Via TrueHoop: Wages of Wins Network - What if we just paid players what they were worth?

Specific rating aside, what if we paid players based on their contribution at the end of the year? This would also be their salary cap number for transaction purposes for the next season.

To each according to their ability or something. Its like revenue sharing for the players!

(Note: Childress still gets $5.7M last season)

7 months ago John R 22 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

what would be the point of a salary cap...

If a team could not manage or plan for costs in any meaningful way. How would a player ever leave a team for another?

by banandy on Nov 2, 2011 11:43 PM PDT reply actions

The per team cap would exist for competitive balance

The league wide BRI cap would exist to determine the total money pool.

Each team is inherently planned for costs. A team paying more to its players means that individual team has produced more wins. Likely this means the team has gone into the playoffs and therefore has more revenue. A team could not be far out of balance for more than a year or so. You can also control costs by selecting players who have performed consistently at the threshold you want to hit. A player who has produced five wins each year for the last six years isn’t suddenly going to become a 15 win producer and blow your budget.

Players could still change teams through free agency or trades. Buyouts could still be negotiated. A team that was terrible one season would fall below their individual cap and have space to add a player who performed well the previous season. Of course you couldn’t achieve this through tanking since each individual player is directly incentivized against tanking and to try their hardest if they want to get paid as much as possible.

I’m not advocating this system. Its just interesting. Why would the union oppose this? The total money pool would be the same, but the allocation would be much more fair to each individual player. Assuming fair refers to a traditional idea of fair where one gets compensation relative to their contribution.

by John R on Nov 3, 2011 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions

conceptually agree

…compensation should be “better” tied to performance (i.e. great rookies should be paid more).

I would suggest something slightly different: split their compensation into two buckets: a) team paid guarantee which is salary capped, b) performance bonus pool.

The former would be similar to the current system, but drastically simpler and on much smaller dollar figures than current cap levels. This is the mechanism that solves for veteran minimums and such (i.e. negative contribution) as well as the means by which teams would budget and make transactions on. This would also be able to handle injured players and such.

The latter would be how players get most of their compensation on top of their guarantees. The league would simply use BRI %’s (less guarantee caps) to determine how much is in the pot to split out to players based on “fair” metrics.

by banandy on Nov 3, 2011 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions

Kris Humphries more than Kevin Durant?

by yaggiefresh on Nov 2, 2011 11:59 PM PDT reply actions

Obviously worthless table

It doesn’t have Gomes (254, $0.9M) owing DTS a few gazillion dollars.

by supac on Nov 3, 2011 1:42 AM PDT reply actions

funny

Kaman and DJ’s salaries would essentially be swapped, haha

by osamu on Nov 3, 2011 2:15 AM PDT reply actions

"Specific rating aside"

It’s a great idea, but of course the problem is the “specific rating aside” part. People can’t come close to agreeing on a rating system for players – and that’s with money tied only indirectly to the rating. If money were tied directly to it, there’d be some serious disagreements over PER versus WP.

In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd

by Steve Perrin on Nov 3, 2011 9:49 AM PDT reply actions

This is a results-oriented league

You win without being that talented, and you can get a payday (e.g. Travis Outlaw, Hedo Turkoglu, Derek Fisher). But if you can’t win despite being talented, you have to really show that it’s not your fault in order to get your payday. I just can’t imagine the Wolves spending 80% of the bankroll on Love, when the team couldn’t even get 20 wins with him as a starter. Yes, it’s probably the fault of guys like Flynn, Beasley, and Darko, but unfortunately, it affects Love’s perceived value (however untrue that might be).

"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden

by Erik O on Nov 3, 2011 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions

You could go with minutes

There are a certain number of box score/traditional wins available in a season. BRI gets divided up among the teams per actual wins won. Then each team divides that money up to the players by how many minutes they play. Or you could have a system where each team is allowed to decide for itself and make that a point of negotiation with the only stipulation that all of that cash must go to the players.

by John R on Nov 3, 2011 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions

Take A Look At Reggie Evans Numbers Over At Wages Of Wins

and extrapolate that to how much he is should be paid according to his relative Wages of Wins rating.

I didn’t do the calculations but based upon Wages of Wins Evans was one of the top players in the league last season which would probably extrapolate to easily $10 million or more for Evans

Would any Clippers fan want the Clippers to pay Reggie Evans over $10 million a year?

by Buddahfan on Nov 3, 2011 9:55 AM PDT reply actions

?

He’s on the list at $9.9M… #94.

And no, we don’t like Reggie “”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv1cBN8M-9I" target="new">Friskyhands" Evans around here.

"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden

by Erik O on Nov 3, 2011 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions

... nice linkage.

I meant to say…

FRISKYHANDS!

"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden

by Erik O on Nov 3, 2011 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions

If he produced 5.6 wins

Why shouldn’t he be paid for those wins?

by John R on Nov 3, 2011 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions

That's the fallacy of WIN

Reggie Evans really doesn’t “produce wins,” whatever that means.

"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.

by Jax on Nov 3, 2011 12:48 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions

What is WIN?

I don’t believe I have ever talked about such a thing?

If the players don’t produces wins, where do they come from? Coaches?

by John R on Nov 3, 2011 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions

Teams produce wins

"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.

by Jax on Nov 3, 2011 4:09 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions

I predict a lot of backlash at Kris Humphries, Gerald Wallace, and Landry Fields being paid more than Derrick Rose, Kobe Bryant, and Dirk Nowitzki.

"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden

by Erik O on Nov 3, 2011 10:03 AM PDT reply actions

Emotion clouds judgment all the time

We shouldn’t allow that to stall progress.

by John R on Nov 3, 2011 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions

Emotions play a pretty big role in MVP voting too ;)

"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden

by Erik O on Nov 3, 2011 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions

Now we see the bias

Apparently you agree 100% with the manner in which WIN analyzes relative player values and also that this system should be employed (despite your denial above).

I like a different system that allows GMs and team management to differentiate themselves based on perceived player potential tied to values. Teams who are smart and competentily evaluate players do better than those who don’t.

For example, Phoenix wasted tons of money on under performing players such as JChill. They shouldn’t be allowed a redo. They will have to get smarter and evaluate and pay players in a more competent manner.

"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.

by Jax on Nov 3, 2011 12:51 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions