The Blazer training staff has seen how he's looking after injury. If the Blazers don't offer a deal, it's because he's on the Wes Matthew track of being a shell of his former self. I worry about his lateral quickness on D after tearing the achilles. If he's just a slow, mid-range shooter at this point we need to move on.
I'm serious, Neil has bid against himself so many times, Meyers, AFA, Moe etc. that I bet Hoodie or more likely his agent came to Olshey with the idea of Hoodie opting out to get a two year deal and raise and Neil was all for it.
He's already being paid virtual peanuts--it's not like he's opting out of a lucrative contract. It's not a particularly large gamble--the type of player he was prior to the injury is worth at least triple what he was slated to earn, if not more. Even if you reduce that by a hefty amount because of his injury, he's still worth more than $6M a year. I think Portland will at least offer him the $10M/year that they can with Early Bird rights. Other teams may also offer him more than single-digit millions. Wings who can defend and shoot passably are worth their weight in gold in this era of basketball.
Pre Achilles, Wes Matthews was also worth his weight in gold. I really liked Wes, but letting him walk rather than over-paying to keep him was absolutely the right decision.
What's funny about your statement unintentionally is that he is in fact worth his weight in gold. Gold is valued at about $1,800 an ounce today, and Hood weighs 208 pounds according to nba.com. So multiplying his weight by the value of gold he would be worth $5,990,400 - which is about how much he's earning per year on his current contract. So you're right, he is quite literally worth his weight in gold.
He was significantly worse than Welsey Matthews pre injury. Matthews has been a fringe rotational player the last few years. Post injury you are sure a lesser version of Matthews on a 4 year deal would be great? That could be a disaster for the Blazers. There is a real risk Hood may never play productively again in the NBA. Would I like to see if he can beat those odds and be productive? Sure I would. I wouldn't make a bet on it though. There is a very real chance it doesn't work. A large $ multi year deal would be as stupid as the Turner and Meyers contracts.
What do you consider "large $"? Anything over $10M/year? I had suggested $30M/4--would you consider that to be a mistake?
Just some interesting comparisons between Wesley and Rodney. The Mavs signed Wesley to a HUGE contract, so it's doable. They're close to the same age too, so I suspect Hoods return would be similar to Wesleys (though Wesley is insane and rushed himself back). Wesley missed 22 games. It was approx 7.5 months between when he got hurt and when he returned. It will have been more than a year between the time Hood got hurt and Hood returned. And even if this was a normal NBA season, he'd still would have been out 10 months.
agree, we do not need to take a significant risk on Hood coming off a bad Achilles injury and a 21 game "hot streak from 3" before the injury. Lets keep in mind he is a career 37% shooter from 3 which is solid but no way should we or anyone IMO expect much more than that over an entire season. I'd offer maybe 4-5 mil per for 3 yrs with a team option for yr 3, if no acceptable adios
Agreed. Now if they have medical/performance data that shows he has his jumping, vertical and quickness back, then maybe I go a little a little higher, and at his age, a 3-year deal still gets his prime. Just not much history of coming back from that injury at the level (or even close) to what that player was before.
You make it sound like he was 3+D starter on the majority of NBA teams pre-injury.... Worth triple $6 million? He was not worth $18 million or he would've signed for it. He was traded for a second round pick and didn't have significant free agent interest thus he came back for only $6 million. That was pre-injury. Post injury he could have a Rudy Gay drop-off or be out of the league. That's a risk the Blazers shouldn't take. Let the Knicks or someone do this. Reminds me of fans thinking the Blazers should max Meyers or risk a 50/40/90 big in a club with only Dirk possibly leaving...
I would let him walk for 30/4. I'd give him a one year $10 mil contract if that doesn't impact MLE/hardcap. Its the additional years I wouldn't take the risk. If he walks for more, then good for him. Let another franchise do what the Mavs did. We have salary issues to deal with in future years; Nurk raise, Trent raise, Dame & CJ escalation, hopefully another talent deserving of more. I don't want a situation where we are fighting the luxury tax, have to give up assets, or can't resign Covington. We had to deal with the 2016 Turner/Meyers deals which just finally we got out of this summer. Don't make another such mistake the first chance we get! If we miss a chance to get Hood below value than that is fine. Better to avoid that risk than screw flexibility on a long shot odds of a player beating an Achilles rupture.
Doesn’t this really come down to normal basketball business decisions? Can the Blazers find an equivalent or better player elsewhere, preferably without the Achilles risk, with the money and exceptions they have available to them? Can Hood get a better contract elsewhere, or will he find the market for guys coming off that injury will force him to accept less than he’d like?
Him opting out gives him and us options. There are a bunch of wing players as UFA that wouldn't have the risk plus we have several now that can play the 2/3. Covington being acquired changes everything with respect to Hood. Id replace him with a legit 4 or 5. And I wold also pick up a back up pg.
Fully agree on available wings, Roco IMO is best at SF and Gary need minutes at backup SG and SF, and we'll see what Little can do.
I like Hood and to be honest he was not a super athletic guy to begin but if he is 90% or better i have no problem him looking from going from 6m to like 7/8 for 2 yrs or something but if he wants more than say "thanks for your time " and move on it's as simple as that.
