Reasonable + Fair Contracts =/= Good Contracts

[yoursweatersux]

Like the title suggests, the main point of this comment is to highlight the fact that paying someone their market value does very little to give your team an edge. In fact, in a perfectly rational and accurate market, if every team paid players exactly what they were worth you would by definition end up with a team that wins 42 games and loses 42 games.

The battle of the salary cap, therefore, is won and lost by GM's who can squeeze value out of players in EXCESS of what they are actually paying them. In the case of Lebron James, for instance, his actual worth in a non-salary cap world would be at least $40 million - therefore, any amount you choose to pay him under the CBA is going to give you an out-sized advantage. That's the reason why true stars are so valuable in this league.

Likewise, rookie stars on their rookie contracts are also immensely valuable for the same reason: the benefit they confer is greater than what the market is actually allowed to pay them.

Then there are players who voluntarily take less than their market value, and players who have been systematically undervalued. The Spurs have multiple examples of this (Tony Parker, who has made all-nba teams multiple times, making only 12 million a year. Manu, whose numbers on a per-minute basis rival Kobe Bryant's, perpetually being underpaid because he plays fewer minutes and comes off the bench. Duncan, who took a discount on the basis of his old age, yet still outperforms the majority of PF's and centers in the game).

The rule of the game is simple: you don't win big by playing fair. You need to show up with a stacked deck, and you stack that deck by getting players who give you more value on a dollar-per-dollar basis.

How does this relate back to the Celtics? Well, we WERE doing a great job of this with Rondo at his current price. But Ainge has managed to blow it Jeff Green and more recently Avery Bradley. It's tough to argue, when you compare other player signings, that what Jeff Green and Avery Bradley are getting paid is "unreasonable". They're not albatross contracts. In fact, if anything, they are eminently fair prices. BUT YOU DON'T WIN BY PLAYING FAIR. And Ainge's failure to recognize that will cost us, both in terms of long-term flexibility and in our ability to craft another contending team. Ainge is making the "right" move by giving Bradley $8 mil per year, but it's not a winning move.

[manl_lui]

Like the title suggests, the main point of this comment is to highlight the fact that paying someone their market value does very little to give your team an edge. In fact, in a perfectly rational and accurate market, if every team paid players exactly what they were worth you would by definition end up with a team that wins 42 games and loses 42 games.

The battle of the salary cap, therefore, is won and lost by GM's who can squeeze value out of players in EXCESS of what they are actually paying them. In the case of Lebron James, for instance, his actual worth in a non-salary cap world would be at least $40 million - therefore, any amount you choose to pay him under the CBA is going to give you an out-sized advantage. That's the reason why true stars are so valuable in this league.

Likewise, rookie stars on their rookie contracts are also immensely valuable for the same reason: the benefit they confer is greater than what the market is actually allowed to pay them.

Then there are players who voluntarily take less than their market value, and players who have been systematically undervalued. The Spurs have multiple examples of this (Tony Parker, who has made all-nba teams multiple times, making only 12 million a year. Manu, whose numbers on a per-minute basis rival Kobe Bryant's, perpetually being underpaid because he plays fewer minutes and comes off the bench. Duncan, who took a discount on the basis of his old age, yet still outperforms the majority of PF's and centers in the game).

The rule of the game is simple: you don't win big by playing fair. You need to show up with a stacked deck, and you stack that deck by getting players who give you more value on a dollar-per-dollar basis.

How does this relate back to the Celtics? Well, we WERE doing a great job of this with Rondo at his current price. But Ainge has managed to blow it Jeff Green and more recently Avery Bradley. It's tough to argue, when you compare other player signings, that what Jeff Green and Avery Bradley are getting paid is "unreasonable". They're not albatross contracts. In fact, if anything, they are eminently fair prices. BUT YOU DON'T WIN BY PLAYING FAIR. And Ainge's failure to recognize that will cost us, both in terms of long-term flexibility and in our ability to craft another contending team. Ainge is making the "right" move by giving Bradley $8 mil per year, but it's not a winning move.

I don't like the signing to be honest cuz I thought Bradley was worth about 6 mil and no more than 7. But I'm not Ainge and I don't know what is going on right now, so I will wait in the long term to see how this will pan out. I mean he did net us KG and Ray Allen. Not that I'm comparing the two trades, but I'm just saying, be patient and see. Knowing Ainge, he's never done and we never know what he has up his sleeves

[droopdog7]

So what's a winning move exactly?  Clear out as much space as possible, sign the worst players you can find for league minimum so that you tank and get high draft picks for five years, and hope and pray that the next Lebron signs with us and brings his superstar friends with him?  That's the plan?

