Well, I'm too lazy to go back and dig through all the Roy threads, but it seems as if there were multiple references in the media to KP/Miller not being the one calling the shots. Whether the *media* was just speculating (making it up), is another matter.
If some posters claim to not be concerned about this "process", why is it that some of these same posters justify their "lack of concern" by criticizing LMA?
I think because in the past, we got burned with just tossing out too much money to players. Don't get me wrong. I think Aldridge is "well deserved" on a nice contract, but I believe they are trying to have "due diligence" with their contract negotiations.
It doesn't matter what I think. What matters is what is true. Is there a guaranteed 5 year/$50+ million deal on the table?
I did a search on Vulcan, went back to July, and didn't find any references to media reports (of course I may have overlooked them, I didn't spend hours on this project). I did find a lot of speculation by one poster that Vulcan was behind the "delay" in signing Roy. barfo
Many things can be understood to be true without concrete evidence confirming their validity. I think it's reasonable to put Tince's statement in that category.
Is it though? Blaming LMA for not accepting a contract that may not exist seems a bit unfair to LMA in my eyes. Plus, even if true, and much lesser player in Bargnani got that same contract. Are you asking LMA to hypothetically accept a deal that is less than his market value?
That's a different issue entirely--whether the Blazers would extend him for that vs whether LMA should be willing to accept that figure. And in that regard, Tince never even said that he should, just that he could--a point which is generally not under dispute. As I understood it, the point was simply that the prolonged negotiation is not based on "financial security" (of which $50M would provide plenty), but more on "market-value". I personally don't begrudge Aldridge the right to negotiate as much as possible, but I think it's foolish to think that he couldn't end the "process" tomorrow if he decided that $50M was good enough for him.
How can you say it isn't under dispute? We don't even know if that offer exists. I'm sorry, but treating speculatin as fact just isn't going to accomplish anything. Show me a link that states that offer is on the table for LMA. If I see one, I'll agree. Since I have no clue what is being offered, I won't criticize LMA for not accepting some phantom deal, or even that his primary drives is "market value" as opposed to "financial security". He could sign a 3 year deal for $24 million and be "financially secure". Let's beat him up for not making that offer to the Blazers.
I thought the NBA didn't allow contracts based on percentages of the cap? I could be wrong. I don't see how that could be the case.
I didn't mention a contract based on a percentage of the cap. According to KP, the actual cap figure is one of the sticking points since LMA won't be getting a max deal. I do believe you are correct in saying that the contract must contain a dollar amount, and not "X" amount of next year's cap over the term of the contract, with escalators.
Because other than you, I haven't come across a single Blazer fan who believes that Blazer management wouldn't agree to that deal. As far as I've seen, that notion isn't disputed by anyone but you. I don't believe anyone on this board believes that anything we discuss in here will accomplish anything, so I guess I have to agree with you here. Faith is the belief in things one cannot see. Based on past evidence, I have faith that Blazer management is reasonable. I guess each person must decide these things for themselves. I'm certainly not criticizing him, regardless of the validity of my assumption, and I personally don't think Tince was either. But the question is, would you criticize him if you learned that such a deal were available but not accepted?
My understanding here (though I could be wrong) was that it was the Players Association who balked at the percentage idea, not the league itself. I don't see why the league would have an issue.
I'm not disputing the notion. I'm asking for evidence. I have faith the Blazer management is reasonable as well. No, because I've yet to hear him say anything about being "financially secure" as being the reason why he wants a contract. That appeared to me a bit of a strawman argument used to quasi-criticize LMA.
Great--you're not disputing, neither am I, nor is anyone else. Hence, "not under dispute." Makes sense to me. OK--how about "common sense" (ie, Blazer management would be pretty unreasonable to think that LMA is worth less than that). Oh, OK--then we agree here too! An offer may well not exist, but Blazer management would accept it if it were presented by Arn Tellem (not proven conclusively, but certainly beyond a reasonable doubt). I see. So the issue is not whether or not the Blazers would be OK with $50M so much as why Aldridge is negotiating for more--or more specifically, people's speculated reasons for his side of the negotiation?
Easy, why do you think Joel gets more rebounds? Is it possibly because his job is to go under the basket and bang and get rebounds? Pryz gets a ton of offensive rebs that are off of LA's shots.
PapaG, I don't feel like engaging in a debate about something so silly. Whatever I said that you want to debate, I retract. Whatever you say on the issue is correct. I've edited the post in question. I hope LMA, his family, his agent, and anyone involved were not hurt or offended by what I said, as he is one my favorite Blazers.
