veterans such as Cedric Ceballos and JR Rider could find thier way onto a team. Whether your team would want those guys is another conversation. He has a good point though. If guaranteed contracts were eliminated and the incentive for an immediate payoff wasn't there-- which is really the only reason so many kids have started coming out early-- than the rosters would normalize after a few seasons. As long as a HS kid or college underclassmen knows that he can dominate a HS All Star game or have a good NCAA tounament and ride that publicity to a first round pick and a guaranteed multimillion dollar contract, the risk might be worth the reward. BUT if the contracts weren't guaranteed and he could be cut at the end of his rookie season, he might want to go to college or stay that extra year and work on his game a little while longer. Some will say that if you are good enough to play in the NBA you are good enough as sophomore or as a senior. I think we all know that isn't true. Perfect example is Tom Gugliotta. He is a sad story now because of injury, but does anyone think he would have been drafted as high as he was if he came out as a sophomore or junior? I thought the post hit it right on the head.
posted by gilcintron at 03:07 PM on May 20, 2004
sort of double post?