| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911
Back to top |
 Posted: 12/31/18 10:25 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
| You don't want there to be a free agent available who an owner with deep pockets can entice with a regular playing salary plus an 'assistant coach' position in the offseason that's suspiciously highly paid. It could become cap circumnavigation very quickly and very easily. |
So they pay her a suspiciously low salary.....
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66887
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/31/18 10:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I clearly chose the wrong pull quote
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
CourtsideTix
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 4565
Location: Washington, DC
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/01/19 1:08 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Randy wrote: |
| Richyyy wrote: |
| You don't want there to be a free agent available who an owner with deep pockets can entice with a regular playing salary plus an 'assistant coach' position in the offseason that's suspiciously highly paid. It could become cap circumnavigation very quickly and very easily. |
So they pay her a suspiciously low salary..... |
A very important article. What a stupid rule. I get the whole salary cap stuff, but the WNBA needs some sort of test of reasonableness to judge situations like this that are clearly not end runs around the cap.
Toliver has a real job with the Wizards, one that non-WNBA players also hold (and on other teams as well). She has given up an overseas salary to do this. She has to go to work, she has to travel with the Wizards. It's not some made up promotional job created as a way to funnel her money outside the cap. That the WNBA's rule prohibits this is ridiculous.
[one nit: the author mistakenly describes Kristi’s “famous shot” in the 2006 NCAA championship game as beating Duke]
Last edited by CourtsideTix on 01/01/19 1:35 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 22472
Location: NJ
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/01/19 1:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| This also makes me wonder what Sue Bird is getting from the Nuggets? Does she fall under the same rule? Or is she getting paid more since the Nuggets don't own the Storm?
_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!
Twitter: @TBRBWAY
|
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 7365
Location: Underground
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/01/19 2:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Here is the circumvention section in the CBA:
| Quote: |
ARTICLE XV CIRCUMVENTION
Section 1. General Prohibitions.
(a) It is the intention of the parties that the provisions agreed to herein, including, without limitation, those relating to the Salary Cap, the Exceptions to the Salary Cap, the Rookie Scale, and free agency, be interpreted so as to preserve the essential benefits achieved by both parties to this Agreement. Neither the Players Association or the WNBA, nor any Team (or Team Affiliate) or player (or person or entity acting with authority on behalf of such player), shall enter into any agreement (including, without limitation, any Player Contract, Team Marketing and Promotional Agreement, or any amendment or extension thereof), or undertake any action or transaction (including, without limitation, the assignment or termination of a Player Contract), which is, or which includes any term that is, designed to serve the purpose of defeating or circumventing the intention of the parties as reflected by all of the provisions of this Agreement.
(b) It shall constitute a violation of Section 1(a) above for a Team (or Team Affiliate) to enter into an agreement or understanding with any sponsor or business partner or third party under which such sponsor, business partner or third party pays or agrees to pay compensation for basketball services (even if such compensation is ostensibly designated as being for non-basketball services) to a player under Contract to the Team. Such an agreement with a sponsor or business partner or third party may be inferred where: (i) such compensation from the sponsor or business partner or third party is substantially in excess of the fair market value of any services to be rendered by the player for such sponsor or business partner or third party; and (ii) the Compensation in the Player Contract between the player and the Team is substantially below the fair market value of such Contract.
(c) It shall constitute a violation of Section 1(a) above for a Team (or Team Affiliate) to have a financial arrangement with or offer a financial inducement to any player (not including retired players) not signed to a current Player Contract, except as permitted by this Agreement. |
I assume that Toliver is getting paid max, and the WNBA Salary Database -- although unofficial -- indicates that she got max this year and will again be paid max next season. Obviously, there is no below market contract or evasion of the salary cap here -- at least no benefit to the Mystics. And what Toliver would have gotten from the Wizards looks like it's on the low end for an NBA assistant. This is clearly not in "excess of the fair market value" for her services. Furthermore, in case anyone thought this was a do-nothing job, we know that reporters hang around the Wizards all the time. I'm sure some male reporter or maybe a disgruntled player would make noise about a female coach hired for a bogus job. There is a lot of visibility to this arrangement if not outright transparency. Common sense could have prevailed here, but instead they went for the most draconian solution possible.
