Kevin Pelton on 5-year contracts
Here's a hint: he doesn't like them.
almost 2 years ago
Deleran
51 comments
2 recs |
Email
PrintComments
This will come in handy next summer
So the lesson learned is don’t sign Landry or Dalembert for more than 4 years. I will try to remember that.
by getPGwithbounce on Jul 16, 2010 5:23 PM PDT reply actions
I was just going to post this.
Really the length of the contract is the problem, not the cost.
So true
I think very very few players are worth signing to 5 year contracts.
Because talent? You want to add a guy like boozer because hes talented? I’m sorry i just don’t see that as a valid reason. -- fffindeed
Droping the length of contracts across the board hurt the teams ability to keep their stars
The problem with the length is that it’s given to role players who come and go with each years college crop.
What needs to be changed is the guaranteed money. Make the last 2 years only partially guaranteed so that the teams can get out of bad contracts. 5 years with only 50% guaranteed in the 4th year and 30% guaranteed in the 5th year. That way you can still sign and keep your stars for 5-6 years, but you can get out from under bad contracts.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy
I disagree with this.
What needs to change is that teams need to learn how to negotiate appropriately and thoughtfully. A good example is Memphis offering Rudy Gay well over what he might have gotten on the open market and then haggling with Xavier Henry over the extra 20% almost all lottery selections get.
That’s stupid management. Plus, what happened with Ronnie Brewer vs what happened with Tony Allen. That’s stupid management not bad contracts.
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985...... On Twitter
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
The Billionaire owners don't care about appropriate or thoughtful negotiations
This is their Hobby, and if they have to spend $20M over the cap to get the player that they think will take their team to the Finals then so be it. The Magic just matched JJ’s offer sheet from Chicago. It’s going to cost them $7M this year and their already $9M over the lux tax. That puts their team salary at $86M plus $16M in tax for a total cost of $102M and they only have 10 players under contract.
So, the owners that aren’t that well off are forced to take gambles to stay competetive. When the pack is in a feeding frenzy it’s safer to stay out of it, but your still going to starve to death because you weren’t in there getting something to eat.
They can lower the salary cap to $40M and they’ll still be owners willing to spend $40M more for a chance to make it to the Finals. And, the Kings can be sensible and fiscally responsible in their negotiations with that FA they feel will put them over the top, and some Yahoo like Cuban will jump in and offer him double and the KIngs are out of the running.
It’s just naive to believe that if 20 of the ownerships use sound judgement signing players that the other 10 won’t try and by a Championship.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy
I agree with HighTops
I like the non-guaranteed contracts. They do a similar thing in football, that way if a player flakes out on you, you aren’t screwed for years to come. I think it would be a fair way to help make a compromise with the CBA as well. Leave the salary cap, but allow owners to offer non-guaranteed contracts.
Darko Milicec passes just as well as Vlade Divac... Vlade would be the first to tell you that
by prowseinthehouse on Jul 17, 2010 2:09 AM PDT up reply actions
That's really a tough sell. Sure it sounds good from an owner and fan perspective.
But what happens when you get an injury? Do you lose your livelihood? If so, does that encourage players to not go all out?
I like the current NBA situation much much much more than the current NFL situation. I wouldn’t want to imitate anything NFL or MLB. Both leagues suck serious ass, imo.
Don't say stupid shit. You won’t be perceived as stupid. - pookeyguru
by Kfan in Korea on Jul 17, 2010 7:45 AM PDT up reply actions
hmm
But what happens when you get an injury? Do you lose your livelihood?
30% of of a 3 million a year deal is still just under 1 million – I don’t know about you, but that still sounds like a decent livelihood to me.
Childress then flew to Greece and asked the team if they would pay him in gold bars, hookiers, weed, and marijuana. The rest is history.
by TheFifthMookie on Jul 17, 2010 8:53 AM PDT up reply actions
Plus
the NFL does just fine under this system, and they have much more of a concern with injuries than the NBA. Also, this would motivate players to go all out more, not less, because they want that non-guaranteed money.
Darko Milicec passes just as well as Vlade Divac... Vlade would be the first to tell you that
by prowseinthehouse on Jul 17, 2010 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions
The NFL's salary structure has just as many problems as the NBA's
~ NFL players’ contracts are a combination of guaranteed and non-guaranteed money. The result? Players push for more guaranteed money in their contracts. Basically the exact same thing we have in the NBA.
