Thanks! So we gave LMA the max? Good for him. I'm glad they have him signed. Why piss off your 2nd best player in hopes of saving a little here or there? All is good in Blazerville with our core.
I wanna add that I don't think spending this money on LMA is irresponsible in the same way it was to hand out that money to Darius. Lamarcus is the perfect role model for our team. He's a hard worker, he keeps clean off the court, and he's been a great teammate. He's everything you want in a player. Oh yeah, he's got talent too.
No we didn't. Since we hold his Bird rights we could give him a longer contract and higher annual raises than anyone else. Basicaly, he got almost as much as anyone else could offer him next summer (based on the above cap projections), but not the absolute max we could have given him. He's well paid, but I don't think he's overpaid (at least not grossly overpaid). As our second best player (at the time the contract was signed), he will be the second highest paid player on the team. Seems right to me. The real question is - what will Oden's extension look like next year. If Oden had a break out season, he could potentially make more than LaMarcus. If not, he will probably be offered less. It all depends on how Oden plays this season. After missing a year, and then an injury and foul plagued rookie season, Oden has a lot to prove in terms of an extension. If he shows improvement, but doesn't have a total break out season, it may be in his best interest to pass on signing the extension and become an RFA in summer 2011. Big men in general tend to get overpaid as free agents. If Oden has two solid seasons, I'm sure someone will throw the max at him. He'll still only be 23 and not yet in his prime. Of course, if someone does off the max I'm sure the Blazers will match. BNM
I'm personally not complaining about anything. Is that a requirement in this forum now - every post must contain a complaint? Sure seems that way, don't it? I just answered your question: "So we gave LMA the max? " and added some comments on the relative value of Aldridge's contract and how Oden's extension situation might play out next year. No complaints - just random thoughts. It's all good as far as I'm concerned. BNM
I know, it wasn't necessarily geared towards you, but you made a good point so I had to quote it. And you know that if we wouldn't have signed him there would be plenty of people complaining about how we aren't taking care of our players and that Vulcan is the devil. I'm just glad that he's signed.
Wer'e on the same page here. Even with the current state of the economy, I don't think Aldridge is overpaid relative to other players. From his same draft class, Andrea Bargnani signed a 5 year $50 million contract this summer. Look at Bargnani's performance vs. Aldridge over their first three years in the league: Andrea Bargnani PER: 2006-07 = 12.8 2007-08 = 10.6 2008-09 = 14.6 LaMarcus Aldridge PER: 2006-07 = 17.1 2007-08 = 18.5 2008-09 = 19.1 Both players are the same age. Aldridge scores more, shoots a higher FG%, rebounds better and is a better defender. There really is no contest, Aldridge is just flat out a much better player and deserves to be paid more. If anyone was signed prematurely and overpaid, it was Bargnani, not Aldridge. Bargnani showed flashes of potential last March, but Aldridge has two solid seasons as a starter and is pushing into borderline all-star (PER = 20) territory. Bargnani is a horrible rebounder and has yet to prove he can be even an average NBA player over an entire season. Another example of a player who plays a similar role to Aldridge (i.e. power forward who can score from the perimeter paired with a dominant low post center), is, of course, Rashard Lewis. In know the economy has changed in the two years since Orlando signed Lewis to a 6-year $112 million contract, but it hasn't changed THAT much. At the time Orlando signed Lewis, he was already 28 years old and had just had his best season. After a steady rise in performance, his PER peaked at 20.7 at age 27 (his last year in Seattle). By comparison, at age 23 Lewis (in his 5th NBA season) had a PER of 16.7 compared to Aldridge's 19.1. Lewis did not top Aldridge's 3rd year PER of 19.1 until his 7th season in the league at age 25. Starting at age 23, Lewis saw his PER increase five years in a row. Orlando signed him right AFTER he peaked. The Blazers signed Aldridge to a contract that should see him reach his peak level of performance during the final two years of his contract. So, Orlando gets 6 years of declining performance from Lewis for $112 million and Portland gets (in theory) five years of an improving Aldridge for $65 million. Aldridge definitely looks like a bargain by comparison. Comparing their recent performance (last season). Aldridge has a considerably higher PER (19.1 vs. 16.8), scores more (18.1 PPG vs. 17.7) and rebounds better (7.5 RPG vs. 5.7 RPG). And, he's a better defender. Lewis is definitely overpaid, but once again Aldridge looks like a bargain - and Aldridge should continue to improve while Lewis continues to decline. And even though Lewis is grossly overpaid, he did help get Orlando to the finals last season. If Aldridge can do the same for the Blazers, nobody will care about his contract. BNM
Aldridge is overpaid. He doesn't take charge at the end like a near-max player should. He doesn't get many rebounds. He's soft on defense. They paid him for potential, not accomplishments. If he meets his potential, he'll earn the money, but he hasn't done it so far. If he turns out less than his potential, it will be remind us of the great promise Miles and Randolph showed when we gave them big contracgts. As the article says, had Pritchard waited, he could have paid him less because the max will drop. And by paying him so much, it takes away options to sign FAs in the future.
Wrong. Whether they gave Aldridge $65 million, $40 million or didn't extend him, the Blazers are going to be over the cap for the next 6 years (at least). So, our only options to sign free agents will be the exceptions (MLE, bi-annual, rookie exceptions, minimum salary exception, etc.). Even if we hadn't re-signed Aldridge, the only way we could get under the cap next summer would be to let Blake, Outlaw and Przybilla (assuming he opts out) all walk for nothing - and that would put us at 10 players and barely under the expected cap. If we are looking to sign someone next summer, the MLE will be more than any cap space we could create. Aldridge is young, he's already very good, has improved every year he's been in the league, is the perfect compliment to Oden and still several years away from reaching his peak. He wasn't re-signed on potential. He was re-signed because he is a key piece of this team who has proven his worth over the last three seasons. BNM
I was gonna point this out but then I thought he meant it as in less financial flexibility under the luxury cap, which is about correct if you think PA is convinced about staying fiscally responsible. Even so, I still can't picture him refusing to give out full MLE contracts during our championship window. I think there is a chance they could have gotten Aldridge signed as a RFA for a smaller contract, but I prefer him extended now, knowing he's bound to take these as slights, and I wouldn't want him to play for stats.
PA has said he'd be willing to pay the luxury tax if he thought it would help us win a championship. There is also a chance Aldridge averages 20/9 this year, makes the all-star team and would earn an even larger contract. Both sides looked at the risks and benefits of signing now vs. next summer and decided on a reasonable compromise. In the end, I don't think Aldridge's average annual salary under this contract is off by more than +/- $1 million per year over what he could have gotten next summer as an RFA. In the end, I think it was a fair deal for both sides - and so did they or it wouldn't have happened. BNM
The real limit an overpaid contract would put on this roster comes in limited trading flexibility. What I mean is "Damon Stoudamire Land," where you get the GM publicly saying that he couldn't trade him for a folding chair because his contract is so out of whack with his production. Barring injury (which could happen to any highly paid player), that almost certainly isn't going to happen to Aldridge. If he starts to fall in production somewhat (seems unlikely, but always possible) and if he looks like he doesn't fit on this team (again, unlikely) there will always be a team in the market for a 6'11 power forward with Aldridge's speed, length and shooting ability. It's hard to see how this ever becomes an untradeable contract. So even if though it is a little excessive, IMO, it's not really the kind of deal I'll lose much sleep over. BTW--BNM, it's not really a great argument that Aldridge's contract compares favorably to Bargnani and Rashard Lewis. Those were really two incredibly bad contracts. The Lewis one is sort of justified in that Orlando doesn't get to the finals without him, but on a pure value basis it really sucked. Rather than compare our team's management to the idiots in Toronto, I'd rather think about what a really smart team would do. Would the Spurs ink such a deal in similar circumstances? Maybe. They signed Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili for a lot less.
Yeah, I just cited those of examples of overpaid players to show that Aldridge's contract isn't nearly as bad as other "comparable" players. It's funny how people stopped talking about Rashard's contract when the Magic made the finals (but still - $112 million!). I suspect when we start making the finals, all our players will look like bargains. Colangelo was in desparation mode this summer. He overpaid Hedo, he overpaid Bargnani and he overpaid Jarrett Jack - with the hope he can also overpay Chris Bosh next summer. Seriously, he spent a TON of money on a team that has no chance of post season success - to convince Bosh to re-sign next summer. They are going to be stuck in mediocrity (at best) for five years with a huge payroll. But, that's their problem. Actually, both the Roy and Aldridge signings strike me as very Spur-like. By re-signing Parker and Ginobili early, they got them for less than they would have later. The Blazers are convinced that Roy and Aldridge are the cornerstones of this franchise for the next 6 seasons. So, they locked them up now before their value goes even higher. Another way to look at is out highest paid players make a lot less than San Antonio's (Duncan - $22 million and Jefferson - $14 million) and are a lot younger, too. Plus, Roy's contract (and I believe Aldridge's) are tied to the 2010 salary cap. If the cap goes down next summer, Roy's contract goes down by a comparable amount (it's based on the max contract for the 2010 season which won't be known until next July, but is expected to go down). BNM
I do not think Aldridge's is - they agreed on a number. With Roy they agreed on a MAX - which is the only way you can tie a number to the cap. This, at least, is my understanding.
You could be right. I haven't seen any details on Aldridge's contract - just rough amounts ($65 million over 5 years). I thought at one point I heard it was based on a percentage of the max, but that might not be true. In any case, there are a a lot of guys in the NBA making considerably more money and producing considerably less. So, barring serious injury issues, I don't think Aldridge's contract will ever be totally out of line with his market value. And, if he continues to improve, he may turn out to be a bargain. BNM
My understanding is that you are not allowed to do percentages of the cap - other than max. That's why I suspect that only Roy's is tied to the cap. But, I am not capologist.
I contend that Bargnani is an outlier, thus not particularly relevant to establishing the "market". When a good appraiser tries to find the market, they look for comparables, throw out the highest valued comp, throw out the lowest value comp and average the rest of comps after making appropriate adjustments. Bargnani is overpaid. Most NBA observers laughed at the contract. How is a "laughable" deal a fair "comp"? Why don't you mention David West? Why don't you mention Rajon Rondo? He helped a team win an NBA title. What is the market rate for him? Can't use Ben Gordon. He was an Unrestricted free agent. The top 2 or 3 or 4 unrestricted free agents each summer are ALWAYS "overpaid". The CBA is structured to ensure that outcome. LaMarcus may be paid the "right" amount compared to other forwards that have been paid. But, that was under the old economic conditions. Moving forward under a declining cap the market rate has yet to be set. We do know that LaMarcus was paid (about) the MAXIMUM offer he could have received NEXT summer as an offer as a restricted free agent. In other words - the Blazers could have sat on their hands - played this season out - waited to see if LaMarcus signed an offer next summer - and worst case - they would have paid (about) the same amount they have paid him. The Blazers are taking ALL the risk of injury or poor play 1 season sooner. In exchange for that risk they have received NO DISCOUNT. Why?
