In the Long Term, We're All Over Paying

A Tweet (oh dear God, I've become one of Them) from Lemur NBA Head Ric Bucher inspired this. Bucher's point was that you should not sign away a "energy player" -- which is to say, a guy whose stock in trade is defense and/or all-around play -- to a big contract, because (a) he'll lose the fire that made him useful in the first place, and (b) he's going to be exposed as limited with increased playing time and prominence.

Well, at least that's what I think he thinks. Twitter's 140 character limit is making me extrapolate a bit.

There's something to this, of course; a talented player can always hump up with a better attitude, at least for a short period of time. (See the playoff career of Tim Thomas and Jerome James, among many other sprint artists.) The hustle guy can't, at least not theoretically. There is, however, one qualifying point.

Long-term contracts are *rarely* in the best interests of the club... in any sport. They exist as a by-product of collective bargaining, and are acquired by players who are good enough to be hired away. In terms of actually motivating anyone but the guy who signs the deal, they are, at best, a non-factor. At worst, they are a sign to an emerging talent that you're going to have to skip town to get paid.

Fans, of course, rarely see it this way. You might question the amount, especially if the player has an injury or character issue, but the length? Fans want to win now, for the most part, rather than endure the malaise that is a fire sale year. They'll endure rebuilding if the young players are fun to watch, but more than that... well, we have many more things to do with our time now, right? And if the team isn't trying to win, why should you try to go to games, etc.?

Fans see long-term deals like little kids see a trip to the ice cream store -- almost all goodness, even if Dad is doing it to soften the blow of Not Enough Money For Vacation. They'll turn on it later, but mostly on the player. I haven't seen many torches and pitchforks out for Billy Beane buying up the terrible rest of Eric Chavez's career to a ruinous contract, even though almost every other position player from the early aught A's teams -- Tejada, Giambi, Damon, Dye, even freaking Ramon Hernandez -- would have brought a better return on investment. Instead, we shake our heads sadly at what might have been, seeing as how Chavez never did anything wrong other than get hurt. I need a drink.

So, getting back to the NBA... it's not just the Brian Cardinal / Ben Wallace / Theo Ratliff deals that wind up murdering your team. It's also the Stephon Marburys, the Latrell Sprewells, the Tracy McGradys. And, as we can see this week, the Yao Mings. (Good thing the Rockets find cheap second-tier talent.) Because even when the team rolls the dice with a long term deal and beats the odds.... What happens?

Right. The athlete wants to renegotiate, because he's getting less than what the market will bear. If you give it to him, the rest of the team does the same thing. If you don't, you get a malcontent that you probably wind up dealing for 60 cents on the dollar.

This isn't a sentence that gets written in English very often, but maybe Charlie Finley was right. The miserly and obnoxious A's owner at the dawn of free agency said he'd be all for it... provided everyone agreed to single-year contracts only. The man might have had a point.