~ Contracts often have so-called “dummy” years, which are years and dollars that are added to the contract to make it appear to be better, but will never be fulfilled. For example: Nate Clements’ deal in SF calls for 8 years, $80 million, with $22 million in guaranteed money. However, the final season of the contract is a “dummy” year…the contract is really a 7 year, $64 million contract, as there is no way they will pay him $16 million non-guaranteed in the eighth year of his deal at the age of 34. That’s stupid.
NFL contracts and NBA contracts really aren’t that different…the main difference is that an NBA player has to agree with the team on a buyout to leave them with less money, while an NFL player’s team can make that decision all on their own. Guaranteed contracts aren’t a problem at all…the problem is, as pookey said, the stupidity of the teams that hand out these contracts.
"You seen my cell phone?" "What’s it look like?" "Like two horses f***ing. It’s a phone, son. It looks like a phone."
by CaliforniaJag on Jul 17, 2010 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Ya but expecting people to be smart
is like expecting Janet Reno to be sexy… it’s just not gonna happen
Darko Milicec passes just as well as Vlade Divac... Vlade would be the first to tell you that
by prowseinthehouse on Jul 17, 2010 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions
So instead of expecting teams to get smarter,
we should just hand them “Get out of jail free” cards? Very much disagree with you there.
"You seen my cell phone?" "What’s it look like?" "Like two horses f***ing. It’s a phone, son. It looks like a phone."
by CaliforniaJag on Jul 17, 2010 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Not give them get out of jail free cards
but structure things that can benefit both sides and try to keep the stupid people from handing out these contracts that hurt the league. I wouldn’t be for catering to them at all, or give them "get out of jail free cards, but try to idiot proof things to a degree. My point was really that expecting people to get smarter isn’t going to work.
Darko Milicec passes just as well as Vlade Divac... Vlade would be the first to tell you that
by prowseinthehouse on Jul 17, 2010 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions
The players benefit now.
So do the owners. This is just about grabbing as much of the pie as each side can.
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985...... On Twitter
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I believe that the league has insurance to cover the players
Didn’t SAR get paid his full salary and the insurance paid back the Maloofs?
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy
That's true regardless of whether the player is medically retired or not.
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985...... On Twitter
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I am sure those sorts of issues will be brought up
I am sure the possibility of a hard cap and other strategies to try and maintain a level playing field will be brought up by the smaller market owners. Whether or not they are able to agree on something like that and get the players to buy into it is rather doubtful though.
Whatever happens with the new CBA, I am somewhat hopeful there will be SOME positive change though. Even players have to realize that the large, fully-guaranteed contracts have become a major detriment to the NBA. Even the better GMs like Petrie make mistakes when signing players at times, whether due to poor evaluation or factors outside their control like with an injury. Players do deserve and earn a certain amount of protection, but having little recourse to get out of a bad contract is terrible for the NBA as a whole. All it takes is a few mistakes with MLE or larger contracts to effectively kill the competitive chances of a team.
Less fully guaranteed years or some sort of reasonable buyout system has to be strongly looked at. Whatever protection players may give up, they should realize that money will go back into the pot, so to speak. Teams won’t stop spending money to be competitive, so that money that would otherwise go to bad contracts will very likely be reinvested into other players.
total honesty here
I’d like to see shorter guaranteed contracts and more team options on those contracts. The cap and/or annual salaries can do whatever they want it to, but it feels like every single discussion about a player and whether they’d be a good fit on a team is half about their bloated contract for 3-4 more years.
Childress then flew to Greece and asked the team if they would pay him in gold bars, hookiers, weed, and marijuana. The rest is history.
by TheFifthMookie on Jul 17, 2010 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Possibly
long term contracts loaded with incentives based on winning and playoff stuff sounds acceptable, though I haven’t thought about it very hard.
Childress then flew to Greece and asked the team if they would pay him in gold bars, hookiers, weed, and marijuana. The rest is history.
by TheFifthMookie on Jul 17, 2010 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions
The danger with shorter contracts is that you can't lock in your draft picks
OKC just extended Durant making him their man for the first 8 years of his NBA career. what make Rookie Scale contracts so appealing is that the price is locked in so no one can over bid you, and the team has the 3rd & 4th year options.
How many teams would have been willing to take Beasley contract if the last year was guaranteed?
If the owner battle the players union for a year and end up getting back 5% off the players percentage, that equates to less than $3M more for the owners. If they can void the final year of a long bad contract for say $12M and only have to pay 30% then they save themselves almost $8M on that one contract.
