Guaranteed Disaster

The Lamar Odom era is over in Dallas.  After less than a season, the tumultuous relationship between the former Lakers power forward and Mark Cuban's Mavericks came to an end earlier this week.  Dallas announced that Odom would be shut down for the remainder of the 2012 season (including the playoffs), and since it's too late in the year for him to be released and join another club, he'll be sitting at home until he (presumably) signs with a new team later this summer.  The most painful part about the whole ordeal is that, because of the NBA's CBA rules, the Mavs still have to pay Odom's entire salary.  By all accounts, Odom made virtually no effort to make things work in Dallas after Los Angeles traded him prior to the 2011-2012 campaign, yet he somehow he will still get paid as if he played his you-know-what off.  Many, including Charles Barkley, are rightfully taking issue with this.

"I always pull for the players, but the fact that they've got to pay him, I think is a joke,  I mean, because he didn't earn his salary. He didn't earn it at all.  I like Lamar as a person, but I'm disappointed about everything that happened in Dallas. And it's a shame that the Mavs got to pay him, to be honest with you, because he doesn't deserve to get paid for what he put out there this year. He doesn't deserve it, plain and simple."

I don't frequently find myself agreeing with Sir Charles, but I think he's right on point with this one.  I understand that the NBA's CBA guarantees all contracts.  The Players Association worked hard throughout this summer's lockout to protect that clause in the agreement, arguing that it didn't want its players placed in a tough financial position if they were injured or, despite their best efforts, had a sub par season (or seasons).  I agree with some of this logic - a deal is a deal, and teams should be forced to pay players as each contract stipulates.  It's a General Manager's job to figure out where to allocate his team's money, and an ability to predict which players will be worth their salaries towards the end of a long-term deal is a huge part of the gig.

That logic assumes, however, that the player is holding up his end of the bargain.  Had Odom really worked hard in Dallas and honestly tried to fit in with the club, then he should earn his salary.  If, in spite of his best efforts, Dallas decided that it didn't want him on the roster anymore, I believe he should still get paid - shame on management, then, for not accurately predicting how Odom would fit into a lineup that already featured Dirk Nowitzki, Yi Jianlian and Brendan Wright and Brian Cardinal among its power forwards.  In reality, however, Odom didn't try at all.  As Barkley accurately notes, Odom never held up his end of the bargain.  He took it for granted that his salary was guaranteed, decided he didn't need to try and left the Mavs in an impossible situation.  In the end, management determined that the only possible solution was to get rid of Lamar, despite the financial ramifications.

Odom will spend the rest of the season even farther away from NBA action - and still get paid.

Clearly, it's hard to determine when a player is truly giving "maximum effort," so any discussion about only guaranteeing the contracts of players who try their hardest immediately heads down an extremely slippery slope.  That being said, there's something wrong when players are getting paid big money regardless of whether or not they uphold their end of their contracts.  More than anything, I worry about any young Dallas fans following this story.  What Odom's saga tells kids is that "If you tell someone you'll do a job in exchange for money, but later decide you don't want to do it, that's OK - you'll get the money anyway."  It's bad enough that so many underprivileged kids see the NBA as an "easy" way out of poverty.  Now, we risk having our youth dreaming about the day when they can make the NBA, sign a big contract and then immediately shift their efforts to reality TV - all while collecting a hefty paycheck.