Posted by Silverfuel:
Posted by martin:
In deference to the players... if your boss ever said to you "you've been good lately, how about a 100% raise?" would you respond with "only 50% for me, I don't want to hold back the company"?
Not exactly the same scenario as the above, but you get my point.
There is a difference. If I claimed that my goal was for the company to be the top producer of something or the top seller of something, I would definately take a pay cut. And thats when i'll be making 100,000 at the most every year. Athletes make millions and still dont take paycuts!
What is most annoying is, athletes claim that their number one priority is winning and money doesn't mean that much and blah blah. If you really want to win a chaimpionship, do what Karl Malone and Gary Payton did. Take pay cuts and bring people in or sign with a team for less money. But instead they ask for huge contracts and then they cry about not being able to win a championship.
A few things:
- we will have to make the distinction between taking a pay cut and signing for a lower salary.
- we will have to take into consideration the difference between contracts and salaries.
- we will also have to take into consideration between signing a contract with your current team and signing with a different team.
Payton and Malone didn't take a pay cut, they chose to sign for less money for a different team. Players cannot alter their contracts. They can sign new ones and extend current ones.
The only situation where your logic applies is when a player signs for less when there is cap room to allow another player to sign simultaneously. Otherwise players sign for as much as they can; it's human nature (plus family, friends, accountants, lawyers and especially agents will not allow anything else).
This is why teams have GMs and assistant GMs - they are supposed to understand the cap and contracts and their intermingled consequences. GMs also have dumb fck owners who can mess up even the best of intentions.
