Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Hollinger - 25 worst contracts in the NBA

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Hollinger - 25 worst contracts in the NBA

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insid...dContracts0607

    March 28, 2007

    The 25 worst contracts in the NBA
    By John Hollinger
    ESPN Insider Archive

    For about 20 of the NBA's teams, this is the time of year when things get really exciting. They're either pushing for a playoff spot, or already have one sewn up and are gearing up for their postseason run. Either way, the focus is entirely on the here and now.

    For the league's bottom-feeders, however, summer can't come soon enough. And inevitably, talk of summer produces talk of free agency. So with visions of offseason glory starting to dance in the heads of the league's lesser lights, it's time to drag out a cautionary tale.

    Remember, signing a player to a big-money deal isn't necessarily a good thing -- in fact, sometimes it can be downright disastrous. And until I started researching this story, I didn't realize just how bad it could get.

    My task was to come up with the worst contracts in the NBA, and man, there are some doozies out there. Since the season is nearly complete, I'm approaching this task with a particular spin -- those players who gave the least for their team's money in 2006-07.

    Amazingly, even though I extended it to include 25 players, it took a jaw-dropping lack of productivity to crack this list. Being merely overpaid wouldn't get you close -- "dead weight" is more what we're looking for here.

    As it turns out, there are four different varieties of bad contracts. Thus, I've separated them by group and counted the worst in each category. The envelopes, please:

    CATEGORY I: ALREADY WAIVED

    These players are still getting paid by their former teams, even though a couple of them haven't suited up in ages. A few others are double dipping, cashing checks from both a former team and a current one.

    Finley

    1. Michael Finley, Mavericks ($16.1 million)
    Contrary to what you might think, the worst-case contract scenario isn't paying a lot of money to a guy who can't play. It's shelling out for a guy who can play and then waiving him, allowing him to sign a below-market contract with your closest rival for the championship. That's the case for the Mavs, who are paying Finley superstar money to try to beat them as a Spur. Blame the luxury tax amnesty rule, which offered the Mavs so much savings that they couldn't afford not to cut Finley.

    Grant

    2. Brian Grant, Lakers ($14.8 million) and Celtics ($1.9 million)
    Grant is getting paid by two different teams to sit at home and watch his dreadlocks grow. What a country. Chronic knee problems forced him to retire after delivering mighty little as a free agent in Phoenix a year ago (in fact, although the Celtics are cutting the checks, the Suns are the ones paying his salary), but that's a pittance compared to what he's getting from the Lakers.

    L.A. made him a luxury tax amnesty cut in 2005 after his salary was included as ballast in the Shaquille O'Neal deal; the outlandish contract to pry him from Portland was originally cut by Pat Riley during his "let's wildly overpay for veteran role players" phase. Speaking of which …

    Jones

    3. Eddie Jones, Grizzlies ($14.9 million)
    Riley made the Jones mistake the same summer he picked up Grant, but he's rebounded nicely -- Grant was converted into Shaq, of course, while Jones went to Memphis in the brilliant multiteam deal that netted Jason Williams and Antoine Walker.

    Now Jones is back with the Heat while the Grizzlies are stuck with the tab.

    Webber

    4. Chris Webber, 76ers ($17.6 million)
    They'll be paying C-Webb next season, too, after reaching a buyout agreement with him earlier this year. Worse yet, Webber miraculously healed as soon as he landed in Detroit.

    But as a Sixer, he gave very little -- just 38.7 percent shooting and matador D in 18 contests.

    Anderson

    5. Derek Anderson, Blazers ($9.7 million)
    Anderson's body started to quit on him almost immediately after he joined Portland on a six-year, $48 million contract in a sign-and-trade with San Antonio. The Spurs got a pair of sharpshooting Steves who went on to announcing careers (Kerr and Smith), and best of all they didn't get stuck with the bitter pill of the final few years on this deal. Anderson ended up being an amnesty cut in 2005 and "won" a ring from the sidelines as a member of last year's Heat.

    Baker

    6. Vin Baker, Celtics ($5.2 million)
    I almost hit the floor when I read this, but Baker -- whom Boston released in February of 2004 -- is still getting paychecks from the C's. He's due $5.2 million this year from the leftovers of his behemoth contract, which the Celtics tried to void in 2004 when they released him. The original contract was supposed to expire in 2006, but the two sides agreed to pay out a reduced amount over a longer time period.

    Baker also had the privilege of being cut a second time, as the Celtics made him a luxury tax amnesty subtraction in 2005, even though he'd been gone more than a year. Nonetheless, his Boston money will supplement whatever pittance he collected in three appearances in November for Minnesota.

