Free Agent SF - Aminu? Ariza?

[Letter N]

I think more than the "play for the contract" issue is the "party like a rockstar after getting a big contract" issue.

I don't even really blame them either, if I just got guaranteed $80 mil over the next 6 years I'd live in Vegas that summer so a fall off the year after a big contract, especially the first one, is something I can see happening a lot more than the idea of getting your act together all of a sudden.

[ezz_bee]

Rant away.

Personally I think there are enough examples over the years to think guys do get up for contract years.

If you don't think the promise of a $30m contract has no impact on consistency or effort I think you're undervaluing the motivation of $30m plus.

I'm not undervaluing the motivation of 30 million. I'm undervaluing the simplistic logic that economic motivation = on court results results. IF it was something that happened, shouldn't their be data on it? If you take it up one level of abstraction from economic incentive in the NBA to economic incentive in general (where there's a lot more data, and a lot more circumstances) there's plenty of evidence where the economic incentive just doesn't translate into a correlating output. Social factors are equally likely to have the same or bigger effect.

A few more points... there is diminishing returns on economic motivation. That 30 million you threw out there is pretty misleading (that a difference of 7.5 million/year over a four year contract). I would argue that most NBA players already face high motivation. There are only 500ish players in the entire would to begin with, and most players don't make it 5 years. If you don't have a lot of motivation to begin with, you are going to be out of the league. Sure the contract year provides "extra" incentive, but if you are already reached your threshold of motivation not amount of extra motivation will get you to increase your output (there are economic experiments that demonstrate this). I would argue that the nature of the NBA, which is highly competitive, puts players at or near that threshold because the environment (again, if it was easy to get to or stay in the NBA you and I would be starters). THIS is backed up by available evidence, both in regards to the NBA and to economic incentive in general.

There just simply isn't a contract phenomenon in the broad sense (because if there was there would be numbers that prove it). The only thing you can argue is that there are outliers. But how do you prove that a specific NBA player is such an outlier? They likely are only going to sign a hand full of contracts in their career, which is quite a small sample size. Basketball success is highly affected by who you play with, as well as a host of other pyscho-social motivations. It's extremely difficult (and I would argue impossible) to prove.

Regardless of whether there is or isn't a "contract year phenomenon" or not, GMs would be wise to look at a players body of work, not just a particular year when making personnel decisions.

[ezz_bee]

Really? You don't think?

And every cop loves law enforcement?
Every teacher loves teaching?
Every assembly line worker loves manufacturing?
Every doctor loves medicine?
Every government worker loves helping citizens?

Nobody does a job to make ends meet?
NBA guys have the talent to get paid in one year what the majority don't make in a lifetime while being afforded first class perks such as travel and health care.... So they are going to turn that down if they don't love it.

I think that is some naive thinking.

There is a reason why derozans work ethic wows people.
There is a reason why Kobe and Jordan workouts are legendary.
If it was easy, everyone would do it.

Just like in every profession you're going to have people who do the minimum to get by, people who get turned/guaranteed contracts and stop caring even in the nba.

There's nothing wrong with your logic, but logic isn't always born out in reality (in fact there's quite a lot of evidence about irrationality), and economic logic is just one type of logic that dictates human behaviour, and even in a very capitalist society, it still is often NOT the dominate logic at play when making decisions. Unfortunately, the logic just isn't reflected in the data; and therefore, probably not reflective of reality.

[2kfeen]

i don't want either
Ariza will be way overpaid after teams see his output.
$7-8 mill for him won't make us a reckoning force out East

Aminu is a big body SF, which is good, but no 3 point shot

That's why i say go for Wesley Johnson.

[mcHAPPY]

I'm not undervaluing the motivation of 30 million. I'm undervaluing the simplistic logic that economic motivation = on court results results. IF it was something that happened, shouldn't their be data on it? If you take it up one level of abstraction from economic incentive in the NBA to economic incentive in general (where there's a lot more data, and a lot more circumstances) there's plenty of evidence where the economic incentive just doesn't translate into a correlating output. Social factors are equally likely to have the same or bigger effect.

A few more points... there is diminishing returns on economic motivation. That 30 million you threw out there is pretty misleading (that a difference of 7.5 million/year over a four year contract). I would argue that most NBA players already face high motivation. There are only 500ish players in the entire would to begin with, and most players don't make it 5 years. If you don't have a lot of motivation to begin with, you are going to be out of the league. Sure the contract year provides "extra" incentive, but if you are already reached your threshold of motivation not amount of extra motivation will get you to increase your output (there are economic experiments that demonstrate this). I would argue that the nature of the NBA, which is highly competitive, puts players at or near that threshold because the environment (again, if it was easy to get to or stay in the NBA you and I would be starters). THIS is backed up by available evidence, both in regards to the NBA and to economic incentive in general.