As has been said, too many people look at Mia and think that that is the only way to build.  Bring in the stars first and go from there, neglecting the fact that getting these stars is not easy.  Go look at teams like Cle, Charl, and the early Vancouver teams to see how high lottery picks mean winning.  High lottery picks are just that; lottery tickets that could turn to nothing.

And people seem to forget that we didn't go the Mia route either.  Don't want to be lumped with them because this team built assets and cashed them in at the right time.  The Celts didn't drop everyone in sight and wait for the stars to come in to save the day.

I trust DA has a plan and know's what he's doing.

[nickagneta]

Your logic is flawed in that there are very few teams that have every player that is on a contract where they exceed the expectations of that contract. Looking at every contract individually is the wrong way to go about it. You want to judge it on a team basis. Boston has some players on fair contracts like Bradley and Green. But they also have players that either are performing or will perform above the value of the contract. They also have players that are grossly overpaid. All in all, the Celtics are pretty average in this regard.

What you gotta attempt to do is sign a player at a level you think is fair and then hope he plays above the value of the contract. I think that's what Danny did with Green and Bradley. I think Green has been about at value and let's hope Bradley continues to develop and his contract looks like a bargain.

[Atzar]

Your logic is flawed in that there are very few teams that have every player that is on a contract where they exceed the expectations of that contract. Looking at every contract individually is the wrong way to go about it. You want to judge it on a team basis. Boston has some players on fair contracts like Bradley and Green. But they also have players that either are performing or will perform above the value of the contract. They also have players that are grossly overpaid. All in all, the Celtics are pretty average in this regard.

What you gotta attempt to do is sign a player at a level you think is fair and then hope he plays above the value of the contract. I think that's what Danny did with Green and Bradley. I think Green has been about at value and let's hope Bradley continues to develop and his contract looks like a bargain.

Well said.

[yoursweatersux]

Your logic is flawed in that there are very few teams that have every player that is on a contract where they exceed the expectations of that contract. Looking at every contract individually is the wrong way to go about it. You want to judge it on a team basis. Boston has some players on fair contracts like Bradley and Green. But they also have players that either are performing or will perform above the value of the contract. They also have players that are grossly overpaid. All in all, the Celtics are pretty average in this regard.

What you gotta attempt to do is sign a player at a level you think is fair and then hope he plays above the value of the contract. I think that's what Danny did with Green and Bradley. I think Green has been about at value and let's hope Bradley continues to develop and his contract looks like a bargain.

The point is that most of the time you're better off going after players that you KNOW are underrated, rather than getting a player at market value and simply HOPING that they outperform their contract.

For example, the Houston Rockets knew what they were getting when they went after James Harden. His value wasn't a mystery to anyone who actually knows how stats work, even as far back as the 2011-2012 season:

http://wagesofwins.com/2012/02/02/james-harden-the-nbas-best-2-guard/

But apparently the rest of the league was like durrr he comes off the bench durr Kobe is the best player evar because he scores the most points.

There are plenty of players out there like that, if you only know where the look. In fact, the majority of teams can improve their rosters simply by eliminating the REALLY BAD players with mediocre players that can be picked up from the D-League. Or, you can just stop playing them.

[D.o.s.]

Your logic is flawed in that there are very few teams that have every player that is on a contract where they exceed the expectations of that contract. Looking at every contract individually is the wrong way to go about it. You want to judge it on a team basis. Boston has some players on fair contracts like Bradley and Green. But they also have players that either are performing or will perform above the value of the contract. They also have players that are grossly overpaid. All in all, the Celtics are pretty average in this regard.

What you gotta attempt to do is sign a player at a level you think is fair and then hope he plays above the value of the contract. I think that's what Danny did with Green and Bradley. I think Green has been about at value and let's hope Bradley continues to develop and his contract looks like a bargain.

The point is that most of the time you're better off going after players that you KNOW are underrated, rather than getting a player at market value and simply HOPING that they outperform their contract.