    McKie

    7. Aaron McKie, 76ers ($5.6 million) and Lakers ($2.5 million)
    McKie was a luxury tax amnesty cut by the 76ers in 2005, but this didn't deter the Lakers from immediately giving him a two-year, $5 million deal. Unfortunately, this would have been one of those rare times where trusting Billy King's judgment would have been prudent, as McKie has been hobbled and all but worthless for L.A. Between the two bad contracts, he's collecting $8.1 million this year while appearing in 10 games.

    Booth

    8. Calvin Booth, Bucks ($6.6 million)
    Booth's still getting the Bucks' bucks after they made him a luxury tax amnesty cut in 2005 -- just months after the Mavs had dumped Booth on Milwaukee in the Keith Van Horn trade.

    He's also collecting checks from the Wizards as a third-string center, but he makes only the minimum in D.C.

    CATEGORY II: KNICKS

    Despite a bevy of buyouts, the league's official dumping ground for bad contracts still has plenty of inventory:

    Francis

    1. Steve Francis, Knicks ($15.1 million this year; two years remaining after this one)
    He can still be an impact player when he feels like it, but he's not exactly wowing his latest employers with his effort level.

    A quick anecdote: Watching the Orlando-New York game on Monday night, I saw Orlando's J.J. Redick drift out to the 3-point line, catch the ball and calmly drain a triple with no pressure. Stunned, I hit rewind. My eyes didn't deceive me -- there was no screen for Redick, nor any kind of deceptive move or cut off the ball whatsoever. The man allegedly guarding him -- Francis -- just stood there and watched Redick walk out to the perimeter and shoot it.

    On the next trip Francis stood like a statue on the weak side while Darko Milicic went down the middle for a screen-and-roll dunk. As I thought to myself, "If I was coaching right now, I'd call timeout just to yank the guy," Knicks coach Isiah Thomas did just that, inserting unheralded rookie Mardy Collins.

    Quoth Thomas after the game, in his glass-half-full way, "I just felt [Mardy Collins would] give us more defensively." Um, yes, that's one way to look at it. Zeke just as easily could have said, "I felt a traffic cone would give us more defensively." Methinks there's another buyout in the Knicks' future.

    Marbury

    2. Stephon Marbury, Knicks ($17.2 million this year; two years remaining)
    He's a rarity on this list in that he still has a pulse, but Marbury's deal is so gargantuan and his reputation around the league so tattered that his deal is still radioactive. Besides, his numbers have dipped the past two years -- he's testing his career lows in scoring and shooting this season -- and they don't figure to get better over the final two years of his contract as he gets into his 30s.

    James

    3. Jerome James, Knicks ($5.4 million this year; three years remaining)
    A spectacular bust even by the standard of recent midlevel exceptions, almost all of whom have been busts. James did have six points and two rebounds on Monday, but fantasy players shouldn't pick him up thinking he can provide the coveted 6-and-2 combo every night -- it was only the fifth time he's done it this season.

    Rose

    4. Malik Rose, Knicks ($7.5 million this year; two years remaining)
    While Rose is still marginally useful as a fifth big man, he's a 6-7 frontcourt player who turns 33 in November, and he's shot 37.4 percent and 38.6 percent the past two seasons. Rose is the one truly bad contract the Spurs have inked in the past decade.

    They unloaded their mistake, but it came at a price -- one of the draft picks from the Rose trade became David Lee.

    CATEGORY III: ALREADY-WAIVED KNICKS

    Amazingly, there's enough overlap between the first two categories to produce a third one. The New Yorkers are paying nearly an entire salary cap to guys who haven't played a game for them this season, and that's without adding Francis to the list.

    Rose

    1. Jalen Rose, Suns ($14.6 million)
    In a bizarre move, the Knicks bought out Rose less than a year after trading for him, granting the Raptors enough cap space to rebuild their Euro-roster and coming away with only a first-round pick that became Renaldo Balkman.

    Had New York hung on to Rose's expiring deal, it might have been able to pry Pau Gasol from Memphis at the trade deadline. Now we'll never know.

    Taylor

    2. Maurice Taylor, last seen with Sacramento ($7.5 million)
    The veteran big man was well past his prime when Houston unloaded him on the Knicks in a baggage swap -- the Rockets got Vin Baker and Moochie Norris. Let's just say that trade left the league's balance of power unaffected. Like Rose, Taylor was bought out before the season and played 12 games in Sacramento before being waived in January; one presumes that was his last NBA stop.

    Anderson

    3. Shandon Anderson, MIA ($7.2 million)
    No, that's not a Miami abbreviation, that's "MIA" as in, "We can't prove that he's still alive." Nonetheless, he's collecting $7.2 million from the Knicks this year to do whatever it is he's doing right now.