There just simply isn't a contract phenomenon in the broad sense (because if there was there would be numbers that prove it). The only thing you can argue is that there are outliers. But how do you prove that a specific NBA player is such an outlier? They likely are only going to sign a hand full of contracts in their career, which is quite a small sample size. Basketball success is highly affected by who you play with, as well as a host of other pyscho-social motivations. It's extremely difficult (and I would argue impossible) to prove.

Regardless of whether there is or isn't a "contract year phenomenon" or not, GMs would be wise to look at a players body of work, not just a particular year when making personnel decisions.

Bold 1: No what you're doing is overemphasizing a single point. Contract years don't apply to all players. It applies to players with talent but lack intrinsic motivation. In my opinion Trevor Ariza falls in to this category based on his history.

Bold 2: A quick Google search of "contract year phenomenon" will show there is data out there on it. Rather unsurprisingly the only league without the contract year is the NFL. Why? Because their contracts are not guaranteed - just the bonuses. So if they don't perform, good bye.

Bold 3: That $30M I threw out there was the value of Ariza's last contract signed with Houston. So what is misleading?

Bold 4: I would argue most NBA players are relative to other professions. Everyone is motivated to do great things but few put in the work necessary to be great.... we're speaking relatively here. It is tough to compare an athlete to an accountant.

Bold 5: Exactly, the contract year provides extra incentive. When you have guys going in to their third contract who have already experienced a contract year head scratcher, my personal opinion would be to stay away.

Bold 6: You're ignoring natural talent and ability. Some people can get by doing minimal because of their natural talent. They can turn it on when they have to and turn it off when they want to.

Bold 7: Google "contract year phenomenon".

Bold 8: Past performance. Ariza has already done it once. John Salmons is another guy I wouldn't touch. Averages 20ppg on very good percentages, opts out, signs 5 year deal, and becomes another dead weight NBA contract. You can call it an outlier, I call it past performance indicative of future performance. I'm not saying this happens to every single NBA player.

Bold 9: Most things are. If we're only going to roll with things that can be absolutely proven, we should probably look at closing a lot of science departments in universities and government.

Bold 10: No shit. Sadly GMs are not rationale and fall in to the exact same emotions of fear and greed that so many others in all walks of life do. "It is different this time....." Famous last words.

[ezz_bee]

I have googled "Contract year phenomenon" and I've read (okay skimmed) pretty much all of them. There isn't anything conclusive, and I just don't find them compelling. I think we're at a stalemate, because I don't see us having anything more meaningful for to say unless we start delving into the particulars of the articles, which is probably a waste of both our times... however, because I just can't help myself here's a tidbit from this article, which I'm sure you've read since it's the third result and the first on the NBA.

Moreover, the coefficient is negative, which means that true shooting percentage decreases in the presence of a contract season. More specifically, this model asserts that players’ true shooting percentage will decline by .94% in the presence of a contract year.

This result is the first evidence of significant underperformance in a contract season. All previous research has pointed to either no change in performance or over performance in a contract year. However, this is the first
study that has analyzed shooting accuracy.

So again, we agree with the economic motivation, but HOW that motivation manifests itself is not understood (and again is just one type of motivation players face). It's possible as the above paper points out, that somehow economic motivation actually results in under-performance. But again, the methodology of this particular paper can be questioned, (and I would question it myself), which is why I don't put any stock in the contract year.

Bold 3: That $30M I threw out there was the value of Ariza's last contract signed with Houston. So what is misleading?

The contract we are talking about is a 5 year / $33.95 million contract including $33,953,200 guaranteed, and an annual average salary of $6,790,640 (according to reports). It's misleading to me because the good contract year Ariza had, increased his value and got him a larger contract. Essentially, because of his good contract year, Houston overpaid for him. But what was the correct valuation for him? 4/mill a year? 3/mill a year? 2/mill a year? If 4 mill is the correct valuation then a 5 year contract would have netted him 20 million, a difference of 15 million (give or take). He is only motivated by what the extra effort will get him. The only way the motivation is 30 million, is if the alternative (playing the same way) would net him zero dollars. Regardless of how you would value him, I'm sure we can both agree that his pre-contract year performance would secure him some kind of contract. The reality isn't that it was 30 million or nothing, but that it was 30 vs. a smaller amount. It's the difference between those numbers is what he is motivated by, not the 30 million, since he would get a portion of that number anyway. It's semantics, and doesn't change nature or validity of your argument (by much) which is why I didn't bother to break it down. But to me it seemed misleading as per the above.

