From: terry@leland.Stanford.EDU (Terry Wong)
Subject: Re: Jimmy Jackson update
Keywords: Jimmy Jackson
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 08:54:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.164448.1776@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, gidi@Hilbert.Stanford.EDU (Gideon Avrahami) writes:
|> terry@garfield.Stanford.EDU (Terry Wong) writes:
|> >While it is understandable that Carter is taking a stand in this
|> >day of ridiculously inflated salaries for unproven rookies, IMHO,
|> >his posturing is going to be hugely detrimental to the Dallas franchise.
|> 
|> So, in your opinion, it is "understandable" that Carter is ruining the
|> Dallas franchise?
|> 
|> Or is it just "understandable" that he will force Jimmy Johnson -- a kid
|> who doesn't have even one thousandth of Carter's wealth -- to lose a year
|> of his career and several million dollars?
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> --Gidi
|> 
|> 

I don't know what your point is.  If you read the whole post, I 
obviously state that
1) Donald Carter is ruining the Dallas franchise.

2) Jimmy Jackson is not being offered a fair deal.
And it is obvious that I'm against both things happening.

What I said (and I don't think I was being obtuse)
is that Carter is understandably taking a stand against
the whole system of laying out huge long-term contracts to
unproven college players.  His position is that players should have
to prove themselves first, before getting the big money.
He's not the only guy who believes that, but he's the only guy
who's obstinate enough (and many stupid enough) to act on that premise.
Obviously, owners and management would support his opinion.
However, I've heard the same opinion offered by many current and
past NBA players.  And I think most people outside of sports would tend
to agree with his opinion too.  Any employer in any regular business would 
balk at guaranteeing a huge long-term contract to somebody just coming out of
school.  Of course, the NBA is not a regular business and market forces
(i.e. the lack of true free agency) drive the rookie contracts up to outlandish
levels.    

Recent high draft picks like Danny Ferry, J. R. Reid, 
Chris Jackson, Bo Kimble, and Stacy King illustrate that the current
system can lead to bad situations for franchises.

It is certainly fair that the players in the NBA get their fair share
of the revenues.  In fact, the NBA labor agreement mandates this.
However, it would also be more fair if veteran players who had proven themselves
received most of the pie.  The NBA salary system is an artificial one
that is influenced by the draft, the restrictions on free agency, and
the salary cap.  This disrupts the principle that the level of payment
should be totally influenced by performance.  Of course, these rules are in
place to meet other objectives, mainly to keep all teams in the league
competitive.

As for Jimmy Jackson, nobody is forcing him to miss out on the first
year of his career or millions of dollars.  In fact, the yearly dollar
amount of the offered contract is as good as other draftees like
Laettner and Mourning.  The difference is that Carter is willing to
guarantee only $10.8 million for 4 years while the other guys are being
guaranteed $20+ over 6 years.  Since these contracts are heavily
back-loaded, i.e. most of the big money comes in the last years of
the contract, for those 1st 4 years, Jackson would make approximately
as much as those other guys.  Theoretically, he stands to make even more
if he proves himself to be a great player and player contracts continue
to escalate.  Don't forget there are many players, e.g. Detlef Schrempf
who are upset that they signed long-term deals for dollar amounts that
are low in comparison with present contracts.
However, this is Jackson's decision.  I can understand that he wants
the security of a lot of guaranteed money, and I can understand that
he thinks he is being shortchanged.

Having said all that, I don't agree with Carter's stance, because
he is simply being unrealistic.  I think you can sympathize with
his opinion by placing yourself in his shoes, but it's a position
that can't be justified given the context of market forces and the
impact his actions will have on his franchise.

				terry@garfield.Stanford.EDU