The majority of the owners are willing to overpay their players to stay competitive, but in doing so they lock themselves in to bad contracts because no one can judge what a player will be like 3 or 4 years down the road.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy
Stars
Star are the exception, as Pelton stated. With a star, it is worth the risk. The problem is long contracts with mid-level talent. Too much risk. But yeah, lock up stars long-term. That being said, I still think Atlanta will regret Johnson’s contract after year 2 or 3.
Never forget: I am a complete idiot
So do you want contraction instead?
I mean, if there is only so many stars to go around than there is only so many teams available. Might as well eliminate half the league on that basis.
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985...... On Twitter
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
What the hell?
Please, please, please explain how you got that from what I wrote.
Never forget: I am a complete idiot
I didn't.
I was just taking it to the next logical point. If you don’t have enough stars, you might as well contract at that point. What’s the point of having a team if you don’t have a star to compete?
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985...... On Twitter
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
My real point I guess
Is that Pelton’s point is as an abstraction rather than reality. You can use hindsight all you wish to judge contracts but the reality is that foresight is what it takes to make contracts worth what a player is being paid.
If we’re going to judge every franchise based on whether they have stars, or whether they have overpaid players being paid as stars, then we might as well knock off a few teams and only have superteams to compete.
This whole argument is a very slippery slope no matter how you wish to look at it. As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for.
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985...... On Twitter
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Completely disagree
Does it take hindsight to realize that Memphis paid Rudy Gay more than anyone else could have? Or to recognize that Joe Johnson should not have been the highest paid free agent this summer? Stupid contracts happen, and many are stupid when they are signed. Blaming hindsight is to let people off the hook.
And it’s fine if a team doesn’t have superstars, but that also means they should be signing their role players to shorter contracts. That’s it. You’re not taking my point to it’s next logical step, you’re putting words in my mouth. Words that are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off base.
Never forget: I am a complete idiot
No it doesn't take hindsight to realize that Gay & Johnson are not signed to the potential best deals for the team long term.
But it also is hindsight to say that the Sonics shouldn’t have signed all their players at that time. They were trying to stay competitive (no matter how ill conceived) with Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis. Part of that was signing guys like Damien Wilkins. So they had some level of stars on their roster at the time. That’s why they signed so many guys to deals that expired at the same time. Many of them were FA’s.
Again, I’m not going to argue the superstar point. It’s just that if a team chooses to resign it’s star like Johnson to a bad deal, that’s far more on the franchise than anyone else. That isn’t the NBA or the CBA’s fault. In Joe Johnson’s case, that’s the Atlanta Hawks fault for doing that. In Gay’s case, the Grizzlies fault.
I guess my point here is that I don’t think it’s as cut & dry when you have good teams or still trying to compete, you’ll give players longer contracts. When you don’t have that, teams DO tend to give shorter contracts. The Kings, for instance, haven’t given out a lot of contracts since rebuilding.
While I like Kevin Pelton’s work, I think his work can be easily misconstrued here.
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985...... On Twitter
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
That's the opportunity cost of the long contract
Option 1: long contract. Higher risk, but the ability to keep your player around longer
Option 2: short contract. Lower risk, but the team loses the ability to lock the player in long-term
Letting them void years of player contracts is just a bailout to make up for poor money management.
"You seen my cell phone?" "What’s it look like?" "Like two horses f***ing. It’s a phone, son. It looks like a phone."
by CaliforniaJag on Jul 17, 2010 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions
And, what risk does the players take.
The NBA is an entertainment enterprise with the players as the show, but they take no risks and the good ones get to opt out of their contracts if they think that they can get more money. But, they expect the owners to pay them top dollar even if they aren’t paying well because they have a contract.
The NBA needs both the players and the owners to make a decent profit. If the only solution is that the players take a lower percentage of the gate, then the top players will still get over paid and the lower level player will get less. And, since the Players Union which represents the players, is made up of more lower level players, I’m not certain that they will turn their backs on the majority of the players they represent.
Putting the blame entirely on the poor negotiating skills of the owners, is naive. The rich owners will still try and buy a championship, and drive the prices of player up. You can be as fiscally responsible as you want, but in a sellers market your not going to get what you need by making the lowest bid.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy
Then you grow your team from the ground up, like OKC
There are teams who avoid the free agent market and/or only sign bargain players. Growing your own players is, and always has been, the cheapest way to build a good team, and theoretically it’s also the best way.