_________________
You can always do something else.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66887
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/01/19 2:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| CourtsideTix wrote: |
A very important article. What a stupid rule. I get the whole salary cap stuff, but the WNBA needs some sort of test of reasonableness to judge situations like this that are clearly not end runs around the cap. |
Is it clear? She was a starter for a championship team who left to join a team that went 13-21 and has a long history of poor management. That sort of move is rare in the W. It's not much of stretch to think Washington might have used an NBA position (and salary) as an enticement.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63759
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/01/19 2:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| CourtsideTix wrote: |
A very important article. What a stupid rule. I get the whole salary cap stuff, but the WNBA needs some sort of test of reasonableness to judge situations like this that are clearly not end runs around the cap. |
Is it clear? She was a starter for a championship team who left to join a team that went 13-21 and has a long history of poor management. That sort of move is rare in the W. It's not much of stretch to think Washington might have used an NBA position (and salary) as an enticement. |
Yeah, it’s kind of a stretch. Why would they wait a year? Ironically, the same pitch you give about Toliver you could say about Renee Montgomery. They were both home bases for the players, but if anything Washington looked more promising with the acquisition of Delle Donne and having the revered Thibault as a coach.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
CourtsideTix
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 4565
Location: Washington, DC
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/01/19 2:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| CourtsideTix wrote: |
A very important article. What a stupid rule. I get the whole salary cap stuff, but the WNBA needs some sort of test of reasonableness to judge situations like this that are clearly not end runs around the cap. |
Is it clear? She was a starter for a championship team who left to join a team that went 13-21 and has a long history of poor management. That sort of move is rare in the W. It's not much of stretch to think Washington might have used an NBA position (and salary) as an enticement. |
Apart from everything else, she's played TWO seasons in DC already.
She's reaching the end of her playing career. She is looking to the future, she wants to coach, and this was a great opportunity. (Except financially, given the stupidity of the WNBA.)
It's abundantly clear.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66887
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/01/19 2:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Shades wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| CourtsideTix wrote: |
A very important article. What a stupid rule. I get the whole salary cap stuff, but the WNBA needs some sort of test of reasonableness to judge situations like this that are clearly not end runs around the cap. |
Is it clear? She was a starter for a championship team who left to join a team that went 13-21 and has a long history of poor management. That sort of move is rare in the W. It's not much of stretch to think Washington might have used an NBA position (and salary) as an enticement. |
Yeah, it’s kind of a stretch. Why would they wait a year? Ironically, the same pitch you give about Toliver you could say about Renee Montgomery. They were both home bases for the players, but if anything Washington looked more promising with the acquisition of Delle Donne and having the revered Thibault as a coach. |
Renee Montgomery was never a starter for a championship team. The popular narrative around her leaving Minnesota was that she wanted to start and was tired of waiting for Whalen to retire. Plus, the Dream have separate ownership from the Hawks and thus couldn't make such an offer. And, Atlanta has a history of success while the Mystics were 15 years removed from their only playoff series win.
Why would they wait a year? To make the connection less obvious. Delaying the quid pro quo makes people think they're not related.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66887
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/01/19 2:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| CourtsideTix wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| CourtsideTix wrote: |
A very important article. What a stupid rule. I get the whole salary cap stuff, but the WNBA needs some sort of test of reasonableness to judge situations like this that are clearly not end runs around the cap. |
Is it clear? She was a starter for a championship team who left to join a team that went 13-21 and has a long history of poor management. That sort of move is rare in the W. It's not much of stretch to think Washington might have used an NBA position (and salary) as an enticement. |
Apart from everything else, she's played TWO seasons in DC already.
She's reaching the end of her playing career. She is looking to the future, she wants to coach, and this was a great opportunity. (Except financially, given the stupidity of the WNBA.)
It's abundantly clear. |
Even if was clear, what's to keep some other team from using it as a precedent. It's not hard to imagine Magic Johnson offering Maya Moore a high paying sinecure with the Lakers to lure her to LA and making the case that it's OK because Washington did it for Toliver.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Aladyyn
Joined: 23 Jul 2017
Posts: 1560
Location: Czech Republic
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/01/19 2:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| Shades wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| CourtsideTix wrote: |
A very important article. What a stupid rule. I get the whole salary cap stuff, but the WNBA needs some sort of test of reasonableness to judge situations like this that are clearly not end runs around the cap. |
Is it clear? She was a starter for a championship team who left to join a team that went 13-21 and has a long history of poor management. That sort of move is rare in the W. It's not much of stretch to think Washington might have used an NBA position (and salary) as an enticement. |
Yeah, it’s kind of a stretch. Why would they wait a year? Ironically, the same pitch you give about Toliver you could say about Renee Montgomery. They were both home bases for the players, but if anything Washington looked more promising with the acquisition of Delle Donne and having the revered Thibault as a coach. |
Renee Montgomery was never a starter for a championship team. The popular narrative around her leaving Minnesota was that she wanted to start and was tired of waiting for Whalen to retire. Plus, the Dream have separate ownership from the Hawks and thus couldn't make such an offer. And, Atlanta has a history of success while the Mystics were 15 years removed from their only playoff series win.
