"The best things in life are free..." (November 8, 1997)

So with another weird off season completed, I wonder out loud if other people out there in Internet land find it odd the amount of money that these athletes are getting paid? They are getting guaranteed contracts that are larger than the GNP of some small Latin American countries. Ok, you could argue that Shaquille O'Neal is more important to the world economy than say, Nicaragua. At least he has other outsides interests, like his rap and movie career. He generates money outside of his basketball life. Sure his basketball career is directly responsible for his out interests, but he still makes money from Pepsi, Reebok, etc. The same is not true for, say, Kevin Garnett or even Bryant Reeves. I'll take Garnett as an example, because basically, I like to pick on Da Kid. Here's a guy who didn't go to university and now makes a gillion dollars. Only in America! I'm not saying he should have stayed in school. What I am saying is that he has done nothing. He's a one-time all-star. Big deal. So is Tyrone Hill. He has led his team to the playoffs once. He's only been in the league for how long? 2 years and yet the T-Wolves are willing to pay him the cost of building the HHH Metrodome. Pretty scary. I know he's young and will get better. He might revolutionize the small forward position with his size, speed and co-ordination (although Brad Sellers had a similar combination and look at him now. I think I saw him on Michigan Ave. with a sign saying "Will rebound for food.") I'm a true capitalist. I believe in the market. Is Garnett receiving what the market will bear? That is a good question. Let us remember if any team (or teams) decide in being fiscally responsible and decide not sign or resign their players, they are considered cheap. Cheap teams don't win. Cheap teams don't get the best players. You have to spend to win. Right? Ok, that's probably true. But the "C" word is often mentioned when there is little movement in the free agent market. No, you sick people. Not that "C" word (for those of you who listen to Howard Stern way to much), I'm talking about Collusion. That bad word was first used in baseball in the late 1980s, because owners decided collectively not to resign their free agents for obscenely high amounts. This was a good idea for the owners, because they knew salaries were going to escalate. But the problem is, it's illegal and they got caught. Fast forward to the present. Any time the market moves slow, you hear that word. It happens in the NFL as well. I don't know. The free agent system has created a two-tiered system, like in the NFL and MLB. You get the Kevin Garnetts and the Bryant Reeves who make some serious ducats and they account for 30-50% of the cap. Then you get the Byron Scotts and Dominique Wilkinses, who have to go to Europe to get their true value. Some other veterans would rather hang around in the NBA for the league minimums and hope they can make some more bread the next year, like Oliver Miller. Some would argue that the market is just regulating salaries, and in fact I would agree, but this causes some problems and I wonder what is happening internally in the players association. The NBA probably has concerns, but as long as there is a cap (which is supposed to cap salaries, but rarely does, but for arguments sake, let us say there is a hard cap) they are ok. But the NBAPA I think has some problems. The average salaries of their membership has been increasing, because of the sky-r ocketing salaries of the aforementioned. But what of the veterans who aren't getting what they were, 2 or 3 years ago? Good question. I guess Jordan and Ewing asking for union decertification wasn't so stupid was it? They probably saw that the veterans getting squat for a salary would rise up and bite them in the ass, regardless of their status in the league. What can be done? I don't know. Besides, whatever I say won't be heard by the powers that be anyway. In a free market, until the supply has increased, the prices will continually rise, so look for this to continue until a) we, the fans, stop paying for higher ticket prices b) teams start losing money, and I mean real losses, not book losses. (like the way Washington is able to have two separatede companies run the team and the stadium. The stadium company takes the profits from its operation and the Washington basketball team takes its profits from the team operation. The team then is charged rent by the stadium and the team also receives a percentage from concessions, tickets, etc. The Washington basketball team has a crappy lease, thereby decreasing the revenue stream, but Abe Polian still retains the same amount of money in his pockets in the end. Pretty sweet.) c) salaries are regulated, which will never happen. It doesn't affect me in anyway, as a passive viewer. I rarely go to games because it is too expensive and when I do go, I get the cheap seats, because even they are relatively expensive. I don't care if Damon Stoudamire gets $80 million or $100 million next year. I don't care if Walt Williams and Doug Christie got $15 or $25 million and the cap is now blown until the next century. All I care about is the product (and I do mean product, because it's entertainment and when we realize that, we will have accepted a major 90s fact of sports) on the court is good and the team wins.