The CBA And The Celtics: A Change is Gonna Come

Sometime in the first 2 weeks of February, the NBA will send the players’ association its first proposal for a new CBA (collective bargaining agreement), which will control how the NBA works from 2011 on. The league is expected to take a pretty hard line. Too many owners are losing money. The players’ share of basketball-related income will certainly go down, possibly to 50% from its current 57% (Stern wants 45%). Also on the table is the issue of a hard salary cap – no more endless "exceptions" – which of course would have to be phased in to account for all the huge contracts still out there. And one more thing: some owners want to tie players’ salaries to their performance – by diminishing or even abolishing guaranteed contracts – or at least adding certain performance-related conditions under which a player’s salary may be reduced, sometimes very substantially, if that player fails to meet certain goals, or crosses certain lines.

How will this affect the Cs?

The salary reduction is going to be a huge change for the players. The days when guys like Ray and Paul can get nearly $20m are over. Only 3 players in the NBA will be able to come close to commanding that kind of money - Lebron, Kobe, Wade. KG in his prime, maybe. Everybody else can forget about it.

And if the hard salary cap is instituted, teams will be UNABLE to spend more than the cap, which means even more draconian cuts to players’ salaries.

But all this is unlikely to make any real long-term difference. The players will VERY quickly get used to the new pay structure, and they will be happy with it. After all, they’re still going to get millions for not much more than playing a kid’s game. It’s a great life and they know it.

But then there’s that other thing. That which may not happen, but which would make an ENORMOUS difference in the NBA game: relating players’ salaries to their performance. This would be a huge step forward for the league. And it would make the biggest difference of all to the Celtics.

Let's look at the best case in point: Rasheed Wallace. He has a 3-year contract (2 + his option). This is the last deal of his career, and he knows it. What could motivate this man to play his heart out day in day out? It’s not easy to see. He’s a family man, happily married. He has children. (So basketball is not the most important thing in his life.) He’s rich. And he’s GUARANTEED TO GET RICHER. Whether he plays like a fecalith (Jan 29, 2010 vs. Atlanta), or like an All-Star (Jan 10, 2010 vs. Toronto). It’s not hard to understand why he might not be maximally motivated to play his guts out every night. You can think of good reasons… but put yourself in his shoes and think again.

This is the problem with all guaranteed contracts that do not relate to performance. It’s the same kind of problem people have with lawyers and accountants and ANYBODY who charges by the hour. You’re paying for their time, not for the quality of their work. (So the longer they take, the slower and stupider they are, the more you pay. Think about that.) The Cs are paying Sheed for his work. Quality has nothing to do with it. And therein lies the problem with guys like Sheed at the ends of their careers (and a lot other guys who aren’t): Insufficient motivation.

Creating a new kind of contract that links pay to performance is an excellent way to stop this kind of thing once and for all. And it would impact the Celtics as much as, if not more than, any other club in the NBA… because of (a) the preponderance of vets here, and (b) the "highly variable" motivation level this team has displayed (pardon the euphemism).

So let it happen, I say. Link pay to performance for all these guys. What, they don’t make enough money? They want a GUARANTEED FREE RIDE too? Uh uh… no such thing in the real world.

And while you’re at it, link the REFS’ salaries to their performance too. The more times a ref gets his rulings reversed, the less money that ref makes. And what, exactly, is wrong with that idea?