I'd rather have Aldridge at those dollars (which I would think are a lot higher then he'll generate) then Millsap at the listed because I think he's the better player. The stats are close, but I value LA's defensive ability and versatility. Either of those contracts + Roy's deal + Greg's upcoming deal + the rest of the club = no more capspace. STOMP
right the capspace is GOOOONE. However, it does look like they are lining up contracts to expire in 5 years in the summer of 2014. That's beyond anyone's FA period as most guys will sign 4+ year deals. I don't understand that part of things. That is one reason they were pushing Roy for a 4 year contract it appears. Likely they will insist on that with Aldridge. I know the next CBA is going to be coming up but it just seems strange they are lining things up for that year... CP3 will be a FA in 2012 would make more sense to go for that window just not with Roy.
1014 gets you the fa class of 1010 up again, maybe the consensus is everyone is going to get 4 years then so we can have a 12 team royal rumble for LBJ... thats far enough out that most teams can plan cap space for it, and i bet it would generate a ton of money on pay-per-view
Those are interesting contracts for comparison purposes. Now, what adjustments get made for the horrible state of the economy - which didn't exist when those contracts were negotiated? And, what adjustments get made for the now declining salary cap - which wasn't happening when those contracts were negotiated? Saying those numbers then matter to what is happening now, is like saying you would be happy to buy a house in Phoenix or Las Vegas for the price it sold for in 2006.
Great post, I think that is a main focus of the Blazers mindset. While giving Roy whatever extension he wanted in a vacuum would be fine, if we want to build a great title contending team keeping long-term contract under control is important. Asking Roy to take a small pay cut from 14m to 13m or one less year which would allow the team to keep other quality talent is quite reasonable. Big time athletes like Tom Brady and Tim Duncan have taken less than the max to remain on a team that has the flexibility to assemble a quality championship roster. Perhaps Paul Allen has decided the days of annually subsidizing tens of millions of dollars for his NBA team are over. In that case having hard line negotiations with Roy may allow the team to keep a guy such as Rudy or Batum down the road. I can happily live with a few months of longer than anticipated Roy negotiations, even if they become public and bitter, if it means we field a more talented roster 3 years from now.
Let me repeat, since no one picked up on it in the other thread, Paul Allen has lost 75% of his net worth over the past 10 years! He would be perfectly justified in being a bit more cautious with his money than in years past.
As an agent, I would think you would go find some horrible contracts and claim that is the market. Your example would fit that scenario. Millsap, who I think is a better player that Bargnani, just signed for considerably less, so if I were the Blazers, I would point to that. It certainly wouldn't be smart to go around the league and base your contracts off of other teams bad signings.
So you're telling us that some celebrity friend of yours said that some agent he knows is speculating that the Blazers are trying to make negotiations tough with Roy in an attempt to intimidate Aldridge into signing for less money? ...wow. I hope I'm not the only one who laughed when reading your post. And I LOVE how you have a direct quote! That reminds me of back in elementary school when the teacher had us all line up, told the first kid a sentence, then he told the next kid, then the next kid told the next, etc. etc. until it reached the last kid and he would say something completely different than the original message. Anyway, I'll be blunt and say your post is complete horseshit.
Don't you get it man? Paul Allen is a billionaire!!!! He must pay anyone anything they request because "He can afford it!"
$8 million/per for a guy that doesn't even start on his team versus a Rookie of the Year, two-time All-Star, and 2nd team All-NBA player. Good luck with your "market" argument.
$8 million/per for a guy that doesn't even start on his team versus a Rookie of the Year, two-time All-Star, franchise player, and 2nd team All-NBA player. Good luck with your "market" argument. Comparing Millsap (a role player) to Roy? If I am Roy's agent, I'd demand a trade at that moment. I can only hope the front office isn't using your line of "thinking" in their negotiations.
The more I think about Paul Millsap being used by the Blazers, the more I have to laugh about it. The Blazers were willing to pay a back-up PF $8 million/year. A role player. What is your franchise player worth? Pretty easy reply from Roy's agent.
Somehow, I don't think Roy's agent plans on using your line of thinking, either. I'm sortof amused that you are almost certainly more hyper and angry about this than Roy and his agent. Negotiations happen...the image of Roy (or his agent) saying, "Paul Millsap??? How dare you? That's it, I already had my bags packed and I kept the engine running...you won't have Brandon Roy to kick around anymore!" is more than a bit hilarious to me. I almost wish we lived in a universe where things like that happened, for the entertainment value.
Not a fan of hyperbole, eh? Portland hypothetically using their offer to Millsap in negotiating with Roy is ridiculously hilarious to me. I mean, it's borderline moronic if you think about it. As for "hyper" and "angry", those are some fairly subjective words from a usually objective producer. I'm neither hyper nor angry. I am amused at the spin from the Vulcan defenders, however, and used hyperbole to get my point across.
These days, on this topic, it's hard to understand what you mean seriously and what you say just for effect. I mean that honestly, not snidely. Roy > Millsap. I don't think anyone would dispute that. But Millsap is relevant in that he indicates the market is somewhat depressed, as his salary seems low for someone of his basketball value. The Bargnani contract could argue the opposite. Obviously, each side is going to point to the contracts that support the view of the market that they want to rule. Subjective terms aren't evil. You come across as angry to me when you put "thinking" in quotation marks when talking about what someone else says. You come across as hyper to me because your posting has spiked upward lately and the vast majority of that is about this topic. Obviously, you may well not be angry or hyper at all...I was describing how you appear to me, on this issue. I strive for objectivity insofar as I try not to let what I want to be true to colour my evaluations of what actually is true. I don't completely avoid subjective terms and evaluations, because that's impossible. Judging defense or decision-making, for example, has a major subjective element.
What does it matter? I find it a bit discomforting that you would be assessing a state of mind to my posts, and then go to the length of sharing your interpretation of my state of mind. If Portland wants to make a money-saving argument with Roy's negotitation and tie it in with the economy, as I've read in this thread, then offering $8 million/per, and $10.3 million in cash this week, to a back-up PF makes the entire argument laughably hypocritical. The Blazers are looking to save money, except when it comes to the grossly overpaying a back-up PF that no one else had even offered. Now there a nice red herring. I don't recall saying being subjective is evil. Thank you for sharing how you feel about how I feel about how I post. I'm passionate about this issue and puzzled by it. I've yet to see you call any other posters "hyper" or "angry", however. If I am crossing lines, edit the posts. If not, you seem to have a strange fascination with me. You strive for objectivity, yet instead of addressing my post, you address my supposed mindset instead of the point I am making about markets.
I shared with you an amusing observation: that you seem more upset about all this than Roy and his agent. You got a little hot under the collar about it (o noes, more psycho-analysis!!), so I endeavored to explain it a bit further. Apparently, explaining it further made you feel like you have a stalker, and I do want you to sleep well at night (because I enjoy watching you sleep peacefully...) rather than feel discomfited, so let's just go back to my original intent...amusing observation. Not a "money-saving argument." An argument that the economy is down, salaries are going down, thus Roy's salary will be lower than it would be in a different economic situation. That they offered a contract that seems to bear this out to Millsap isn't contradictory.
I'd argue that paying a back-up PF $8 million/per is contradictory, as well as an insanely high offer for a player who does not start on his own team. That argument doesn't pass the smell test, and then throw in the extensions due the next few years, and it makes even less sense.