For example, the Houston Rockets knew what they were getting when they went after James Harden. His value wasn't a mystery to anyone who actually knows how stats work, even as far back as the 2011-2012 season:

http://wagesofwins.com/2012/02/02/james-harden-the-nbas-best-2-guard/

But apparently the rest of the league was like durrr he comes off the bench durr Kobe is the best player evar because he scores the most points.

There are plenty of players out there like that, if you only know where the look. In fact, the majority of teams can improve their rosters simply by eliminating the REALLY BAD players with mediocre players that can be picked up from the D-League. Or, you can just stop playing them.

That's not actually a good assessment of James Harden's value around the league before he went to Houston, but I'm glad to see that you're still jocking Wages of Wins like a Jehovah Witness.

[yoursweatersux]

Your logic is flawed in that there are very few teams that have every player that is on a contract where they exceed the expectations of that contract. Looking at every contract individually is the wrong way to go about it. You want to judge it on a team basis. Boston has some players on fair contracts like Bradley and Green. But they also have players that either are performing or will perform above the value of the contract. They also have players that are grossly overpaid. All in all, the Celtics are pretty average in this regard.

What you gotta attempt to do is sign a player at a level you think is fair and then hope he plays above the value of the contract. I think that's what Danny did with Green and Bradley. I think Green has been about at value and let's hope Bradley continues to develop and his contract looks like a bargain.

The point is that most of the time you're better off going after players that you KNOW are underrated, rather than getting a player at market value and simply HOPING that they outperform their contract.

For example, the Houston Rockets knew what they were getting when they went after James Harden. His value wasn't a mystery to anyone who actually knows how stats work, even as far back as the 2011-2012 season:

http://wagesofwins.com/2012/02/02/james-harden-the-nbas-best-2-guard/

But apparently the rest of the league was like durrr he comes off the bench durr Kobe is the best player evar because he scores the most points.

There are plenty of players out there like that, if you only know where the look. In fact, the majority of teams can improve their rosters simply by eliminating the REALLY BAD players with mediocre players that can be picked up from the D-League. Or, you can just stop playing them.

That's not actually a good assessment of James Harden's value around the league before he went to Houston, but I'm glad to see that you're still jocking Wages of Wins like a Jehovah Witness.

I guess I'll get off their jock when they stop being ridiculously right about things, like the Spurs not being close to being "outside of their window" following the 2011-2012 playoffs, when everybody was saying they were cooked:

http://wagesofwins.com/2012/10/18/the-bad-news-about-the-san-antonio-spurs/

(keep in mind that not only were they saying that the Spurs weren't cooked, but that they would actually be BETTER in 2012-2013, which is the opposite of what 99% of pundits were saying)

Or I'll stop when they stop being creepy accurate regarding draft picks:

http://wagesofwins.com/2013/05/21/how-did-the-spurs-get-a-player-like-kawhi-leonard/

The point is it's just funny how bad conventional basketball logic and GM's hold up in the face of win shares, so I guess I'll stop jocking it when people admit that Jeff Green and Avery Bradly are bad according to ws and maybe that's why we had 25 wins last season.

[D.o.s.]

Do you need a hug? I was being complementary. If you're going to cling to a tell all stat, you can do much worse than Win Shares.

[Greenbean]

Your logic is flawed in that there are very few teams that have every player that is on a contract where they exceed the expectations of that contract. Looking at every contract individually is the wrong way to go about it. You want to judge it on a team basis. Boston has some players on fair contracts like Bradley and Green. But they also have players that either are performing or will perform above the value of the contract. They also have players that are grossly overpaid. All in all, the Celtics are pretty average in this regard.

What you gotta attempt to do is sign a player at a level you think is fair and then hope he plays above the value of the contract. I think that's what Danny did with Green and Bradley. I think Green has been about at value and let's hope Bradley continues to develop and his contract looks like a bargain.

The point is that most of the time you're better off going after players that you KNOW are underrated, rather than getting a player at market value and simply HOPING that they outperform their contract.

For example, the Houston Rockets knew what they were getting when they went after James Harden. His value wasn't a mystery to anyone who actually knows how stats work, even as far back as the 2011-2012 season:

http://wagesofwins.com/2012/02/02/james-harden-the-nbas-best-2-guard/

But apparently the rest of the league was like durrr he comes off the bench durr Kobe is the best player evar because he scores the most points.