Also with Ariza, I think there are 3 (and possibly 4) reasons that attribute to the overpay

1) Performance in previous year
2) Championship pedigree
3) Potential: Ariza was only 24 at the time he signed the new contract, and had logged around 8000 minutes, so still a candidate for "Does player X still have room to grow" argument.
4) Payback: Lakers sign Artest away from Houston, 3 days later Houston signs Ariza (I don't put much if any stock in this one, although it does come up in articles from that time).

IF Houston overpaid him based on other considerations than his contract year performance, that further dilutes the motivation, as potential, and championship pedigree would still be there.

This brings up a point I do think is relevant, teams OVER VALUE winning. Whether it's the NCAA tourney, or a deep playoff run, every off-season seems to have guys that other teams want because of that "championship pedigree". See Barea, J.J., and there are already rumours that the Knicks are going to go after Patty Mills.

To me, "the player is a winner" or "championship pedigree" is a bigger flag than the contract year (which i guess isn't a surprise, since I don't really believe in it). Don't pay players extra because did something in last year's playoffs. You aren't allowed to put banners and playoff wins into your carry on.

[mcHAPPY]

I have googled "Contract year phenomenon" and I've read (okay skimmed) pretty much all of them. There isn't anything conclusive, and I just don't find them compelling. I think we're at a stalemate, because I don't see us having anything more meaningful for to say unless we start delving into the particulars of the articles, which is probably a waste of both our times... however, because I just can't help myself here's a tidbit from this article, which I'm sure you've read since it's the third result and the first on the NBA.



So again, we agree with the economic motivation, but HOW that motivation manifests itself is not understood (and again is just one type of motivation players face). It's possible as the above paper points out, that somehow economic motivation actually results in under-performance. But again, the methodology of this particular paper can be questioned, (and I would question it myself), which is why I don't put any stock in the contract year.

The contract we are talking about is a 5 year / $33.95 million contract including $33,953,200 guaranteed, and an annual average salary of $6,790,640 (according to reports). It's misleading to me because the good contract year Ariza had, increased his value and got him a larger contract. Essentially, because of his good contract year, Houston overpaid for him. But what was the correct valuation for him? 4/mill a year? 3/mill a year? 2/mill a year? If 4 mill is the correct valuation then a 5 year contract would have netted him 20 million, a difference of 15 million (give or take). He is only motivated by what the extra effort will get him. The only way the motivation is 30 million, is if the alternative (playing the same way) would net him zero dollars. Regardless of how you would value him, I'm sure we can both agree that his pre-contract year performance would secure him some kind of contract. The reality isn't that it was 30 million or nothing, but that it was 30 vs. a smaller amount. It's the difference between those numbers is what he is motivated by, not the 30 million, since he would get a portion of that number anyway. It's semantics, and doesn't change nature or validity of your argument (by much) which is why I didn't bother to break it down. But to me it seemed misleading as per the above.

I'm not in to splitting hairs on this topic.

As per the contract, it was the MLE. At that time the full MLE started around $5.8M and ran for 5 years with annual 7.5% raises. That is where $30M came from. What the majority of NBA players strive for is the MLE. There is a reason why historically it is one of the worst contracts in the league and why you're seeing teams starting to split it up. For the majority of NBA players the MLE is the ultimate goal. Just about all teams have access to it and those above the cap are usually in a bidding war with it. It creates bloated salaries among middling talent.

The ultimate goal for most NBA players still remains the MLE. The difference is now it is for 4 years and starts at $5.3M with 4.5% raises. So moving forward we can remove $30M with $22M.

[ezz_bee]

I'm not in to splitting hairs on this topic.

As per the contract, it was the MLE. At that time the full MLE started around $5.8M and ran for 5 years with annual 7.5% raises. That is where $30M came from. What the majority of NBA players strive for is the MLE. There is a reason why historically it is one of the worst contracts in the league and why you're seeing teams starting to split it up. For the majority of NBA players the MLE is the ultimate goal. Just about all teams have access to it and those above the cap are usually in a bidding war with it. It creates bloated salaries among middling talent.

The ultimate goal for most NBA players still remains the MLE. The difference is now it is for 4 years and starts at $5.3M with 4.5% raises. So moving forward we can remove $30M with $22M.

Right, but in terms of what the motivation is for the player, its the difference in dollar terms, between the contract they would get with similar production versus the overpaid contract.

