Two major factors drove Stephenson to Charlotte

July 16, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Lance Stephenson’s agent said today the NBA player’s signing with the Charlotte Hornets instead of the Indiana Pacers was not all about the money.

“Reports throughout the negotiation process with Indiana have often strayed from the truth but suffice it to say that it was less about the money,” Alberto Ebanks said in a statement.

Well, if it’s not all about the money, then what is it about? Ebanks isn’t saying.

But it sure looks like it’s about the money.

Here’s what we know:

Everyone agreed that with a salary last season of just over $1 million, Stephenson—antics and all—was due a big raise. Heck, the Pacers paid Andrew Bynum about as much, and he barely played.

The Pacers on July 1 offered Stephenson a five-year, $44 million contract—roughly $8.8 million per year. Remember that figure—five years.

Stephenson thinks he’s worth more than that and sought a two- or three-year deal. The Pacers agreed to discuss it but sources familiar with those negotiations said the Pacers weren’t willing to pay him as much per year for a shorter deal.

So, after meeting with Charlotte owner Michael Jordan Tuesday night, Stephenson agreed to a three-year, $27 million deal—$9 million per year.

A lot of folks this morning were asking why Stephenson would spurn the Pacers’ offer when the Hornets offer paid about the same amount per year.

Two factors drove Stephenson to Charlotte.

First, Stephenson isn’t short on confidence. He thinks he’ll be an all-star next year. So he’s seeking all-star money. But what exactly is an all-star paid?

Let’s forget the five Eastern Conference all-star starters last season and look at the seven reserves.

The salaries of the seven bench players ranged from $7.5 million to $21.5 million. The average was $13.2 million. Paul Milsap and DeMar DeRozan each made $9.5 million. Roy Hibbert knocked down $14.3 million and Joakim Noah, $11.1 million.

It’s easy to see that if Stephenson can keep his nose clean and continue to improve, he’d be a bargain at $9 million. So he isn’t apt to accept less.

There’s another factor why Stephenson and his agent didn’t want him playing four and five years out for a little less than $9 million a year. That same reason is why the Pacers wanted to pay him less per year for a shorter deal.

Both sides are acutely aware that the NBA’s national television deal with ESPN/ABC and Turner Sports’ TNT—which pays the league a combined $930 million annually—expires after the 2015-16 season. Talks with various networks for a new agreement have already begun, and multiple sources in advertising and broadcasting believe the NBA will score a deal of $1.5 billion to $1.8 billion per year.

Does that sound optimistic for the NBA? Perhaps. But consider the NBA is the only big-time sports entity with a TV contract coming up for renewal in the next couple of years.

And with new national sports cable networks such as Fox Sports 1 and NBC Sports Network hungry for live game programming, the NBA should find itself in a very nice negotiating position.

So what does this mean for the Pacers and Stephenson?

NBA team salary caps are based on league-wide basketball-related income. The NBA and players nearly split basketball-related income, and TV revenue is included in the income. The higher the income, the more players can be paid.

The upshot is that the Pacers were looking to tie Stephenson down to a cheap, long-term deal, and Charlotte offered him more cash earlier and allows Stephenson to negotiate an even better deal later.

In a couple of years, Stephenson—especially if he makes good on his promise to become an all-star—could easily be looking at a contract paying $18 million annually, and possibly a lot more.

So while the nearly $9 million a year the Pacers were willing to pay him for the next five years looks like a solid raise, it could actually hamstring him in the long-run. Remember, Stephenson is only 23, and in four or five years, he should be in his prime.

If all goes Stephenson’s way, he could end up making $18 million to $20 million more over the next five years than the Pacers were willing to pay him.

It’s not clear what Pacers fans are thinking, though I’ve heard more than a handful say the loss of Stephenson—and the baggage he sometimes carries—is not a huge loss.

As the Eastern Conference stiffens up, those attitudes might change. And a contract that paid Stephenson $50 million to $55 million over five years might not seem like such a bad deal to Pacers basketball operations boss Larry Bird.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Meh
    I can see why he made the decision--probably best for him. It doesn't bother me. Just in general I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone making over $1 million a year.
  • Bird let us down
    I would like to cancel my season tickets. How can we compete with everyone in the east getting better except the Heat. And we will most likely be fighting the Heat for the 8th seed. So we could have paid Lance $9.5 mil a year for 2 or 3 years and probably made him happy and we could have competed for a championship in those 2 or 3 years. How can we compete now??
  • Agent's $$$?
    I don't have big feelings either way with Lance, but I'm curious how much,Ebanks, the agent made, and how each respective deal would have affected his revenue. How do they structure the long term and short term payout to the agents? Guess I didn't follow "follow the money" closely enough! LOL.
  • while you can
    Seems Lance is betting on himself. He's taking a shorter term deal, betting he can improve his position in three years.
  • Sorry to see him go
    I'm a Lance fan...not a huge one, but I like guys with confidence and an edge...you need someone on your team like that, especially given that most guys on the team are a little too sensitive (see Hibbert, who was Godzilla the first half of the season, and the Invisible Man the second half, or PG, who suddenly announced mid-season he wanted to be mentored by LeBron...). It will be interesting to see what the Pacers do...they lost a really good player who works very hard on his game, and he has a chance to be great if he can tone down the antics some...there isn't anyone out there left as good...I wouldn't cancel a season ticket over it though...the East is still bad...yes Cleveland is way better, the Heat will still be good if not great, Chicago is very good if Rose can play, Atlanta gets Horford back, and the Hornets/Wizards have made some moves...Pacers till ought to easily make the playoffs, assuming Vogel finally discovers he has more than 5 players on his team...if Lance was the chemistry problem, as Hibbert hinted at, then that should go away...sometimes less is more in team sports...have to wait and see...
  • Stephenson
    By losing Stephenson and keeping Vogel (must improve his management/setting expectations skills!), Pacers have reasonably moved down the ladder behind Cleve, Miami, Chicago, New York, and Toronto, perhaps others. Not sure that Larry, while unquestionably one of the greatest players ever, really understands the motivations that are required to develop his talent, or why else, have those who have left, have outperformed their tenures in Indiana, and those who have come in, have underperformed.
  • Bird was limited
    Bird was up against the salary cap with the offer that was made to Lance. To offer more, he was going to look at cutting someone. Hopefully, we've got enough talent to make do without him. Just going to have to adjust some offensive and defensive sets. We'll miss his offense, But his defense was not that great.
  • Good points
    Great column, Anthony. Good points. Right on target.
  • The No. 1 Reason
    The No. 1 Reason people quit their jobs is because they feel unappreciated.

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT