the question as mentioned in the article has more to do with a possible extension than whether or not he’s going to be here next year.
I don't see the Blazers extending him until they see how he returns from injury. Those achilles are no joke.
I think that alone will probably make him a bench player for the rest of his career...if we keep Ariza, starting, Rodney goes back to being a 6 man
I think an extension would be smart for both sides. Portland assumes the risk of an Achilles injury and locks up hood at a bargain, and hood sacrifices aav for long term security.
Just when he was playing at his best, this goes and happens. I so wish that he could be the same player he was this past year before his injury but it’s just not going to happen.
I wouldn't extend him at any price. Very possible his career is over. When he contributes above a minimum salary player then you extend him. Look at Wes, Brand, Jennings, Kobe... these guys had huge declines, and all were vastly superior to Hood before injury. The injury may put Hood out of the league. There's just about no upside to Blazers extending him.
While totally illegal, I would not be surprised if there was a wink wink agreement when he signed his deal last summer that we would make up for the discount in a future deal. Obviously I have zero proof of that.
Yea definitely but before the injury he was. Achilles ruptures always kill players. Unless your Dominique Wilkins of course. But that’s rare
Thank you. He’s done. He might be still somewhat serviceable but I doubt he’ll ever be the same. Hood has always had consistency issues then found a nice role with us but I’m sure this Achilles injury will do him in
How does the loss of revenue this year affect contracts in coming years? There's all kinds of uncertainty everywhere in our economy. I'm waffling on re-upping my warehouse lease, or seeing if I can get a better deal elsewhere. If I were coming off an Achilles injury, I'd absolutely take the sure thing.
What if they had promised him an extension as incentive to sign that deal? Are they now morally obligated to do it?
Well, they were "morally obligated" not to make such a promise in the first place seeing that it would violate the CBA, so if they did in fact make such a promise, I imagine that moral obligation is not high on their list of concerns.
It is a great deal for Hood to personally lock up long term money he can. Conversely, I'd say it is a bad deal for the Blazers to commit additional money to him. My opinion is all the fans here that want to lock him up are being emotional and sentimental; while disregarding risk-reward benefit.