Why would they wait a year? To make the connection less obvious. Delaying the quid pro quo makes people think they're not related. |
Toliver wasn't going to start on the Sparks if she stayed. Is that not reason enough?
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66887
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/01/19 3:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Aladyyn wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| Shades wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| CourtsideTix wrote: |
A very important article. What a stupid rule. I get the whole salary cap stuff, but the WNBA needs some sort of test of reasonableness to judge situations like this that are clearly not end runs around the cap. |
Is it clear? She was a starter for a championship team who left to join a team that went 13-21 and has a long history of poor management. That sort of move is rare in the W. It's not much of stretch to think Washington might have used an NBA position (and salary) as an enticement. |
Yeah, it’s kind of a stretch. Why would they wait a year? Ironically, the same pitch you give about Toliver you could say about Renee Montgomery. They were both home bases for the players, but if anything Washington looked more promising with the acquisition of Delle Donne and having the revered Thibault as a coach. |
Renee Montgomery was never a starter for a championship team. The popular narrative around her leaving Minnesota was that she wanted to start and was tired of waiting for Whalen to retire. Plus, the Dream have separate ownership from the Hawks and thus couldn't make such an offer. And, Atlanta has a history of success while the Mystics were 15 years removed from their only playoff series win.
Why would they wait a year? To make the connection less obvious. Delaying the quid pro quo makes people think they're not related. |
Toliver wasn't going to start on the Sparks if she stayed. Is that not reason enough? |
There's no chance Odyssey Sims would start over Toliver
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
CourtsideTix
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 4565
Location: Washington, DC
Back to top |
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63759
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/01/19 5:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
Renee Montgomery was never a starter for a championship team. |
She started some games and kept the ship afloat. She was definitely a factor in a couple of championships, maybe as much as Toliver was in one. The writing was on the wall for Whalen in most people’s minds. She would have been next in line as a starter IF that was the most important factor to her. What you believe is important for any particular player may not be all that important. There were probably a bunch of factors like contract length and dollar amount, and being able to pocket the housing stipend money. That was the popular narrative anyway.
| pilight wrote: |
| The popular narrative around her leaving Minnesota was that she wanted to start and was tired of waiting for Whalen to retire. |
I don’t remember that popular narrative. Sounds more like your opinion. Was being a starter for ATL a guarantee with Clarendon there?
| pilight wrote: |
| Plus, the Dream have separate ownership from the Hawks and thus couldn't make such an offer. |
Okay, just use that as the basis for your argument and leave the other nonsense out. Aren’t the Hawks amicable with the Dream even without having ownership? Richyyy and Clay think hiring women for NBA is just a hip new trend, not that the women are possibly worthy of these positions. Don’t the Hawks want to be hip? Wouldn’t they take local player for this hipness?
| pilight wrote: |
| And, Atlanta has a history of success while the Mystics were 15 years removed from their only playoff series win. |
Now you’re going to make me take a shot on ATL’s success? That was really a factor in Montgomery’s mind? They had success how many coaches ago? The biggest indicator of success at the time of Montgomery’s hiring would be the 2018 lottery pick that they gave away.
| pilight wrote: |
| Why would they wait a year? To make the connection less obvious. Delaying the quid pro quo makes people think they're not related. |
Only a genius or somebody extremely cynical would make the connection. There’s an abundance of cynical people around, so that plan had no chance.
| Quote: |
Toliver wasn't going to start on the Sparks if she stayed. Is that not reason enough?
| pilight wrote: |
| There's no chance Odyssey Sims would start over Toliver |
|
Another popular narrative? Not so obvious to me, especially in the long run. Toliver was left unprotected for whatever reason. Either she wasn’t valued that much or she didn’t want to be there, and not because there was a juicy NBA assistant’s job waiting for her in WAS some where down the line. Aren’t the Wizards awful? Are there are guaranteed jobs in that front office?