There are plenty of players out there like that, if you only know where the look. In fact, the majority of teams can improve their rosters simply by eliminating the REALLY BAD players with mediocre players that can be picked up from the D-League. Or, you can just stop playing them.

That's not actually a good assessment of James Harden's value around the league before he went to Houston, but I'm glad to see that you're still jocking Wages of Wins like a Jehovah Witness.

I guess I'll get off their jock when they stop being ridiculously right about things, like the Spurs not being close to being "outside of their window" following the 2011-2012 playoffs, when everybody was saying they were cooked:

http://wagesofwins.com/2012/10/18/the-bad-news-about-the-san-antonio-spurs/

(keep in mind that not only were they saying that the Spurs weren't cooked, but that they would actually be BETTER in 2012-2013, which is the opposite of what 99% of pundits were saying)

Or I'll stop when they stop being creepy accurate regarding draft picks:

http://wagesofwins.com/2013/05/21/how-did-the-spurs-get-a-player-like-kawhi-leonard/

The point is it's just funny how bad conventional basketball logic and GM's hold up in the face of win shares, so I guess I'll stop jocking it when people admit that Jeff Green and Avery Bradly are bad according to ws and maybe that's why we had 25 wins last season.

Regarding your comment of logic that GM's use....did you see the Sacramento War Room video posted earlier today?

They actually wrote on a white board, the floor/ceiling NBA player comparison of every player in their range...seriously? We have more informed, fact based discussions on this forum.                                   

I think we give sports front offices way too much credit in general just because they make alot of money. We are assuming they are all resourceful and somewhat intelligent.

I dont support the idea of a meddelsome owner, but in some cases I get it. The owner is the sharp business person. Sometimes, the general manager of your team is not the best person to handle the risk assesment side of your salary investments.

[e4e5sesame]

Like the title suggests, the main point of this comment is to highlight the fact that paying someone their market value does very little to give your team an edge. In fact, in a perfectly rational and accurate market, if every team paid players exactly what they were worth you would by definition end up with a team that wins 42 games and loses 42 games.

I understand the allure of a moneyball approach to roster building, but it really isn't the be-all and end-all of the sports executive's playbook.

In the scenario that you describe, there would likely be any number of different win/loss ratios for a few reasons. Firstly, if you're going to go with the numbers approach, you have to accept that basketball is a stochastic system (wins and losses are to a large extent probabilistic), so while win/loss ratios may be normally distributed with .500 as the mean, in most permutations every team will not end up at exactly .500.

More importantly though, you are ignoring the effects of gameplan, chemistry, and coaching. In this scenario, the Spurs probably still win the Championship, because their front office is going to assemble a team that makes sense, and Popovich is going to have them playing the right way. This is exactly what Danny is trying to do with Stevens and his free agent signings. Putting together a market-value team is not necessarily a ticket to failure as long as your pieces harmonize and your coach has them playing to their full potential.

[mctyson]

Like the title suggests, the main point of this comment is to highlight the fact that paying someone their market value does very little to give your team an edge. In fact, in a perfectly rational and accurate market, if every team paid players exactly what they were worth you would by definition end up with a team that wins 42 games and loses 42 games.

There is almost no way to pay an NBA player "above" market or "below" market, because the market (buying) price is what the PLAYER (seller) accepts within a system of littered with restrictions, not above/below what some perfectly rational 3rd-party evaluator assigns as a true value.

Thus, every player in the NBA signs a contract at "market value." The NBA just has a stupid system of rules for paying people so it's a messed up market.

[BballTim]

Your logic is flawed in that there are very few teams that have every player that is on a contract where they exceed the expectations of that contract. Looking at every contract individually is the wrong way to go about it. You want to judge it on a team basis. Boston has some players on fair contracts like Bradley and Green. But they also have players that either are performing or will perform above the value of the contract. They also have players that are grossly overpaid. All in all, the Celtics are pretty average in this regard.

What you gotta attempt to do is sign a player at a level you think is fair and then hope he plays above the value of the contract. I think that's what Danny did with Green and Bradley. I think Green has been about at value and let's hope Bradley continues to develop and his contract looks like a bargain.

The point is that most of the time you're better off going after players that you KNOW are underrated, rather than getting a player at market value and simply HOPING that they outperform their contract.

For example, the Houston Rockets knew what they were getting when they went after James Harden. His value wasn't a mystery to anyone who actually knows how stats work, even as far back as the 2011-2012 season:

http://wagesofwins.com/2012/02/02/james-harden-the-nbas-best-2-guard/

But apparently the rest of the league was like durrr he comes off the bench durr Kobe is the best player evar because he scores the most points.

There are plenty of players out there like that, if you only know where the look. In fact, the majority of teams can improve their rosters simply by eliminating the REALLY BAD players with mediocre players that can be picked up from the D-League. Or, you can just stop playing them.

That's not actually a good assessment of James Harden's value around the league before he went to Houston, but I'm glad to see that you're still jocking Wages of Wins like a Jehovah Witness.

I guess I'll get off their jock when they stop being ridiculously right about things, like the Spurs not being close to being "outside of their window" following the 2011-2012 playoffs, when everybody was saying they were cooked:

http://wagesofwins.com/2012/10/18/the-bad-news-about-the-san-antonio-spurs/

(keep in mind that not only were they saying that the Spurs weren't cooked, but that they would actually be BETTER in 2012-2013, which is the opposite of what 99% of pundits were saying)

Or I'll stop when they stop being creepy accurate regarding draft picks:

http://wagesofwins.com/2013/05/21/how-did-the-spurs-get-a-player-like-kawhi-leonard/

The point is it's just funny how bad conventional basketball logic and GM's hold up in the face of win shares, so I guess I'll stop jocking it when people admit that Jeff Green and Avery Bradly are bad according to ws and maybe that's why we had 25 wins last season.

  I thought someone posted something before the season started where wages of wins predicted we'd win 40 games or so.

[yoursweatersux]

Your logic is flawed in that there are very few teams that have every player that is on a contract where they exceed the expectations of that contract. Looking at every contract individually is the wrong way to go about it. You want to judge it on a team basis. Boston has some players on fair contracts like Bradley and Green. But they also have players that either are performing or will perform above the value of the contract. They also have players that are grossly overpaid. All in all, the Celtics are pretty average in this regard.

What you gotta attempt to do is sign a player at a level you think is fair and then hope he plays above the value of the contract. I think that's what Danny did with Green and Bradley. I think Green has been about at value and let's hope Bradley continues to develop and his contract looks like a bargain.

The point is that most of the time you're better off going after players that you KNOW are underrated, rather than getting a player at market value and simply HOPING that they outperform their contract.

For example, the Houston Rockets knew what they were getting when they went after James Harden. His value wasn't a mystery to anyone who actually knows how stats work, even as far back as the 2011-2012 season:

http://wagesofwins.com/2012/02/02/james-harden-the-nbas-best-2-guard/

But apparently the rest of the league was like durrr he comes off the bench durr Kobe is the best player evar because he scores the most points.

There are plenty of players out there like that, if you only know where the look. In fact, the majority of teams can improve their rosters simply by eliminating the REALLY BAD players with mediocre players that can be picked up from the D-League. Or, you can just stop playing them.

That's not actually a good assessment of James Harden's value around the league before he went to Houston, but I'm glad to see that you're still jocking Wages of Wins like a Jehovah Witness.

I guess I'll get off their jock when they stop being ridiculously right about things, like the Spurs not being close to being "outside of their window" following the 2011-2012 playoffs, when everybody was saying they were cooked:

http://wagesofwins.com/2012/10/18/the-bad-news-about-the-san-antonio-spurs/

(keep in mind that not only were they saying that the Spurs weren't cooked, but that they would actually be BETTER in 2012-2013, which is the opposite of what 99% of pundits were saying)

Or I'll stop when they stop being creepy accurate regarding draft picks:

http://wagesofwins.com/2013/05/21/how-did-the-spurs-get-a-player-like-kawhi-leonard/

The point is it's just funny how bad conventional basketball logic and GM's hold up in the face of win shares, so I guess I'll stop jocking it when people admit that Jeff Green and Avery Bradly are bad according to ws and maybe that's why we had 25 wins last season.

  I thought someone posted something before the season started where wages of wins predicted we'd win 40 games or so.

1) It was 35 wins

2) It assumed average production from Jeff Green (.100 ws/48) while he underperformed (actual ws/48 was .57) and also assumed that Rondo would be back earlier and healthier than he was (.54 ws/48, as opposed to his career average of .130).

[D.o.s.]

Incorrect prediction built from incorrect assumption.

This has got to be the first time this has happened in the history of man.