19 million: http://www.portlandtribune.com/sports/story.php?story_id=124769307701623200 Argument by Eggers is that he won't opt out for 19 million. So is there really an option?
And, chances are if he opts out, something is going on where it isn't so cool he is here anymore. Things work themselves out for a reason. If you consider that we have no idea what is going to happen with the cap by then, it may or may not be a good move to give yourself that option at the time. You could have a situation where nobody has cap room. You could hav a situation where everybody has cap room. They have no idea. As Sheed once said "Cut the Check".
He could opt out... but would re-sign with us, maybe to do like a 3 year extension, I Think I remember Kobe doing that no?
Eggers is the one reporter in town who's opinion on the Blazers I really value. I think he's nailed the situation perfectly.
The math is somewhat flawed. Assuming the cap goes to 50.4M (the low end of next year's projections) he'll have a 5th-year max of 16.775M, not 19M.
Maybe he wasn't assuming the cap going that low. I'd certainly be surprised if it dropped that much. I think the clear answer to this is to give Roy the 5th year, w/out an option.
fuck, athletes and movie stars are way fucking overpaid..i love the blazers but this is kinda depressing since we are in a huge recession and they are bickering over 1 year when they are already set for life.
The league passed out projections of 50.4 to 53.6M for next year's cap. Even at the max end of that, Roy's only making 17.8M his 5th year. The fallacy was the assumption of starting at 13.4M (which actually is wrong, it's 13.52M this year, but that's nitpicking). The cap is going to drop between 7 and 12% next year, and he's assuming this year's numbers.
While this is nice and all I would like to point out, that teams make a lot more money if they make it deep into the playoffs. The best way to make it deep into the playoffs, is obviously with high level talent. If you play your 82 game season, and then fight through a few series and maybe the conference finals, that can be as many as 21 extra games in an 82 game season, with higher revenue's because playoff games get more attention, and higher ratings. So IMO, you can either go cheap, and not make the playoffs, or not very far into them, or go for the gusto, and plan on winning your way to financial stability. I remember during some of the Pippen years Portland had to maek the conference finals just to break even. But the fact is, it was possible. Even being over the cap.
Is that the middle ground here? I was thinking about that the other day.. would Brandon rather have a 5-year deal with a fifth-year player option and a chance to opt out after 4 and maybe get a bigger deal when he's 29, or just get a 5-year guaranteed contract?
That'll be the price of an autograph... with $4 million barely buying a night at the movies. (OT: didn't something like that happen in Zimbabwe, where hyperinflation destroyed their economy to where a loaf of bread was $500,000?)
Are they? Compared to CEOs, they are comparatively severely underpaid, and I'd argue it is much more difficult to be 2nd team All-NBA than it is to become a CEO of a large corporation. Plus, if it is bickering over one year, couldn't it be said that Paul Allen could afford to give Roy an extra year versus Roy potentially not getting an extra year?
What's the point of a mutual option? It's the equivalent of a deal one year shorter...if that final season's salary isn't to the player's liking, he'll decline his option and if it isn't to the team's liking, they'll decline their option. The only time they both exercise their options is if the salary is mutually satisfying at that time, which means they could alternatively have agreed to the same salary at that time.
Has there ever been a player/team option at the same time? Sounds weird.. don't know how it would even work, or if that's even legal.