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
Last edited by Shades on 01/01/19 5:29 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 7365
Location: Underground
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/01/19 5:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| Aladyyn wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| Shades wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| CourtsideTix wrote: |
A very important article. What a stupid rule. I get the whole salary cap stuff, but the WNBA needs some sort of test of reasonableness to judge situations like this that are clearly not end runs around the cap. |
Is it clear? She was a starter for a championship team who left to join a team that went 13-21 and has a long history of poor management. That sort of move is rare in the W. It's not much of stretch to think Washington might have used an NBA position (and salary) as an enticement. |
Yeah, it’s kind of a stretch. Why would they wait a year? Ironically, the same pitch you give about Toliver you could say about Renee Montgomery. They were both home bases for the players, but if anything Washington looked more promising with the acquisition of Delle Donne and having the revered Thibault as a coach. |
Renee Montgomery was never a starter for a championship team. The popular narrative around her leaving Minnesota was that she wanted to start and was tired of waiting for Whalen to retire. Plus, the Dream have separate ownership from the Hawks and thus couldn't make such an offer. And, Atlanta has a history of success while the Mystics were 15 years removed from their only playoff series win.
Why would they wait a year? To make the connection less obvious. Delaying the quid pro quo makes people think they're not related. |
Toliver wasn't going to start on the Sparks if she stayed. Is that not reason enough? |
There's no chance Odyssey Sims would start over Toliver |
During Toliver's tenure in LA, fans called her Li'l Mopey for a reason. Kristi often appeared unhappy. Everything might have looked perfect in that last year, but was it enough to overcome prior festering resentments? As for Washington being bad, EDD had already forced her trade to the Mystics. A big three of Elena, Meesseman and Toliver looked pretty impressive on paper. And Kristi herself is from neighboring Virginia. In all sports, getting closer to home is one of the main reasons why free agents change teams.
_________________
You can always do something else.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66887
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/01/19 5:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Toliver was unprotected because the Sparks used their core designation to keep Candace Parker. They had no way to protect her.
Anyway, the point is that Toliver's Wizards gig could be perceived as cap circumvention even if it isn't.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
CourtsideTix
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 4565
Location: Washington, DC
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/01/19 7:08 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
Anyway, the point is that Toliver's Wizards gig could be perceived as cap circumvention even if it isn't. |
And if it isn't (which it's not), then she shouldn't be prohibited from earning a genuine salary.
It's a shame that you seem so keen on keeping women from getting these job opportunities.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66887
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/01/19 7:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| CourtsideTix wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
Anyway, the point is that Toliver's Wizards gig could be perceived as cap circumvention even if it isn't. |
And if it isn't (which it's not), then she shouldn't be prohibited from earning a genuine salary.
It's a shame that you seem so keen on keeping women from getting these job opportunities. |
Just doing my usual devil's advocate thing
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9604
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/01/19 9:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| The ability of WNBA players to work for their team ownership in other areas and being paid separate from their WNBA contract is something that should be addressed in the collective bargaining agreement. As in, I think they should disallow it. You can't determine whether or not money - or just the resume boosting nature of the job itself - from a "(or Team Affiliate)" was not "designed to serve the purpose of defeating or circumventing the intention of the parties as reflected by all of the provisions of this Agreement. "
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24346
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/01/19 10:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| The ability of WNBA players to work for their team ownership in other areas and being paid separate from their WNBA contract is something that should be addressed in the collective bargaining agreement. As in, I think they should disallow it. You can't determine whether or not money - or just the resume boosting nature of the job itself - from a "(or Team Affiliate)" was not "designed to serve the purpose of defeating or circumventing the intention of the parties as reflected by all of the provisions of this Agreement. " |
But they won't want to block pathways for female players into the coaching ranks, and like most businesses it's very much a 'who you know' kind of practice - you're always far more likely to be given a shot by an organisation that you already have a relationship with. I think they'll probably end up trying to walk a middle ground like they are at the moment, but maybe with a larger provision for paying players to stay home in the offseason.
There are always going to be things that look a little dubious - we're only 12 months removed from that one-year deal Sims signed in LA that made no sense - but they'll try to keep it fair-ish for both the rich owners and the super-rich owners. |
|
CourtsideTix
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 4565
Location: Washington, DC
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/01/19 10:36 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| The ability of WNBA players to work for their team ownership in other areas and being paid separate from their WNBA contract is something that should be addressed in the collective bargaining agreement. As in, I think they should disallow it. You can't determine whether or not money - or just the resume boosting nature of the job itself - from a "(or Team Affiliate)" was not "designed to serve the purpose of defeating or circumventing the intention of the parties as reflected by all of the provisions of this Agreement. " |
But you can determine those things. It's a matter of looking at the facts and circumstances of the specific situation.
