Hey Ben, thanks for the comment & kind words, they are much appreciated.
Really interesting insight re: NBA which I must admit I don't know a lot about, so thanks for educating me!
However while Stokes' decision potentially mirrors the examples you mention, and for all we know he/his agent could have been aware of these NBA scenarios, it doesn't mean that the decision-makers at the ECB around central contracts have to give in to those demands - as I said in the article, both parties have to be prepared to walk away!
If I were ECB, I'd bet my chances of getting 3 good years of stokes are higher by giving him the one year contract he wants and kissing his butt/winning cricket matches over the course of that year, than by playing hardball and locking him into a 3 year deal that isn't his preference. He's shown both willingness to "retire" and ability to draw serious dollars in franchise cricket.
And you have to admit that there would be a level of existential risk to the English Cricket Team if Stokes hit the interview circuit saying "you know at the end of the day, I gave everything to English Cricket, we lifted trophies, we revived test cricket out of its casket, and the administration said thanks but we're good we don't need you anymore. So I look forward to my next year in South Africa, India, America, etc.." Veterans and young guys alike would hear that and begin to stroke their beards wondering what's right for themselves.
Great column Dan, huge fan of your writing and love hearing you on the cricket pod. Quick note on the point around Stokes taking the short term deal - there is actually more and more of this happening in the NBA. They changed the collaborative bargaining agreement about 5 years ago so that raises in team salary caps are smoothed to a max of 10% per year. That was in response to new media deal madness that stokes seems to be trying to time. But Giannis just turned down a couple hundred million in guarantees to take a 3 year extension with the idea in mind of timing additional extensions for 2026 and 2028. LeBron has been doing short term deals the entirety of his time with the lakers.
The idea would be that, in this evolving (especially financially evolving) landscape, flexibility is valuable in and of itself. If I were an agent advising one of these A List English cricketers, I’d tell them the risk of dollars lost outweighs the guaranteed dollars of a long term deal today.
Hey Ben, thanks for the comment & kind words, they are much appreciated.
Really interesting insight re: NBA which I must admit I don't know a lot about, so thanks for educating me!
However while Stokes' decision potentially mirrors the examples you mention, and for all we know he/his agent could have been aware of these NBA scenarios, it doesn't mean that the decision-makers at the ECB around central contracts have to give in to those demands - as I said in the article, both parties have to be prepared to walk away!
If I were ECB, I'd bet my chances of getting 3 good years of stokes are higher by giving him the one year contract he wants and kissing his butt/winning cricket matches over the course of that year, than by playing hardball and locking him into a 3 year deal that isn't his preference. He's shown both willingness to "retire" and ability to draw serious dollars in franchise cricket.
And you have to admit that there would be a level of existential risk to the English Cricket Team if Stokes hit the interview circuit saying "you know at the end of the day, I gave everything to English Cricket, we lifted trophies, we revived test cricket out of its casket, and the administration said thanks but we're good we don't need you anymore. So I look forward to my next year in South Africa, India, America, etc.." Veterans and young guys alike would hear that and begin to stroke their beards wondering what's right for themselves.
Great column Dan, huge fan of your writing and love hearing you on the cricket pod. Quick note on the point around Stokes taking the short term deal - there is actually more and more of this happening in the NBA. They changed the collaborative bargaining agreement about 5 years ago so that raises in team salary caps are smoothed to a max of 10% per year. That was in response to new media deal madness that stokes seems to be trying to time. But Giannis just turned down a couple hundred million in guarantees to take a 3 year extension with the idea in mind of timing additional extensions for 2026 and 2028. LeBron has been doing short term deals the entirety of his time with the lakers.
The idea would be that, in this evolving (especially financially evolving) landscape, flexibility is valuable in and of itself. If I were an agent advising one of these A List English cricketers, I’d tell them the risk of dollars lost outweighs the guaranteed dollars of a long term deal today.