For example...
Let's say you make 40,000 a year, and you know you have a raise coming up in 3 months. You can do everything the same and expect no raise (or perhaps a modest one), or you can work your ass off and get a raise 48,000 dollars a year. The motivation in this case ISN'T $48,000. It's $8,000 since you were pretty much guaranteed the $40k anyway. That's what I was saying about the $30 mill being misleading. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

[ezz_bee]

[mcHAPPY]

Right, but in terms of what the motivation is for the player, its the difference in dollar terms, between the contract they would get with similar production versus the overpaid contract.

For example...
Let's say you make 40,000 a year, and you know you have a raise coming up in 3 months. You can do everything the same and expect no raise (or perhaps a modest one), or you can work your ass off and get a raise 48,000 dollars a year. The motivation in this case ISN'T $48,000. It's $8,000 since you were pretty much guaranteed the $40k anyway. That's what I was saying about the $30 mill being misleading. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

The production is the issue. Production is elevated during contract years and is not a true indication of the worth of the player.

The $40k a year is likely on an indefinite period and is a salaried worker from the sounds of it.

NBA contracts are for a defined period. When the contract is up, there is no guarantee there will be another as you pointed out earlier in discussion with most guys out of league within 5 years.

Assuming player X, or in this case Ariza, has NBA talent and would be able to sign with any team for the league minimum regardless of cap situation, then the difference of money should be desired contract value minus minimum salary. So even in this case, we're still talking $32.7M ($33.5M contract minus minimum contract ~$800k) plus the security of 5 years versus 1 (and maybe not even if it is non-guaranteed).

[ezz_bee]

The production is the issue. Production is elevated during contract years and is not a true indication of the worth of the player.

The $40k a year is likely on an indefinite period and is a salaried worker from the sounds of it.

NBA contracts are for a defined period. When the contract is up, there is no guarantee there will be another as you pointed out earlier in discussion with most guys out of league within 5 years.

Assuming player X, or in this case Ariza, has NBA talent and would be able to sign with any team for the league minimum regardless of cap situation, then the difference of money should be desired contract value minus minimum salary. So even in this case, we're still talking $32.7M ($33.5M contract minus minimum contract ~$800k) plus the security of 5 years versus 1 (and maybe not even if it is non-guaranteed).

Fair enough, except that if you disregard his contract year and just look at the other stats there's no way he goes for the minimum only... BUT now I'm definitely splitting hairs.

[mcHAPPY]

No surprise Rudy opts in. Sacto needs to keep Isaiah Thomas, even if it may now require salary dump to duck the tax.

— Zach Lowe (@ZachLowe_NBA) June 22, 2014

Well there goes one FA SF target.

On a serious note, Kings are going to have to dump some salary to keep Isaiah Thomas.... or really add anyone else unless they are comfortable paying the tax.

[planetmars]

No surprise Rudy opts in. Sacto needs to keep Isaiah Thomas, even if it may now require salary dump to duck the tax.

— Zach Lowe (@ZachLowe_NBA) June 22, 2014

Well there goes one FA SF target.

On a serious note, Kings are going to have to dump some salary to keep Isaiah Thomas.... or really add anyone else unless they are comfortable paying the tax.

Wonder if Sacramento would be willing to give up #8 so that they don't have to pay too much salary. Could even grab Derrick Williams to help cut costs for them.

Williams + 8 for Novak + 20?

Williams is worth $6.3M. #8 pick is about $2.2M.
Novak is worth $3.4M. #20 pick is about $1.1M.

They can save about $4M. Still get a draft pick and should be able to resign Thomas without going into luxury.

Seems pretty lop sided but if the GM/owner are desperate enough to get under luxury tax, they might be willing to pull the trigger.

Not a big fan of Williams at all.. but it's more about moving up in the draft. At #8 MU would have a lot more options.

[Heatdreamer]

No I want Mike Miller off the bench, sign him for 1+1 for MLE like salary. He is better than Salmons, plus he doesn't need his shoes to shoot 3s. He rebounds, he can not play defense, neither can DD, or Salmons, but he can play the 2 and 3 position as a sixth man, he is worth it.

[mcHAPPY]

Wonder if Sacramento would be willing to give up #8 so that they don't have to pay too much salary. Could even grab Derrick Williams to help cut costs for them.

Williams + 8 for Novak + 20?

Williams is worth $6.3M. #8 pick is about $2.2M.
Novak is worth $3.4M. #20 pick is about $1.1M.

They can save about $4M. Still get a draft pick and should be able to resign Thomas without going into luxury.

Seems pretty lop sided but if the GM/owner are desperate enough to get under luxury tax, they might be willing to pull the trigger.

Not a big fan of Williams at all.. but it's more about moving up in the draft. At #8 MU would have a lot more options.

I think you have to take Landry or Thompson for any discussion.