There's a big difference, for example, between some office job where all the person has to do is show up occasionally and call season ticket holders and move papers around her desk, and a coaching job that requires actual work for which the person is clearly qualified.
I think it is so detrimental to the interests of these young women (and to the WNBA) to put such major obstacles in the way of their professional opportunities in the name of protecting a salary cap.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66887
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/01/19 10:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| CourtsideTix wrote: |
| I think it is so detrimental to the interests of these young women (and to the WNBA) to put such major obstacles in the way of their professional opportunities in the name of protecting a salary cap. |
It's about keeping the teams on even footing. A team not affiliated with an NBA team can't make this offer, giving affiliated teams an advantage.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
CourtsideTix
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 4565
Location: Washington, DC
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/01/19 11:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| CourtsideTix wrote: |
| I think it is so detrimental to the interests of these young women (and to the WNBA) to put such major obstacles in the way of their professional opportunities in the name of protecting a salary cap. |
It's about keeping the teams on even footing. A team not affiliated with an NBA team can't make this offer, giving affiliated teams an advantage. |
But you are assuming an improper offer has been made -- an offer intended to circumvent the salary cap. That's the very thing at issue, and it can't be assumed.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9604
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/01/19 11:36 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| CourtsideTix wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| The ability of WNBA players to work for their team ownership in other areas and being paid separate from their WNBA contract is something that should be addressed in the collective bargaining agreement. As in, I think they should disallow it. You can't determine whether or not money - or just the resume boosting nature of the job itself - from a "(or Team Affiliate)" was not "designed to serve the purpose of defeating or circumventing the intention of the parties as reflected by all of the provisions of this Agreement. " |
But you can determine those things. It's a matter of looking at the facts and circumstances of the specific situation. |
The overriding fact/circumstance as I see it is that the player is benefitting from what is offered them by the NBA team (or any other business the WNBA team owner has). They are receiving something from their WNBA team owner other than their WNBA salary, regardless of whether they have to do anything or not to get it.
| Quote: |
| I think it is so detrimental to the interests of these young women (and to the WNBA) to put such major obstacles in the way of their professional opportunities in the name of protecting a salary cap. |
They can be assistant coaches for NBA teams that don't own their WNBA team. That only lowers their opportunities by 1/30th.
| Quote: |
| But you are assuming an improper offer has been made -- an offer intended to circumvent the salary cap. That's the very thing at issue, and it can't be assumed. |
Since you can't determine if the two are connected, it should be illegal. Or alternatively - if every team had a second business to hire a player for - anything should be legal. Legal to make a player the "Wizards Assistant Director of Suburban Community Outreach", and pay them any salary. But I don't think Seattle or Atlanta could do that which would make it unfair.
Last edited by tfan on 01/01/19 11:53 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 7365
Location: Underground
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/01/19 11:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
What the CBA limits attempt to do is two things:
1) Ensure that no player is paid more than a maximum amount
2) Ensure that no team has a payroll over a fixed amount
I don't think the intention was ever to thwart player business opportunities. For instance, in men's sports, playing in a large market usually comes with more chances to secure endorsements. No league has ever tried to regulate that advantage. Similarly, I don't believe the CBA was meant to limit legitimate off-season employment. I think people are confusing extra opportunities with additional compensation. Kristi got paid $113,000 for playing for the Mystics last season and she fulfilled her obligation. That part is clear. Now, the question is if she is getting extra money above that, which violates the individual maximum, or if the Mystics benefit in some way that lets them circumvent the team salary cap. Well, Toliver has to work for the money she gets from the Wizards. This is a second job. Furthermore, it sounds like she was slotted to be paid at the low end of the industry standard, so there is no excess compensation involved. And since Toliver was paid max during the season and is scheduled to be paid max next season, this in no way helps the Mystics lower their payroll.
I don't even see why it should make any difference that her second job is from the same ownership. As long as a player works for her money and is paid a rate commensurate with the services she provides, then the arrangement should be legitimate. Nothing prevents ownership of other teams from also offering their players jobs. It may not be in basketball, but players can still be spokespersons for products or enter into a management training program. Given that we want players to stay in the US and not be so dependent on foreign teams, any opportunities that allow them to spend their off-season at home is a positive for the WNBA.
_________________
You can always do something else.
|
|
|
|