    But he better save up -- his contract expires this year, more than two years after his departure.

    Williams

    4. Jerome Williams, Madison Square Garden Network ($7.0 million)
    At least the Knicks are getting something out of him -- he's working as a TV commentator. Also, Junkyard Dog was a luxury tax amnesty cut.

    The other players on this list actually cost the Knicks double their contract amounts because of the league's dollar-for-dollar tax on high-payroll teams, which as you've probably guessed is a club the Knicks will belong to for some time.

    CATEGORY IV: STILL STUCK

    These players' teams are still stuck with their contracts, and in every case but one there are multiple years left on the deal. Good luck unloading them now.

    Martin

    1. Kenyon Martin, Nuggets ($12.1 million, four years left)
    Here's what I imagine Nuggets owner Stan Kroenke asking for the next four years. "Is it 2011 yet? No? OK, how about now? No? Um, how about now?"

    Martin, who as far as anyone knows is the first player to undergo microfracture surgery on both knees, was a stretch at this dollar amount even if fully healthy. Worse, he gave the Nuggets just one good season before he started breaking down. But he'll be on the books through 2011 thanks to a sign-and-trade deal with the Nets that also also cost the Nuggets three first-round draft picks -- two of which the Nets flipped to Toronto in the trade for Vince Carter. Moreover, the cost of his deal effectively doubles next year, when the Nuggets will be well over the luxury tax line.

    LaFrentz

    2. Raef LaFrentz, Trail Blazers ($11.5 million, two years left)
    The Mavs' decision to give LaFrentz a seven-year, $70 million deal in 2002 was generous, yes. But it didn't seem like too obscene a stretch at the time -- people forget now, but he nearly led the league in blocks and was deadly from outside. But what Dallas didn't know was that LaFrentz's knees were about to betray him. He's only 30 now, but it's 30-going-on-90 -- LaFrentz is shooting 23.7 percent in 17 games for Portland.

    Ratliff

    3. Theo Ratliff, Celtics ($11.7 million, one year left)
    Ratliff and LaFrentz were traded for each other this summer as a sidebar to the Sebastian Telfair-Brandon Roy deal. Getting one less year of dead-weight contract was a key reason Boston did it (though I'm guessing the Celtics would take it back if they could).

    Nonetheless, I would argue that Ratliff's three-year, $36 million extension from the Blazers was the single worst contract decision of the current decade. At the time he was 31 with a bad hip and was already in severe decline, as anyone in Atlanta could have told them. But he played well for his first few weeks as a Blazer and his giddy new owners overreacted. Hampered by injuries, Ratliff played only two games this season, and that might be two more than he gets in a year from now.

    Foyle

    4. Adonal Foyle, Warriors ($8.1 million, three years left)
    Chris Mullin has inked some bad contracts in his time as Warriors general manager, but this one takes the cake. Foyle is a prince of a guy, but he's 32, can't score and will soak up over $25 million over the next three years while he lies on the outer fringes of Golden State's rotation. He could be a decent backup center for a team that played a more traditional style, but who would trade for his contract?

    Hughes

    5. Larry Hughes, Cavaliers ($13.4 million, three years left)
    As with Marbury, Hughes hasn't been horrible -- he just hasn't come close to justifying the dollar figure on his contract. I thought he'd rebound from a disappointing first season in Cleveland, but instead he's been even worse this season. Not only are his numbers down across the board, but he's also forgotten how to make a foul shot (65.6 percent). One bright side: The brittle guard is on pace for 69 games, his most in five years and nearly double what he gave a season ago.

    Claxton

    6. Speedy Claxton, Hawks ($6.9 million, three years left)
    Despite some warning flags (he's small, injury-prone and can't shoot), Claxton played so well for the Hornets a season ago that the Hawks gave him a four-year, $25 million deal. Oops.

    Hampered by bad knees that eliminated his one skill, Claxton's per-minute scoring rate is less than half of what it was last season and he's shooting a ghastly 32.7 percent from the floor.

    Fortson hspace=

    7. Danny Fortson, Sonics ($6.6 million, expires this year)
    Armed with a bad knee and a worse attitude, Fortson has rarely been available for the Sonics this season.

    But if you do see him on the court, don't blink -- at the rate he fouls he won't be out there for long. He's averaging nearly a hack every four minutes, and he's a turnover machine because he gets tagged with illegal screen violations so often. But give him this: The dude can still rebound.

