We might as well trade the guy then while his value is high and his health is good before it deteriorates.
See that's an interesting point. It's almost like Penn/KP are looking at 4 years from now FA. Who is in that list does anyone know?
Blazers fans need to chill the fuck out and get over the whole Seattle thing. The team isn't moving, and Allen is not going to sell a team that has been built up to be a contender for many years... The contract situation is going to be fine, this is the way contracts work and the way both sides get what they want. Roy is going to get his max deal... RELAX.
LOL. I'd only trade BR for Chris Paul. And that's not very likely. Although, if we get a starting quality PF, it's worth considering getting Paul for LaMarcus. As far as this contract brouhaha, it's funny how easily Brandon and his agent are playing the fans like this. It will get done. No worries.
*sigh* First of all, there were no three year deals signed. They were four year deals, where the fourth year was an player option. The teams were/remain on the hook for four years. Secondly, I find it hilarious that you're telling me (and, indirectly, the Blazers) that the team is "better off" for having a five year deal rather than a four year deal. The Blazers clearly don't agree with you. Nice try, though. Ed O. Ed O.
Dwight Howard is an example, along with Carmelo, of max years, max money. I did not mention him previously, so thanks for bringing him up. The rest of the guys aren't max money so the number of years they got isn't very relevant to the Roy discussion, although it will be with Aldridge. Ed O.
Yes, exactly. It's strange how many people are taking rather standard contract posturing in the media so seriously. Kobe actually talked deal with the Clippers to strengthen his position with the Lakers. In all sports (at least the ones I follow, NBA, MLB, NFL), players who pretty much everyone expects to sign with their original team often give ambivalent comments in the media about the negotiations, to show the team that they shouldn't be taken for granted. Roy is keeping his position strong. Pritchard is staying nonchalant. There's nothing particularly unusual going on. Is it technically possible that behind the scenes, there is actual conflict that may drive the two sides apart permanently? Sure, anything is possible. But that's certainly not the likely case nor should it be the default assumption.
Then look to dump him now, or don't offer him any long-term contract and go for a QO next year. Roy is at fault for wanting to stay in Portland and he's breaking down.
Keep ignoring the Bargnani signing, which is actually relevant to this market since the same CBA factors are included in the negotiations.
Okay. So offer Roy a 5 year $50 million deal? I'm sure he'd love that. Considering Roy is far better and Bargnani wasn't offered a max deal, I fail to see how it's "relevant."
What's his risk factor 5 years from now over 6 years from now? I want specifics on why paying him the max for four years is a good idea due to his "risk factor", but paying him for 5 years is a bad idea.
If you can't see how a 5 year commitment and signing of a much-lesser player from Roy's draft class is "relevant", I have to question your understanding on how setting a market value actually works in negotiations. Bargnani is much more relevant to Roy's market value than whatever James and Wade decided to do years ago.
Fewer years = lower risk. It's not that he's especially more likely to be injured in year 5, it's that if he gets injured at any time in the next four years, the team is on the hook for less time. Roy's injury history adds some risk. Reducing the number of committed big-money years reduces risk.
So, Portland should offer Roy $50 million for 5 years? It's relevant in that it's the same year. It's not relevant in that they are players of very different ability and different injury histories. Ultimately, I think comparing players on the same, or more similar, levels of ability is much more relevant.
Why do you keep posting this? Ed's opinion was that offering 4 years was a smart move due to future CBA problems. Roy's agent can point to Bargnani and call bullshit. "If Bargnani's worth 5 years/$50 million, why won't Portland commit to my client for 5 years?" Again, I question your knowledge on what sets a market value.
Because some players are lower risk. Every player has their own level of risk due to injury and possibility of regression, even LeBron James. But some players are higher risk and some are lower risk. Thus, in each case, you have to evaluate that risk and weight against the benefits of locking a player up for a longer period of time.
"Because Toronto is risking much less money over those five years. Presumably, you want a lot more money (deservedly), so there's more risk to us in a five year deal." You don't know how much that hurts.
Whatever. Way to evade the question on what makes Roy a solid 5 years commitment, but not a 6 year commitment.
