I presume you mean 4 and 5 years. Giving you an answer that displeases you is not the same as evading it. I answered precisely why it's rational to for Portland to prefer 4 years over 5 years.
You questioning my understanding of what sets market value has hurt Roy to some degree? My, he IS a sensitive soul. I'm touched, though.
No, I mean 5 and 6 years, since Roy still has one more year under his rookie contract before the extension starts.
Fair enough. I answered why it's rational for Portland to prefer 4 extra years instead of 5 extra years.
And I wonder why 5 years is ideal, while 6 years is off-limits. I guess we'll see next week when Roy puts out his statement. I'm hoping it's not "I'm ending talks until training camp", but who knows at this point.
I don't know what number of years is "ideal." I haven't been arguing what the ideal number of years is, just that I can see why the team might prefer a 4 year extension to a 5 year one. Ultimately, if that's a deal-breaker, I hope they go 5.
Why would I pay $500 for a certain television but not $600? A fifth year in the extension increases the risk and increases the guaranteed costs. Maybe not enough to push it beyond the cost you find acceptable (perhaps you value the TV at $750 and think $600 is a bargain) but it still adds costs. He better hope he doesn't get hurt without signing that extension. Do you think Webster would have got the same money if he hadn't signed his extension when he did? Ed O.
That's a great way to treat one's primary asset. "Sign this right now, or you might get hurt busting your ass for this franchise and get nothing."
First of all, I'm not saying that's the BLAZERS' position. It has to be on his mind. Or it has to be on the mind of those to whom he pays money to help safeguard his financial future. Secondly, it's no less offensive than the idea you were throwing out there that Roy might simply refuse to play baseketball since he's not getting a fifth year in his max dollars extension. That possibility has to be on the minds of the Blazers, however remote it is. Ed O.
I never said it was offensive. I'm only going by what we know about the negotiations. Your view is quite clear to me, since the Blazers have Roy "by the short hairs". In dealing with top talent that fits your business culture and actually leads it, I've always made exceptions in any negotiation from a purely analytical viewpoint. I've overpaid for it once or twice, and I didn't regret doing so. Additionally, I've never had a top 15 in the world talent leading my "team", so I have trouble understanding why this top 15 in the world talent is "frustrated" and "disappointed" when he doesn't need to be. I don't recall Tod Leiweke scoring any points, ever, for the Blazers, and I've never gone to a game because Tod Leiweke was calling the shots.
Risk of Roy getting hurt: speculative. Risk of a new CBA: 100% Risk that the new CBA will punish teams that have players on long-term, maximum deals: 90%+ (Stern hasn't lost a major battle yet, but I suppose it could happen)
Then James, Wade, and the rest are in for a world of hurt next summer. This would be the season for a strike considering many of the best players will be up for extensions after it.
The players won't strike while things are so severely in their favor. They should continue to take advantage of the current CBA, which is out of whack with real-world economics even for pro sports, and stockpile funds for the 2011 lockout. Ed O.
Well, with the top players likely to be lowballed next summer due to the upcoming new CBA, striking this season sometime after the All-Star break would put the most hurt on the owners. I'm not saying it will happen, and it most likely will not happen, but from a player perspective, it's really all they have in terms of maximizing their value next summer.
I don't think anyone will "lowball" those guys. They will be unrestricted and there will be multiple suitors. We're also talking about players like James and Wade that are MVP-level players. Some might get less money or fewer years than they otherwise would, but they would still be wise to take the best offer they can because it'll be better than under the new/future CBA, IMO. Ed O.
That's assuming that the owner's get their way in the next CBA. One way in this economy to put the hurt on them is to strike early in the process. Teams are already borrowing money from the league; put them out of a revenue stream and perhaps some concessions can be made before the CBA expires a year and a half later. I'm just brainstorming here from a leverage perspective. Plus, Roy (IMO) is getting lowballed right now, and you yourself have posted that part of it could be due to the upcoming new CBA.