    Croshere

    8. Austin Croshere, Mavericks ($7.3 million, expires this year)
    Sample Size 101: Like a lot of guys on this list, Croshere was paid based off one strong stretch of play (the 2001 Finals), despite a much larger body of work that was far less impressive. Not surprisingly, he's disappointed since.

    He's shooting 35.2 percent as a deep sub for the Mavs this season, though he did have one glorious night when he exploded for 34 on the Sonics. But he has only four other double-figure games this season.

    Snow

    9. Eric Snow, Cavaliers ($6.1 million, two years left)
    The summer of 2003 is precisely when things started going severely downhill for the Sixers -- they signed Derrick Coleman and Kenny Thomas (a narrow miss on this list) and gave Snow a multiyear extension for no apparent reason.

    Thanks to that last decision, he's still earning midlevel money even though he's been a minimum-salary player for about three years now -- in that time, he's averaged 7.0, 6.6 and 7.0 points per 40 minutes. Ecch.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Hollinger - 25 worst contracts in the NBA

    Great read, thanks for posting it.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Hollinger - 25 worst contracts in the NBA

      i was surprised, Murphy and Dunleavy werent there, i remember them always being mentioned on those
      sigpic

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Hollinger - 25 worst contracts in the NBA

        Yeah... it sure was knick heavy.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Hollinger - 25 worst contracts in the NBA

          Murphy or Dun definitely should've been on the list.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMltKsoDwe8&NR=1
          press pause on the second slow-mo replay around 0:12 mark

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Hollinger - 25 worst contracts in the NBA

            Originally posted by Cobol Sam View Post
            Yeah... it sure was knick heavy.
            We're so special we get our own category!

            We're also doomed.

            Forever.

            Or at least for Jimmy Dolan's life expectancy.

            Though I was surprised to see Marbury on the list. Not that it's a GOOD contract but the guy has been productive.
            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Hollinger - 25 worst contracts in the NBA

              Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
              We're so special we get our own category!

              We're also doomed.

              Forever.

              Or at least for Jimmy Dolan's life expectancy.

              Though I was surprised to see Marbury on the list. Not that it's a GOOD contract but the guy has been productive.
              no, you got 2 catagories. and yeh, you may be doomed for a while. i think the same could be said for the pacers though.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Hollinger - 25 worst contracts in the NBA

                Originally posted by Seed View Post
                http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insid...dContracts0607
                Quoth Thomas after the game, in his glass-half-full way, "I just felt [Mardy Collins would] give us more defensively." Um, yes, that's one way to look at it. Zeke just as easily could have said, "I felt a traffic cone would give us more defensively." Methinks there's another buyout in the Knicks' future.
                I'm still reading through the article...but this was very Bill Simmon's like in delvery..... I got a good chuckle out of reading that. Zeke is always the optimistic one that puts a good spin on anything that happens on the Knicks....good or bad.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Hollinger - 25 worst contracts in the NBA

                  Originally posted by clownskull View Post
                  no, you got 2 catagories. and yeh, you may be doomed for a while. i think the same could be said for the pacers though.
                  With Tinsley's contract and limited # of games that he has played over the seaons....coupled with absorbing Dunleavy and Murphy's overpaid contracts......we shoud have a Pacers section...we deserve to be there up there with the Nuggets and the Knicks.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Hollinger - 25 worst contracts in the NBA

                    I don't think Dunleavy is that overpaid. He should be making 7-8 instead of 10-11. He's had some quality games for us while still trying to fit in. If Murphy could avg the double-double he's be worth his contract. I do think that JO not practicing and just playing games is making it hard to build team cohesion. Not having a reliable SG and playing a couple guys that should be playing the 3 there is hurting us. Tinsley is overpaid but not by much.
                    "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
                    Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Hollinger - 25 worst contracts in the NBA

                      Originally posted by aceace View Post
                      I don't think Dunleavy is that overpaid. He should be making 7-8 instead of 10-11. He's had some quality games for us while still trying to fit in. If Murphy could avg the double-double he's be worth his contract. I do think that JO not practicing and just playing games is making it hard to build team cohesion. Not having a reliable SG and playing a couple guys that should be playing the 3 there is hurting us. Tinsley is overpaid but not by much.
                      I guess its based off of opinion.....as a overall player....I like what he brings to the court....but as a reliable 3rd/4th scoring option ( but far less reliable 2nd scoring option ) that brings what he brings....I feel that he is overpaid.

                      This doesn't mean that he isn't a good player....it just means that IMHO...he is paid what could be given to a better 2nd/3rd scoring option player but doesn't produce consistently at that level.

                      But we can all thank Chris Mullin for overpaying him.....
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Hollinger - 25 worst contracts in the NBA

                        What, Jermaine's not on the list?

                        I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you! From reading this board, I'd think he'd be number one. Who needs a 20-10 guy who works hard, plays defense, and is able to be the face of a franchise?
                        This space for rent.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Hollinger - 25 worst contracts in the NBA

                          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                          With Tinsley's contract and limited # of games that he has played over the seaons....coupled with absorbing Dunleavy and Murphy's overpaid contracts......we shoud have a Pacers section...we deserve to be there up there with the Nuggets and the Knicks.
                          How much do you think Tins is paid? Even by total points/assists/rebounds for the season his deal isn't as bad as these. First off even 40 games is more than not being in the NBA like many of them are.

                          Second, look at Francis, Marbury and Tinsley in terms of stats per dollar (total, not per game).

                          I totalled their last 3 seasons (2 + the current one) and divided those totals (not per game) by what they are getting this season and by what they are getting over this year and the next 2 as a 3 year total.

                          So these are "per million paid" numbers. It's not what they gave per million since the stats are from the past and the pay is this year and then the next 2, but that represents what kind of player they've been and what you are on the hook to them for if they simply keep being what they have recently been.


                          Points (1 year salary/3 year salary)
                          330/101 Tinsley
                          228/66 Marbury
                          202/63 Francis

                          Assists (1 year/3 year)
                          162/50 Tinsley
                          84/24 Marbury
                          69/22 Francis

                          Steals
                          42/13 Tinsley
                          15/4.6 Francis
                          15/4.3 Marbury

                          Rebounds
                          91/28 Tinsley
                          58/18 Francis
                          20/9 Marbury

                          Blocks
                          7.1/2.2 Tinsley
                          3.6/1.1 Francis
                          1.2/0.3 Marbury

                          Minutes
                          793/243 Tinsley
                          474/138 Marbury
                          422/131 Francis


                          So despite being hurt for large portions of the last 2 seasons Tinsley still DWARFS the per dollar output of both Marbury and Francis. To me this proves yet again how ridiculously unobjective fans are getting about Tinsley's value. He's not paid that much and while he missed big chunks of time he's still played about 2/3 of what they've played (at 1/3 the price).

                          He hasn't even had to be healthy or putting up great numbers to outdo them.

                          I hate his shooting and find his on-ball defense mostly frustrating. I worry that he is too moody to be a guy they can count on. But he's also a guy (like Jack, similar problems even) that can really help your team and doesn't cost you that much to do so.


                          BTW, even with his injuries he's also comparable to Dun and Murph.

                          Points
                          Tins 330/101
                          Dun 392/118
                          Murph 326/98

                          Assist
                          Tins 162/50
                          Dun 87/26
                          Murph 37/11

                          Rebound
                          Tins 91/28
                          Dun 162/49
                          Murph 225/68

                          Steal
                          Tins 42/13
                          Dun 30/9
                          Murph 17/5

                          Blocks
                          Tins 7/2.2
                          Dun 30/9
                          Murph 12/3.6

                          Min
                          Tins 793/243
                          Dun 1000/301
                          Murph 782/235


                          So Tins even gives you more minutes per dollar than Troy does. More steals, more points than Troy, more assists. Naturally he trails them in rebounds and blocks, as a PG should.

                          Again, this is hurt Tins from the last 2 years doing this. His contract was bad when he was still under Base Year rules and injured. Now his deal is becoming managable.


                          BTW, next year Troy and Dun will make 17m, JO will get 19m. Would the Pacers be better with both of them and no JO, or JO and neither of them? Now add to this that they are both on the hook for a season more than JO. Tins is signed out that long too, but will make $3m less than Dun and $4m less than Troy in that final year.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Hollinger - 25 worst contracts in the NBA

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            BTW, next year Troy and Dun will make 17m, JO will get 19m. Would the Pacers be better with both of them and no JO, or JO and neither of them? Now add to this that they are both on the hook for a season more than JO. Tins is signed out that long too, but will make $3m less than Dun and $4m less than Troy in that final year.
                            Murphy and Dunleavey should be considered 2 separate players-one, because their games bring something different, and two, because they are . Naturally we lump them together because they came during the same trade and have faced the same criticisms.

                            They are the three most overpaid players on our roster, but I think JO is the most overpaid. He's a GREAT player post player, but his impact on the team doesn't match his impact on the cap, unfortunately. I think you gotta blow this thing up and start with moving JO.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Hollinger - 25 worst contracts in the NBA

                              But you still didn't answer the question. You can have JO healthy for the playoffs or Dun and Murph, but not both (JO and DunMurph). Which do you take?

                              That was my point.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X