RealGM

Anyone able to help me with something, much appreciated:

The info Sham et al post says Jackson got the max allowable extension numbers from the Warriors. That rules out any additional incentives, doesn't it? Or can incentives push a contract above the max extension figures?

Thanks.

ROWELL wrote:Anyone able to help me with something, much appreciated:

The info Sham et al post says Jackson got the max allowable extension numbers from the Warriors. That rules out any additional incentives, doesn't it? Or can incentives push a contract above the max extension figures?

Thanks.

Why would you name yourself after that lying scum sucker?

Answers to your questions: Yes. No.

And your namesake lied his freakin' head off when he said that Jackson's contract averaged "way less than $8M."

Ha.
Right on, thanks so much for confirming.

So to recap...
1 On radio the "GM" compares our front office to the Communist Party
2 PR guy gets caught posing as a cheerful fan on a message board
3 Team President lies to season ticket holders

Keep in mind those "max extension allowable" numbers could have some LTBE incentives included which could later vanish, or could include some portions that are non-guaranteed, partially-guaranteed, or guaranteed in whole or in part only if certain conditions are met.

Unless someone here is certain that none of those conditions exists, we've seen that reported numbers can later be found to be a bit soft.

And yes, Warriors World looks to be in disarray at the top right now. What's going on? It's weird out there.

All reports thus far say full guarantee, no performance or other activators involved.
Sham's bit says "most he could get" with no mention of any restrictions.

Anyone have the actual info?

FGump wrote:Keep in mind those "max extension allowable" numbers could have some LTBE incentives included which could later vanish, or could include some portions that are non-guaranteed, partially-guaranteed, or guaranteed in whole or in part only if certain conditions are met.

Unless someone here is certain that none of those conditions exists, we've seen that reported numbers can later be found to be a bit soft.

I will certify that there are no conditions or bonuses in Jackson's fully guaranteed extension.

-bob- wrote:So to recap...
1 On radio the "GM" compares our front office to the Communist Party
2 PR guy gets caught posing as a cheerful fan on a message board
3 Team President lies to season ticket holders

Check out Ray Ratto's extremely well-written Sunday Column:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 17Q63U.DTL

Rowell, unfortunately those sorts of "minor" details often take some time to get discovered. We get the general info on the contract itself (or the cap number itself) or sometimes merely the total contract, and then we have to make assumptions until we get more info. Since Jackson's extension was inked mid-season, the numbers probably haven't even gotten slipped into an unofficial salary release yet.

To illustrate, on another thread, JES was asking some details about Dampier's contract. The backstory on that one is it was probably two years after he signed it before the specifics began to emerge, especially as to the fact that his finally year was mostly smoke, and it was another year or so before the specific triggers themselves were known.

But some of the guys here have some good inside sources and at times can find out something definitive on the fine print (if there is any). Hopefully that will be the case here, and sooner rather than later.

Thanks again to you both.

I'm confused.

Dunk you say guaranteed max.

Gump you say it could be soft.

I should be clear that the question is not could Jack be guaranteed MORE than the max (which is what Rowell falsely suggests), but rather could he end up with less. But Dunk you seem to be aware of (the real) Rowell's statement that it was less.

And the reasons I wonder:

1) Robert Rowell is a smart, underhanded weasel angry at Chris Mullin for giving away too much of Cohan's money
2) Stephen Jackson, no genius, negotiated the extension himself
3) RR's acting like the cat who ate the canary when discussion Jack's contract

I think you guys can probably answer this better than Tim Kawakami so I look forward to hearing what you know.

Twinkie, Dunk and I were writing at the same time, and while my post hit the boards after his, I didn't see his last one as I was writing. I was saying that history has taught us the numbers COULD BE soft.

But if Dunk knows enough to be sure they aren't soft numbers, then they're not. And "guaranteed max" isn't a max contract in the traditional sense of the term, but merely the max amount he was eligible to get in an extension.

Agree with all of the above Gump. If Dunk has faith that there is no way for Robert Rowell to weasel out of paying the full, maximum amount possible in Jack's extension (outside of a buyout or trade of course) then I believe that.

One more thing - it was whether the dollars at the end of Baron's contract were hard or soft that led to Rowell balking/Baron opting out, so there is a history of soft guarantees with the guy.

Twinkie defense wrote:And the reasons I wonder:

1) Robert Rowell is a smart, underhanded weasel angry at Chris Mullin for giving away too much of Cohan's money
2) Stephen Jackson, no genius, negotiated the extension himself
3) RR's acting like the cat who ate the canary when discussion Jack's contract

Hey, Twink. RR may be underhanded, but he's not really that smart. He has an over-inflated ego that has him thinking he can now run the basketball side of the team as well as the business side. It should not be forgotten that 1) RR approved every contract Mully negotiated, 2) RR was the one who pushed for signing Maggette, and 3) RR negotiated Jackson's extension all by himself.

You my perceive Rowell as acting like "a cat who ate the canary", but he's really acting like the cat who ate his own s**t and is lying about Jackson's contract because he's embarrassed that the media and the rest of the league is laughing at him for overpaying Jackson.

I have a question about Stephen Jackson's extension... Why did he get it?

If you're an optimist: to reward him for him for past achievement with the Warriors
If you're a pessimist: panic

Optimism = Gullibility?

Seriously, I'm interested in a stronger assessment than Twinkie's of the move from the experts here. Maybe it's better for another forum? Not sure.

I don't see a single solid justification for the move and retroactive "reward" is about the dumbest business model I can imagine for a basketball team with a cap and an economic downturn to diligently prepare and plan for. Not that NBA offices are staffed by geniuses.

But sometimes they're at least staffed by competent minds.

I guess we didn't think much of Baron's past achievements...