Wheels At Work interviewed KP in the two o clock hour and the LaMarcus Aldridge question came up. And based on his response, It doesn't feel like they are any closer to signing LMA now than they were a month ago. How many of you listened to the interview and came away with that same feeling? Edited 95.5 the game not 1080
wheels told us before at the meet and greet, LMA is basically signed. They can't do much without the cap knowledge.
So how are they going to address this then? Are they going to wait until the cap number comes out next July to sign him? See, I don't get what the issue is. The problem won't resolve itself before October 31st. They won't find out what the number is before now and then. What is it they are trying to work out? Agreeing to a percentage shouldn't be all that difficult. Do they have put together a deal that not only the two parties agree to but a deal that the league and the players association have to agree to as well? Just a lil dumbfounding is all.
The Players Association won't agree to a percentage. They don't want to set the precedent. They want hard numbers.
So as much as we all hate to see it, wouldn't it make more sense to re sign him next summer then when we have all the needed facts? Either that or give him the max and move on.
So when does the players league have to agree to a percentage by, and is this date before Aldridge would be consigned to being a restricted free agent next year? Because if it isn't, roll the dice and get it done. Aldridge does not like being slighted. If you want a repeat of the Chicago situation where they had a good up and coming young team that the whole management team pissed off and all the bridges with, then keep it up.
Why pay him the max when he has said himself that he isn't a max player? If the deal is all but done, and is being held up because of the Players Association, it's safe to assume that both the organization and LMA have agreed upon the contract. What would make him feel slighted toward the Blazers in this case, when they aren't causing the hang-up?
You've already been shown multiple times that your statement is generally wrong. and always fail to respond. I find that amusing. Why deal with facts when you can throw hyperbole and run from the discussion?
a team of young mediocre Bulls players that their management didn't show respect to by maxing out is exactly the same situation as here what part of "basically signed" don't you understand. They've agreed in principle, they're just waiting on the release of some figures by the league and the deal is done. This has reportedly been the situation for a couple weeks now so LA is pretty much assured his millions or dollars and isn't being slighted in the least. STOMP
If you took all the best players that have cycled through the Bulls since Jordan left, you'd have a pretty decent team. Rose, Gordon, Deng, Brand, Chandler, with Artest and Hinrich on the bench. (The list of bad players is much, much longer.) Assuming it was even possible to put them all on the same squad (it isn't), is that team a contender? I don't think so. Is there anybody there they let go who you'd gladly pay a huge contract to? Rose is about it. Chicago's big problem hasn't been a failure to retain talent. It's been a failure to draft talent. The year they had a pair of high draft picks they whiffed on Gasol and chose Curry and Chandler. The year we did we got Roy and Aldridge. The best lotto position they had this decade (before Rose) they got Jay Williams. When we had our chance, we got Greg Oden. A lot of that is the luck of the draw. But when you get down to it they've really only drafted two bona fide studs (Brand, Rose) and they traded one of them.
There is signed, and not signed. Which part of that do you not understand? I have seen nothing from Aldridges side of the camp that says he is near signed. That has always been from the Blazers management. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. You may, but I don't.
Really, I only posted my post 2 post before yours, and the one in between didn't say anything specific about me being wrong. What am I wrong about? Would you care to explain? Try throwing out specifics, and not generalities and it is much easier to communicate, much like human beings do when discussing a topic.
You have brought up Chicago as a reference in multiple other topics, not just this one. You said Chicago management burnt bridges and pissed off all of their players. Screwed up the young talent. Please explain. I see that ben Gordon left, and wasn't happy with his contract situation. 1 player. You reference it as if they have had multiple young talented players leave. Hinrich? Deng? Who else was pissed off there? What other bridges were burnt because of their negotiating styles?
It only takes one player not happy in a locker room to fuck it up in case you haven't been paying attention to the NBA over the last 30 years. The locker room chemistry is a fragile thing, because you have to remember that even though only one player is getting the shaft, those players have friends on the team who back their play, and that can cause a team to fracture and even take sides. That is what happened in Chicago. If you haven't looked at the situation where they went to the playoffs with a young and talented team and then suddenly imploded and not figured it out, I don't know what else to say. Scott Skiles has shown he was a capable coach in this league, and had them playing well. Then all the sudden it goes all to hell. The only change from one year to the next was that they didn't sign one of their major players to a contract extension. The eastern conference didn't improve that year. The bulls didn't get worse on paper. So WTF else could it be?
