The Expiring Contract Myth

by section309 on Jul 28, 2008 10:12 AM PDT Comment 51 comments

Here on BE there are continual references to how very valuable Raef's $13 M expiring contract will be at the trade deadline next February. That''s a nice thought in principle, but it ignores 2 overwhelming realities.

1. Large-Expiring-Contract Deals Almost Never Happen near the trade deadline.

Last year the only trade remotely fitting the type that people talk about was the Gasol deal, in which the Kwame Brown expiring contract was key.

The year before that, there were ZERO such trades.

Over recent years, the average is no more than one per year.

2. Large Expiring Contracts Are Common As Dirt

Here's a partial list for this year, not even counting player opt-out deals:

Marbury $22 M

Iverson $22M

Kidd $21 M

Marion $17 M

Bibby $15 M

Odom $14 M

Szczerbiak $13 M

Rasheed $13 M

Miller $10 M

Walker $9 M (team will opt out)

Artest $8 M

Nesterovic $8 M

When everyone has one of something, it isn't very valuable. Yes, KP is clever. Just don't count on a trade with Raef - history and the odds are much against it. It would be a pleasant but shocking surprise.

2 recs | Comment 51 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Flexability is the key

RLEC is quite valuable. It can be used before the trade deadline..but that is only one of the uses. It can also be allowed to expire, which allows for unbalanced trades or to sign free agents. So if there isn’t a great block buster trade out there at the deadline …just allow it to expire and go to plans b & c. Do not just throw it away

Homer: "Oh no!! A Bear is eating my father!." (On seeing Selma kissing Grampa)

by 92wastheyear on Jul 28, 2008 10:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

?

What do you mean by “throw it away” ? The Blazers aren’t “allowing” it to expire – it expires not matter who does what. Trade him or not, the contract expires. No third option.

by section309 on Jul 28, 2008 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe

he’s pointing out the difference between Raef’s contract and most expiring contracts. Most of the time these are “use it or lose it” as the team is so far above the cap that the expiring slot will not bring them anything if they simply let the player play out the string instead of trading him. Marbury is this way for the Knicks, for example. If they don’t trade him his $22 million will come off of the cap but that will still have no effect on their ability to sign new players. Because the Blazers have structured their contracts as they have Raef’s expiring $13 million will actually translate into spendable cap space. Thus they have the luxury of allowing the contract to expire without sacrficing anything.

—Dave

by Dave on Jul 28, 2008 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Allowing it expire rather than trading it

before it expires

Homer: "Oh no!! A Bear is eating my father!." (On seeing Selma kissing Grampa)

by 92wastheyear on Jul 28, 2008 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't throw it away

clarification on that point. I have been seeing some trade proposals for less than stellar talent (Grant Hill) ...I say be very judicious using RLEC on this type trade. Let the contract expire if it isn’‘t a genuine block buster trade

Homer: "Oh no!! A Bear is eating my father!." (On seeing Selma kissing Grampa)

by 92wastheyear on Jul 28, 2008 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Let"

Hi -
My post was to point out that a trade with Raef is unlikely. No one is addressing my point, but that’s OK.
I am aware that it good for his contract to expire.

by section309 on Jul 28, 2008 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And wasn't really arguing

or wasn’t tryin to. I guess we agree …I think the value of RLEC is in the flexability. You can use it in a trade now (or near the deadline) if (big if) something great comes up or…keep it and allow it to expire.

Homer: "Oh no!! A Bear is eating my father!." (On seeing Selma kissing Grampa)

by 92wastheyear on Jul 28, 2008 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, technically it doesn't have to expire.

The Blazers could offer Raef an extension before then. ;-)

by erastus25 on Jul 29, 2008 6:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

True, but it's still a potentially valuable tool

if having it gets us a deal that not having it would lose. Worst case, we keep it and Paul Allen saves a lot of money, which he probably needs to put gas in his yacht. No, not that little one, the new one:

Asked his specialty in the kitchen, Oden paused and said, "Hamburger Helper and tuna fish."

by MiledAnimal on Jul 28, 2008 10:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Oh god I thought that was real for a second

by ostateblazer on Jul 28, 2008 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He won't have to worry about fuel for about 15 years or so.