"You seen my cell phone?" "What’s it look like?" "Like two horses f***ing. It’s a phone, son. It looks like a phone."
by CaliforniaJag on Jul 17, 2010 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions
What are the odds of doing it that way?
How many teams get an outstanding player year after year. Or, what are the odd of there being a star players in the draft even if you do get the #1 pick. 30 teams can’t do that year in and year out. By the way Boston almost won 2 championships by trades and Miami, well Miami looks to be a power house without having any draft picks.
But, how isn’t even the issue. How to keep the league healthy and growning while both the owners and the players are making big money is the issue. How to avoid a lockout is the issue.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy
It is entirely possible to not have a lockout without giving players non-guaranteed contracts or low-priced buyouts
The NHL’s solution was to allow the owners to buy out a certain number of players at a reduced price for salary cap purposes, but they still had to pay the player their money. Those players could not re-sign with their original teams. Something like that is a much better solution than making player contracts non-guaranteed.
The risk the players take is the mistake Bonzi Wells made…if the teams offer nothing but fair contracts, and the players decline the contracts, they won’t find work. If all the owners simply stopped making stupid offers, the problem would stop. The owners have no one to blame but themselves. It seems like you’re suggesting that owners should be able to give out crap contracts, but then go “whoops!” and pay a small penalty in exchange for getting rid of the contract. That seems like a ridiculous solution to me (I could be wrong in interpreting your solution…let me know if this is the case).
Want a better solution? Raise the cap, and make it a hard cap; that is, no going over the cap at ALL. That would help reduce the stupid contracts.
"You seen my cell phone?" "What’s it look like?" "Like two horses f***ing. It’s a phone, son. It looks like a phone."
by CaliforniaJag on Jul 17, 2010 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Want a better solution? Raise the cap, and make it a hard cap; that is, no going over the cap at ALL. That would help reduce the stupid contracts.
That doesn’t help the viability of small market teams. If some teams are losing money right now, they won’t be able to spend up to a higher cap and the big market teams will still have an edge.
Small market teams that are losing money now
Name one, and I’ll be able to name a stupid trade or signing they made to get themselves into the mess they’re in now. Why not encourage people not to drink and drive rather than helping bail them out of jail after they get a DUI?
"You seen my cell phone?" "What’s it look like?" "Like two horses f***ing. It’s a phone, son. It looks like a phone."
by CaliforniaJag on Jul 17, 2010 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions
HT
I’m stating what the problem is.
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985...... On Twitter
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Is this guy available?
We have an assistant GM spot open…
I didn't major in Common F-cking Sense, but ...
Pelton works for Indy currently.
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985...... On Twitter
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
My guess is the NBA needs to adopt some sort of franchise player concept. Unless the player is given a franchise status they cannot be signed longer than a 3-4 year deal. I don’t know what is the magic number of franchise players on a team (I’d guess three) nor the intricate rules but I think it’s the only feasible way to lock up star players and eliminate a portion of those crap contracts. Teams already know long term contracts are a bad deal but they have to give them out anyway because that is what the market dictates.
Maybe not
I think I like the idea of making only the first three years of any contract guaranteed and the remaining years are a team option. The majority of the time a team is going to opt for years four through n for the star player so it keeps that player in the fold.
It seems like the fair compromise
Is for the league to pay a bit more of total revenue to players (which will result in a high cap) in exchange for shorter contracts. Shorter contracts don’t really benefit anyone except that they get the players more guaranteed money. But at the end of a long deal, as this article points out, neither player nor team is usually happy with the arrangement. Three years would be a perfect length so that the contract is reasonably based on current performance, but with a higher cap more money would flow to the players. Win win.
But at the end of a long deal, as this article points out, neither player nor team is usually happy with the arrangement.
I doubt Kenny Thomas was complaining about being paid 10 million to ride the pine.
I sure he enjoyed the money
But I wouldn’t say he was happy. I honestly think Thomas thought he deserved to play. And I’m sure he didn’t enjoy how we constantly berated him and his lack of value.
Never forget: I am a complete idiot
I can't see how paying the players more over a shorter period, helps the owners make a profit.
Even if Sterns number that the owners lost $370M is off by 50%, they still lost money. If the owners needed to break even and the number is correct, then the owners need to reduce the players salary by $12M per team.
Say, Tyreke finishes his rookie contract and signs a 3 year deal for $36M. At the end of that 3 years the Kings are going to have to sign him to another 3 year deal for $50M. How does that save the Maloofs any money over a 6 yr deal for $86M. It doesn’t.
