How Paul Allen's money can really help in free agency this summer

I remember that. I wonder if that is still an option? Not that I think he will do that any more

 

I think he absolutely would, if the money is the same regardless, and it gets him someone he wants. Does it make a huge difference to him to pay out 15 million now, and then less in each subsequent year, versus the same amount each year?

 

No difference, but this team is further away than one player, and by starting high, he will have to go into potential tax area to re-sign Batum and or Hickson as well, not to mention the two lottery picks and other FA's we desperately need

 

If we are already assuming we will be spending our cap space, then this makes no difference to the LT. It's the amount of the deal, not the amount paid out. For LT purposes, the signing bonus is spread through the 4 years. It also has the benefit of declining and helping us avoid the tax in later years, when Aldridge and Batum's deals get higher.

 

It would actually be in 3 days this time. When Mathews signed the waiting period for matching was 7 days, the new CBA changed it to 3 days. The Blazers wrote the contract so that the money was due as soon as it became official, either by Utah matching and paying or declining and Portland paying.

MM I don't know if I should be insulted or not because it appears you didn't read the OP haha. The whole gist of what I was saying is use Paul Allen's unique ability to have large amounts of cash to front load a contract so a team would have to come up with $15-$20m in 3 days. Not many owners can do that, if they can't then they won't match.

Also think about the agent being in the ear of the player. That agent wants money now! He will push the player that way too.

 

I thought they wrote it to all be due 7 days after it was matched, but could easily be remembering wrong, and it doesn't change at all your point, or my agreeing with you.

 

I know Allen won't be dropping 100 million dollar payrolls any time soon, but I believe him being tightfisted is slightly exaggerated. He made similar comments about not spending to spend sort of things, and right after making those comments, used 2 million to move up about 10 spots in the 2nd for Armon Johnson.

 

So any deal that does not include the max money is not a big money deal? OK

You might have somethere there with Wallace, we gave up two draft picks and only got one back . . . we really got screwed on that one. 2 is more than 1 . . . anaylsis over.

 

Not at all on Aldridge. He is a max level guy, and his peers were getting max deals, so not paying him max money was certainly not offering big money. We really got him at a bargain

 

Wait, aren't signing bonuses capped at a certain % for RFA in the new CBA? I wanna say 10%, but I could be wrong....probably am. But if that's the case, offering Hibbert, lets say 40 million over 4 years to keep math simple (a necessity for me) we could only front load the contract 4 million...right?

 

yes at 10%. At 4 year 40 million, it'd be roughly 4, but with a declining contract, it leads to a salary over 14 for that first season. Payable immediately, if desired, which is possible, but just more difficult for many teams.

 

Bumped given the news that it is Hibbert.

It will be interesting to see how the Blazers structured the offer for Hibbert if he accepts it. This could be a major deciding factor on if the Pacers match.