I believe that’s about average core life for one of these guys.

Tom ought to be able to provide a more accurate number.

by timg56 on Jul 28, 2008 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

USS Eisenhower

Which I believe is the newest Nimitz class Aircraft carrier (or at least the turbines) can go for about 25 years without refueling, the engine puts out about 240,000 horsepower.

Dead Finks Don't Talk
But dead finks don't talk too well
They've got a shaky sense of diction
It's not so much a living hell
It's just a dying fiction

WORD UP. STAY. FRESCO.

by Dheepan on Jul 28, 2008 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is the one he uses for surfing...

The Midnight Rambler

by amlmart1 on Jul 28, 2008 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought it was for water-skiing

Homer: "Oh no!! A Bear is eating my father!." (On seeing Selma kissing Grampa)

by 92wastheyear on Jul 28, 2008 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh yeah, he may do water-skiing while he waits for the great wave of a seaquake.

Imagine Paul in the middle of that yatch controling the movement with his legs and doing a looping in the middle of the great wave until he lands the “boat” in a Hawaiian beach.

PS: OK, don´t beat me more in you mind, please, I confess, I wanted to say water-skiing when I said surfing…:-(

The Midnight Rambler

by amlmart1 on Jul 28, 2008 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tisk Tilk

A Reminder

You want a link? I'll give you a link. www.google.com

by tominhawaii on Jul 28, 2008 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Go back to sleep

lol

Homer: "Oh no!! A Bear is eating my father!." (On seeing Selma kissing Grampa)

by 92wastheyear on Jul 28, 2008 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks, Tom.

The Midnight Rambler

by amlmart1 on Jul 28, 2008 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The difference

between our EC and the EC’s you showed up there, is that once our EC expires, Raef will be content with the vet minimum. All the other players will likely command similar salaries in their next contract (except maybe Walker and Marbury), so those players are actually more difficult to obtain than Raef, because they *mostly deserve large contracts. Also, Raef’s contract is less than half of those contracts, meaning that movement at the deadline is less likely to occur for the higher end (marbury/iverson), simply because the teams that own their contracts would probably be more interested in that cap space than in trading them, because of the cap relief that can open up trading options like trade exceptions. Regardless, this applies to Portland too, so we could see Raef’s contract held till it expires, and then a deal being done that is more flexible with salaries because of the implicit cap relief.

Andy Roddick has the most wimbledon titles in the world. He just hides them in Federer's trophy case

by premthegrem on Jul 28, 2008 10:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

That is an interesting point too

I wouldn’t mind Raef (the person) being resigned after the comtract expires. Most of the talk about RL is about the EC, but he does has some end of the bench value on a good team (at a much lower price)

Homer: "Oh no!! A Bear is eating my father!." (On seeing Selma kissing Grampa)

by 92wastheyear on Jul 28, 2008 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmm

He’s got to leave to make room for Tyler Hansbrough.

You want a link? I'll give you a link. www.google.com

by tominhawaii on Jul 28, 2008 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Won't "The Bleeder" be a lottery pick?

http://tarheelmania.wordpress.com/2007/03/04/
^ 3rd pic down

Homer: "Oh no!! A Bear is eating my father!." (On seeing Selma kissing Grampa)

by 92wastheyear on Jul 28, 2008 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nope

18th on draft express. He was was projected as late first round this year.

Dead Finks Don't Talk
But dead finks don't talk too well
They've got a shaky sense of diction
It's not so much a living hell
It's just a dying fiction

WORD UP. STAY. FRESCO.

by Dheepan on Jul 28, 2008 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bueno ...thanks

Homer: "Oh no!! A Bear is eating my father!." (On seeing Selma kissing Grampa)

by 92wastheyear on Jul 28, 2008 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Might want to go back and re-watch the UNC Kansas game

Tyler was a tot. No thanks. Over hyped like JJ Reddick and the Stash imo.

Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."

by lee3022 on Jul 28, 2008 8:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So you'd rather have Raef?

