I Swear This Seemed Obvious to Me.

This is an interesting little exchange between a Swag favorite, Bill Simmons, and Mark Cuban, who I used to find obnoxious, but who I now sort of find pretty cool. Simmons asks why not just bench a big name stud and "humiliate" him into passing up half of a huge contract. Cuban makes the obvious point that millions of dollars is worth humiliation, even to guys who already have millions. Other than that, Simmons' point is valid and Cuban answers very nicely. I had also wondered about the business sense of buyouts, listen to Cuban (from Daily Dime over at ESPN):


Our man Bill Simmons raised an interesting question in a recent chat, when he wondered aloud after Chris Webber forfeited just under $6.5 million for the right to leave Philadelphia and sign with his hometown Detroit Pistons:
"Here's what I don't get about these buyouts: If you keep doing them, what stops an overpaid player from completely tanking his situation so he can go somewhere else? ...
"Why not just keep him around, not play him and force his hand? He's already made nine figures ... who knows, he might be crazy enough to take a buyout for half his contract just to avoid the humiliation of sitting on the bench behind Steven Hunter."
So I put this to Mavs owner Mark Cuban, knowing that Simmons is hardly alone in wondering why buyouts seem to be gaining in popularity with teams who have gambled on players making big salaries, only to wind up paying them handsomely to go elsewhere and thrive when the game doesn't work out. Cuban's multilayered response:
1. "Fewer teams are taking bad contracts in trades. The Knicks, Mavs and Blazers used to be in that business. No one is anymore. Even the Nuggets traded away [Earl] Boykins to save some money after bringing in [Allen] Iverson.
2. "Financial flexibility is worth more than the players you could get back in a trade. You've heard me say many times that the concept of 'Getting something back for a player' is for the uninformed. If your team has the ability to spend money, that's worth more to you than players you are going to get for a guy with a big number on the downside of his career. So rather than trading a player and getting back junk, it's smarter to do a buyout and save some money.
3. "Because Philly was a luxury-tax payer, whatever discount Webber took, they saved two times that. That could be the difference in enabling them to do a deal or not in the future.
4. "Unhappy players are not different than unhappy broadcasters or writers. Wanna bet that the mood around the Philly Inquirer [which just endured a round of layoffs] isn't conducive to training young reporters? Wanna bet that there are reporters out there that want more space and become locker-room lawyers? You don't want people who don't want to be there in any business."
Cuban continued:
"No one feels humiliated when they get paid 20 million dollars and very few are willing to give up 10 million dollars. You can buy a lot of humiliation for 10 million bucks. Ask yourself how much you would allow yourself to be humiliated for $10 million? You can't worry about how much money the player will make [in a buyout]. Teams care about winning games and making money. Buyouts are a smart business and basketball move."