Author Topic: Blazers player secures $500,000 bonus by not taking 3-pointer in final game  (Read 1252 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline cons

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 635
  • Tommy Points: 55
they should start adding this clause into other contracts - like sully should have been given a bonus if he attempted less than 50 3's per year - haha.

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31963
  • Tommy Points: -28094
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
He went several games without attempting a three. That's putting stats and money over winning. I understand if a guy does it for one meaningless game, but Harkless didn't try one the last 4 or 5 games of the season.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23010
  • Tommy Points: 941
  • What a Pub Should Be
Proof & point that these incentives can be double edged swords for teams.

Seeing how some of these incentives has seen teams screw over players over the years (in a variety of sports), it's tough to have sympathy when the reverse happens for once. 


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Offline Granath

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1841
  • Tommy Points: 467
I'm glad we don't have guys like that playing on the Celtics.

Enjoy your money dude but don't expect to get many offers the next time you're a FA.
Jaylen Brown will be an All Star in the next 5 years.

Offline GetLucky

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1253
  • Tommy Points: 269
Who say basketball players are dumb?

I personally applaud the man for defying stereotypes.

Offline saltlover

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9226
  • Tommy Points: 2001
I'm glad we don't have guys like that playing on the Celtics.

Enjoy your money dude but don't expect to get many offers the next time you're a FA.

He just signed a four-year deal, so I think he's good.

Furthermore:

1) His team made the playoffs, and had clinched a spot by the time his final two games rolled around (he didn't take a 3 the final three games, not five.)

2) He went a combined 4-17 from 3 the ten games prior to the three he eschewed 3-pointers, so perhaps the incentive was getting to him, and he served his team best by not taking them.

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31963
  • Tommy Points: -28094
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I'm glad we don't have guys like that playing on the Celtics.

Enjoy your money dude but don't expect to get many offers the next time you're a FA.

He just signed a four-year deal, so I think he's good.

Furthermore:

1) His team made the playoffs, and had clinched a spot by the time his final two games rolled around (he didn't take a 3 the final three games, not five.)

2) He went a combined 4-17 from 3 the ten games prior to the three he eschewed 3-pointers, so perhaps the incentive was getting to him, and he served his team best by not taking them.

He stopped shooting with four games left, at which point the Blazers making the playoffs was very much in jeopardy.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Offline eja117

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17037
  • Tommy Points: 1061
I can't say I'm all that bothered for a couple reasons....one is that the incentive was clearly to hit a reasonable percentage of threes, which he did.

Another was that essentially he settled for higher percentage shots and shot well. I'm not sure I see the problem there.

Another was that no harm was done and they made the playoffs.

I'd take this problem with Smart in a heart beat.

I'm not sure it makes sense for a team to be like "Well. You met this incentive all season but in the last few days if you could just totally ignore that we'd really prefer that."

If it means so much to them amend the contract or write a new one and agree he met the incentive.

Offline saltlover

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9226
  • Tommy Points: 2001
I'm glad we don't have guys like that playing on the Celtics.

Enjoy your money dude but don't expect to get many offers the next time you're a FA.

He just signed a four-year deal, so I think he's good.

Furthermore:

1) His team made the playoffs, and had clinched a spot by the time his final two games rolled around (he didn't take a 3 the final three games, not five.)

2) He went a combined 4-17 from 3 the ten games prior to the three he eschewed 3-pointers, so perhaps the incentive was getting to him, and he served his team best by not taking them.

He stopped shooting with four games left, at which point the Blazers making the playoffs was very much in jeopardy.

My mistake.  He didn't play the final regular season game.  So he didn't take any his last three games played.

That said, he was still 4-17 over his prior ten games.  So a) he wasn't shooting them well, and b) he hadn't been taking a large quantity of threes per game in some time.  Post All-Star break, he took 1 or fewer 3-point attempts in 15 of his 24 games.  He only attempted 35 3's post-ASB.

Did he not take a 3 his final three games because of the incentive? Probably.  Was that decision bad for his team? That's the part I think is questionable.  He cut his attempts in half during the period the Blazers were playing his their best basketball, while shooting a higher percentage, and on the season, took about 1 fewer attempts per game in a win than a loss.

Offline Rakulp

  • Jae Crowder
  • Posts: 363
  • Tommy Points: 51
I'm glad we don't have guys like that playing on the Celtics.

Enjoy your money dude but don't expect to get many offers the next time you're a FA.

He just signed a four-year deal, so I think he's good.

Furthermore:

1) His team made the playoffs, and had clinched a spot by the time his final two games rolled around (he didn't take a 3 the final three games, not five.)

2) He went a combined 4-17 from 3 the ten games prior to the three he eschewed 3-pointers, so perhaps the incentive was getting to him, and he served his team best by not taking them.

He stopped shooting with four games left, at which point the Blazers making the playoffs was very much in jeopardy.

For some, money is everything...$500,000 is a lot of everything :)

Rak

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4400
  • Tommy Points: 887
The Blazers offered him the incentive - and we're supposed to criticize him for responding to it? That just doesn't make sense.

The whole point of incentives is that they change behavior. If the Blazers didn't want that to happen, and/or didn't understand that nearly any incentive contract might create a conflict of interest between the two parties, they shouldn't have offered the deal.

Not that they should be upset. He shot 18% and 28% on 3s in the previous two years, on lower volume. It looks like the deal achieved what they wanted, in terms of overall performance for the year.

And as SL points out, if he was in a slump he *shouldn't* have been taking those shots, even from the team's perspective.

Online fairweatherfan

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17373
  • Tommy Points: 2283
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
I mean, Harkless probably should've ignored it and not changed his approach, but it takes two to sign a contract.  Maybe the Blazers should've thought through giving a player a direct financial incentive to play differently in a way that might be detrimental to the team.

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31963
  • Tommy Points: -28094
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
The Blazers offered him the incentive - and we're supposed to criticize him for responding to it? That just doesn't make sense.

The whole point of incentives is that they change behavior. If the Blazers didn't want that to happen, and/or didn't understand that nearly any incentive contract might create a conflict of interest between the two parties, they shouldn't have offered the deal.

Not that they should be upset. He shot 18% and 28% on 3s in the previous two years, on lower volume. It looks like the deal achieved what they wanted, in terms of overall performance for the year.

And as SL points out, if he was in a slump he *shouldn't* have been taking those shots, even from the team's perspective.

There's an implicit responsibility to help your team to the best of your ability.

Let's say IT had a clause in his contract rewarding him for 90% FT%. He's at 90.1% with 5 games left.

Are you cool with him refusing to drive to the basket, and immediately getting rid of the ball in end of game intentional foul situations?


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Offline mef730

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2520
  • Tommy Points: 418
I can think of a few players on the Celtics for whom we should offer an incentive not to shoot 3-pointers.

Mike
Advice for novice frequent flyer mileage junkies: www.frequentflyermiles101.com