I don’t rewatch games anyhow. I live in the now.

by tominhawaii on Jul 29, 2008 5:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would rather have Cole Aldrich

That was in April 2008 so Raef was long gone.

by lee3022 on Jul 31, 2008 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

way to point out one questionable game in a three year career.

the dude works harder than anyone and if hes around late in the first round we’d be a fool not to take him as a someone to work with our bigs…seeing how all of our roster problems will be solved by then and all we should need is roster spots, practicing and mop up players ;) who better than the freak from UNC.

The pictures kinda small, but Im giving the C's a big thumbs down

by Blazermaniac77 on Jul 29, 2008 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Yup

I don’t want him to start. I want him to come off the bench and have the other teams guys take a swing at him.

by tominhawaii on Jul 29, 2008 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

assuming your serious ;) if you’re not serious I think you should be.

The pictures kinda small, but Im giving the C's a big thumbs down

by Blazermaniac77 on Jul 29, 2008 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I M 4 SERIOUS

Every good team has an instigator off the bench.

by tominhawaii on Jul 30, 2008 5:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder if Ike and/or pryz can do that this year

The pictures kinda small, but Im giving the C's a big thumbs down

by Blazermaniac77 on Jul 30, 2008 11:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nah

Normally it’s a hustle guy who does a lot of banging under the basket. I think it’s is normally an undersized power forward. I don’t think hustle or undersized when I think of those two guys. Not to say that they cannot provide that off the bench, I just don’t see that mean streak with a dash of instigating thrown in. They’re both pretty nice guys.

by tominhawaii on Jul 31, 2008 5:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The players that excell in college don't all become successul professionals

(at least in the NBA). His hard work is no more than Sheldon William’s at Duke in similar acclaim or even JJ Reddick. The KU game was facing a future lottery big man

by lee3022 on Jul 31, 2008 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't see

Wally World or Bibby getting close to those numbers with new deals. Jason Kidd is pretty old, I don’t see the Mavericks (or anyone else) shelling more than the MLE for him. The Nuggets are starting to take a hard look at their cap number (trading Camby for nothing), so I think an extension for Iverson might be for significantly less money.

But I do agree with your point.

by Bedhead on Jul 28, 2008 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wally and Bibby I agree with,

I didn’t really put a lot of time into thinking about exactly which players would get big contracts again, that’s why I only mentioned the ones that were obvious (to me), being Walker and Marbury. I am curious though, with respect to role players like Wally and Nesterovic, if Childress’ move to go to Europe for the big money will affect their decisions next year. The market might not be that hot for 3 point shooting swingmen like Wally, but you never know. As for Kidd, he remarked on the possibility of him playing ball in Europe, especially with Childress opening that door. I’d imagine he’ll get big money wherever he ends up, especially if European clubs bid on him. Regardless, my main point was the fact that very few of those guys are as undeserving of their salary as Raef is (and I’m saying that matter of factly). Raef is a great, high character guy, but for whatever reason, he hasn’t shown that he deserves his salary. Even if he gets an opportunity to play quality minutes behind Oden and Pryzbilla (unlikely) and shows the skills that got him that bloated contract, it is unlikely that he earns more than 4 mil a year next year, if that.

Andy Roddick has the most wimbledon titles in the world. He just hides them in Federer's trophy case

by premthegrem on Jul 28, 2008 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wrote about this back in June before the draft

http://www.blazersedge.com/2008/6/13/551712/myth-of-rlec-and-standing

I’m pretty sure KP is going to let the contract expire.

BINGO, BANGO, BONGO

by blzrfan on Jul 28, 2008 1:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

What's your take on the PG situation

since taking Bayless?

Homer: "Oh no!! A Bear is eating my father!." (On seeing Selma kissing Grampa)

by 92wastheyear on Jul 28, 2008 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kind of true,

but you’re wrong about the Kwame deal being the only one involving an expiring. Most deals in recent history have involved one side taking back significantly more long term salary commitment than the other.

KG trade had Ratliff along with Al.
Kidd trade had Stack, Van Horn, and Diop all expiring.
Z-Bo trade had Francis owed half of what Zach was.
Roy trade had us taking back Raef’s monster contract for Ratliff again.

