Interesting (Troubling?) Quote From Tod Leiweke

Yeah, good questions. Why isn't Quick asking Leiweke these questions?

 

How about 2010, when presumably Roy/LMA/Millsap are pushing them toward the luxury tax, with Oden/Rudy/Bayless/Batum still left to extend?

 

Let me at Leiweke!!! I'll ask him!

 

Really? Seems to me that not using the cap space on a back-up makes the most sense. But Utah will match, so maybe that's the plan after all?

 

I dunno. I've just seen one of your fellow producers make the argument that shorting Roy on years 5 years fron now makes financial sense. I can't reconcile that with Leiweke's quote that pertains to the next two years, however.

 

Roy has been injury prone, there's a chance he ends up being a McGrady limping around on a microfractured knee at max dollars. Or worse he ends up as a Marbury or Francis peaking at age 26 with a sharp decline.

For the Blazers, if Roy stays healthy at a top level of performance giving him a big extension or big new contract later on will be an option, but if he's injured there isn't any way to cancel a max contract.

Roy knows his body might not hold up so he's looking to cash in as much as he can while he's healthy.

 

Really? Are you just making this up, or do you have inside information that Roy knows this is his one big cash grab? If Roy decides to play the year without an extension, he's going to get a 5 year contract from somebody, and Portland will either match it or they won't. Why offer him at all if injuries are a concern?

 

Roy played 74 games two years ago, and 78+6 playoff games this past season. I think he's held up pretty well other than that talus bone injury that doesn't seem to be a problem anymore, and just minor aches and pains that NBA players get.

The problem has been getting a sidekick for him on the perimeter to shoulder the load, or else you get stuff like him saying how tired he was in just the first round of the playoffs. He's not injured, but just tired from having to do everything for the team.

Any player has a chance to end up like T-Mac so why bother giving anyone a five-year contract, when we gave Hedo five years when he's much older than Roy? I don't think we're playing hard ball with Brandon because we're afraid he might get injured. And unless the team knows something we don't, I hope that's not how our team operates.

 

Didn't he also have a knee surgery last off-season? Didn't cost him games, but it's still part of his medical history.

 

If the team knows something that we don't that B-Roy won't be around here when he's 29, then sure I could understand it and I'll side with all of you about him being injury prone. But with what we know, nothing tells us Brandon will be broken down in five years.

And why should I bother then investing in anything then? I guess I shouldn't buy a car if there's a possibility of it breaking down or getting totaled in a year.
Or a big screen TV, if I know a possibility of a house fire burning it down.
Or stocks, if I'm going to lose everything.
Or just going outside, if I know I could die somehow.

The investment I'd make in Brandon is that I'm banking on him bringing us the ultimate prize, which is a championship, full arenas, merchandise sold, and money into the franchise. Even if he gets injured that fifth year hypothetically, then that investment I make in him would be worth it over the first four years of his contract in money and revenue he's created for the team.

 

I think you're mischaracterizing the point. It's not "If there is ANY chance of something bad happening, there should be no investment at all." The point is, risk factors should be built into the investment. It's not "Roy is risk-free, give him max years and max money" or else "Roy is going to break down, don't sign him at all."

It's "Roy is a great, young talent who has some risk...we should try to sign him to a contract that recognizes both his talent and risk." In that perspective, a 4 year max deal instead of a 5 year max deal is pretty reasonable to at least discuss.

 

All right.. I get yours and Ed's points, despite it turning into a short-term PR nightmare for the team so far. Can't say I agree with the tactics itself, but I understand where you guys are coming from.

 

Fair enough. One thing I have to ask (you and anyone else who cares to answer): Is it turning into a short-term PR nightmare? Clearly it is on this forum, but does the casual fan (who doesn't follow the Blazers constantly and probably doesn't follow them at all, except the big moves, in the off-season) care much? Not living in Portland, I don't know how the "the city" (and state) is reacting to it.

 

I'd say to the casual fan, there's a "what the hell are they doing?" reaction when they have the general picture of the situation.
- Brandon Roy is the hero and face of the franchise, he wants to be here five years. Everyone knows who he is.
- Team only wants to give him four.
- And a reaction of wtf, why don't they want him for five, why don't they want to keep him here when he wants to be here for everything he's done?

It's been one of the lead stories on the local newscasts on the day Roy went on the Seattle radio show. I can say everyone here is pretty well-aware of the situation.

But when you get to the hardcore sports fans on sports radio talk shows, then I'd say it's about 50/50 that some know it's a part of negotiation and aren't worried things will get done, and the other half just don't agree with how the team is handling it.
But I'd say the general feeling among casual Blazer fans is "why?" and it's just been another flame to put out by the team that everything will be OK.

 

You don't live here, and it is leading newscasts. Mocking those of us who are living in the Portland area seems weird.