Without going to a hard cap so that the richer owners don’t have the ability to take on huge salaries for a loss that the poorer owners can’t afford. The only thing fair is that the players take on some of the risk that the owners take on now. Sign a 5 year deal and play up to it’s value and everything is fine. Don’t play up to the value of the contract and the owner can buy you out for 30-50% of the actual value of the deal, and it’s fair for both parties.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy
Who decides if a player has played up to the value of the contract or not?
That would probably lead to a team with no chance at winning dumping all their players if they can’t get anything for them at the deadline. Why keep so and so around for $6 mil the rest of the way when you can pay him $3 mil to go away right now? Then the good teams would just scoop them up. It’s like a buyout that the player doesn’t have to agree with. That’s stupid, since the player can’t just take more money without the team agreeing with the deal.
I agree that salaries in today’s NBA are crazy and out of control. Middling players get long, big money deals, only to have the teams regret it later. The solution? STOP DOING THAT. It IS that easy. Don’t want to lock yourself into a five-year deal for Beno Udrih? DON’T SIGN BENO UDRIH TO A FIVE-YEAR DEAL. Teams stupidly think that getting something at a bad price is better than getting nothing at all, and that’s the problem.
"You seen my cell phone?" "What’s it look like?" "Like two horses f***ing. It’s a phone, son. It looks like a phone."
by CaliforniaJag on Jul 17, 2010 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions
If the team can't get anything in trade for the player, then he has a bad contract.
So the answer to you question is that the market will determine the value. You sign a guy to a 5 year deal and 3 years down the road you get a high draft pick that’s going to take over his starting spot. Your just not going to pay 50% of his salary (which stays on the team salary by the way) and let him walk. Your going to try and trade him for another player that fills a different need. But, if no one wants him because his performance is poor or his salary is too high for his performance, then the market has just determined the value.
And, so what if a team did drop a good player for no good reason. He’s free to sign a new contract with another team at any value he can wrangle and he still gets paid from the team that dropped him. The player isn’t going to lose unless he’s not worthy, in which case his original team had a right to drop him.
Your simple solution of ‘stop doing that’, doesn’t take reality into consideration.
Laker’s team salary $91M
Mav’s $88M
Cle $85M
Bos $85M
NYK $84.6M
Orl $82M
SAS $78.5M
Den $75M
Pho $75M
Fifteen of the 30 teams were in the Lux Tax, and all but 2 of the 30 we’re over the salary cap.
Just say No, isn’t an option to the bottom 14 teams, when 11 of the teams that are in the Lux Tax also went to the playoffs. You can be stubborn and refuse to bid any higher for Beno, but someone else will. and then when you can’t field a team that can contend, you can be content that you stuck to your principals while you look at the empty seats in your arena.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy
Fair enough
Part of the problem is that teams are given the MLE every single year. I think teams should only be allowed to use the MLE if they’re under the luxury tax line.
Also, the problem with the Beno contract isn’t the money, it’s the years. That’s not the market dictating his value, that’s Petrie panicking at not having a PG.
Udrih spent his first three seasons with the San Antonio Spurs before signing with the Kings as a free agent Nov. 1. He decided to re-sign with Sacramento after talking with the New York Knicks, Miami Heat and Los Angeles Clippers.
“They were all offering a shorter term,” Udrih said. “So I wasn’t really interested in that. I wanted a longer-term contract, so I decided with Sacramento, of course.”
If no one offered him more than, say, three years, who would he have chosen? He still probably would’ve come back to Sacramento, but the five-year deal was clearly a case of Petrie believing that he HAD to have Beno due to the lack of PG available rather than just realizing that the team wasn’t going to be very good regardless. He could have just as easily filled the spot with bargain free agents or undrafted rookies. The right move would’ve been to offer Beno three or even four years and tell him to take it or leave it, and if he left it the Kings would’ve been without the player, but also would’ve been without a potentially harmful long-term contract.
"You seen my cell phone?" "What’s it look like?" "Like two horses f***ing. It’s a phone, son. It looks like a phone."
by CaliforniaJag on Jul 17, 2010 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Forgot to cite the quote
I got it from here.
"You seen my cell phone?" "What’s it look like?" "Like two horses f***ing. It’s a phone, son. It looks like a phone."
by CaliforniaJag on Jul 17, 2010 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- NBA Playoffs Fan Fiction: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- The Indiana Pacers? Gone till November
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- C-a-C: This is probably as close to LeBron James working with John Waters as we’ll ever get
