Jump to content

What makes a bad sports contract bad?


Unocal

Recommended Posts

We hear so much about bad contracts doled out to players in sports, but what makes some contracts as bad as some make it out to be?

Is it the money? The amount of years? The production before and after? The team that signs him? Player production? Cap hit?

Some contracts that have been considered the worst are not the ones for milions and millions. Jerome James' Knicks contract is considered all-time bad even thought it isn't as hefty as, say, Gilbert Arenas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two factors that make a bad contract bad, and they're both the results of collective bargaining: salary caps and roster limits. Each one creates scarcity: you can't have too many guys on the roster, and you can't pay the team too much money as a unit. A contract becomes "bad" when the value or time promised to the player precludes a team from bringing in better replacement talent. A contra asset, if you will.

 

 

sticksstones4.png

The world's foremost practitioners of professional tag-team wrestling.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two factors that make a bad contract bad, and they're both the results of collective bargaining: salary caps and roster limits. Each one creates scarcity: you can't have too many guys on the roster, and you can't pay the team too much money as a unit. A contract becomes "bad" when the value or time promised to the player precludes a team from bringing in better replacement talent. A contra asset, if you will.

And it gets even more complicated than that in the MLB with the way waivers and compensation works, and signing bonuses... and international players. And hell what about soccer where you don't really have those restrictions, and loans. I feel it really differentiates between sports.

Cardinals -- Rams -- Blues -- Tigers -- Liverpool

Check out my music!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best example of this is the Luongo contract.

12yrs, 64m.

This is the main reason of the goalie fiasco and both Luongo and Schneider leaving in 8 months apart.

Who got better value for their contract? Luongo is a good goalie who loses his head in the playoffs.

For your consideration, I submit Rick DiPietro: 15 years, $67.5M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too much money and cap space tied up in a bad, old and/or overrated player, preventing the team from improving for the duration of the contract. I feel like bad contracts' effects are most pronounced in basketball where all the contracts are guaranteed, and least pronounced in football where the reported dollar amount when signed has become almost entirely meaningless.

xLmjWVv.png

POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The DiPietro one was horrendous and hilarious.

If you offered him half of that- say, 7 years and 31.5 million- would it be as bad?

Well... yes. It would still probably have been the worst goalie contract ever. It was signed either after or during a season in which he had a GAA over 3.00 (think about that... signing a goalie to a 15 year contract with a GAA over 3.00!) It would have ended after the lockout-shortened season. He played 175 games, so his salary would have come out to $180,000 per game. If you paid a goalie that rate for an average 60 start season, it would be a $10.8M annual salary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two factors that make a bad contract bad, and they're both the results of collective bargaining: salary caps and roster limits. Each one creates scarcity: you can't have too many guys on the roster, and you can't pay the team too much money as a unit. A contract becomes "bad" when the value or time promised to the player precludes a team from bringing in better replacement talent. A contra asset, if you will.

And it gets even more complicated than that in the MLB with the way waivers and compensation works, and signing bonuses... and international players. And hell what about soccer where you don't really have those restrictions, and loans. I feel it really differentiates between sports.

Yeah, soccer is entirely different. You're a lot more likely to have bad transfer fees than bad contracts.

Then again, we've had our fair share of issues getting rid of guys on high wages at Villa but your issues more come if you buy a guy for £20 million in the prime of his career who you can't sell for more than £5 million a few years later.

The whole transfer fee thing is what doomed Villa a few years back—under Martin O'Neill, Villa pretty much exclusively bought players that they wouldn't be able to get anything for in a few years. When you're not earning money from selling your players, it's tough to push forward.

6fQjS3M.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No-trade clauses, player (and even club options) make bad contracts worse because it's so hard to move a player.

The phillies were willing to eat a ton of money, but couldn't move players because they wanted kickers to wave no trades, or wanted options to be guaranteed, or teams wanted players to waive their option rights.

Things like that are just as bad as too much money - even worse, since you can always but your way it of a financial mistake.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better example: Bobby Bonilla.

*Disclaimer: I am not an authoritative expert on stuff...I just do a lot of reading and research and keep in close connect with a bunch of people who are authoritative experts on stuff. 😁

|| dribbble || Behance ||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.