The thing is, each of those trades were large expirings combined with young talent(Jefferson, Harris, Frye, Telfair). Even the Gasol trade could be argued that way since it had younger Gasol and Crittendon going back. We’re in a position of power because we have a lot of young assets who aren’t vital to the team that we could offer up along with Raef. Looking at the list of EC’s, not a whole lot of other teams have that, especially if you consider any “win now” teams on there would probably be hesitant to include any other major rotation guys along with their expiring contract.

The other advantage is that no one is off limits to us salary match-wise now. Imagine if Raef were just another rookie scale guy. If we wanted to trade for a max or near max guy, we’d have to trade half our roster, even if the other team really valued TO or someone else. No matter how much Minny had wanted Jefferson and KG wanted out last year, that trade probably doesn’t happen unless the have Theo to match up salaries. Now we’re able to similarly build a trade around a young centerpiece, with Raef to match up salaries with, and so we can pretty much look at anyone in the league, provided PA’s wallet can take one for the team.

I agree RLEC alone won’t get us anything, but it definitely is a major bargaining chip in that it allows us to look at scenarios that wouldn’t be remotely possible without it.

by Royster on Jul 28, 2008 5:46 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs

Well said

What is not evident to me is who KP would want that is available. But i was surprised at Philadelphia’s ability to get Brand primarily from trading Korver for an EC and then Carney as well. Or that Brand would go there with Davis signing with LAC. These machinations are KPs breakfast cereal so we can watch for the fun.

by lee3022 on Jul 28, 2008 8:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

response

Hi Royster-
replies to your points:
You’ll note from my initial post I was talking about trade deadline deals involving a large expiring contract – expiring that year, not sometime later.

1. The KG deal was not a trade deadline deal
2. The Kidd trade did not have a large expiring contract – Stackhouse did not expire, the others not large
3. The Zach trade did not have a large expiring contract
4. The Roy trade was not a trade deadline deal and did not have an expiring contract

None of the trades you mentioned were the type I was talking about.

by section309 on Jul 29, 2008 12:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why so specific though?

Ok, no trade deadline deals, but still expiring contract (or soon to expire contract) type deals like we’re discussing.

If it happens at the trade deadline, or in December, why does it matter for this discussion? You’re arguing that Raef’s expiring deal isn’t that attractive because of the abnormally large amount of BIG expiring deals this season. That makes sense. If you package RLEC with, say, Bayless, it becomes more attractive than Marbury’s 20+ million expiring deal—as does the not-so-large size of the RLEC.

The Z-Bo trade was DEFINITELY for an expiring deal; it just didn’t expire right away. They bought out Francis’ contract to coincide with Raef’s deal coming off the books, for big bada boom cap room. That’s a huge reason the trade was made, with the expiring deal in mind.

I get that the market won’t be kind for Raef’s contract alone, but the argument that it’s attractive for it’s more-matchable-low-teens dollar amount and our abundance of young talent to attach to the deal is a good argument.

I don’t get why you have such specific guidelines that you’re saying this discussion has to fall under. Trade deadline deal or not, if he is traded it will be for it’s expiring and large nature.

The fact that deals were made in the recent past WITHOUT a true expiring deal makes it all the more promising that we could get something good for a large deal that is actually expiring.

Obviously, overall, I agree—there are a lot of expiring deals out there. Doesn’t mean it can’t be used somehow.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jul 29, 2008 1:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly, Mortimer

The point is there has been a large difference in the total value of contracts exchanged in almost every deal. Even if someone argues that the Z-Bo trade had nothing to do with dumping his contract and that we really just wanted Frye all along, without Francis’s contract, we can’t match salaries and we wouldn’t be able to trade them straight up. That was a big reason behind us appearing to get so little. So few teams were unable to match salaries with him without giving back a key part of their team, so there was basically no effective demand for him.

Say TO blows up this year and becomes like an 18 and 8 guy (wishful thinking). Given that he’s on a cheap contract and is young, that makes him one of the most valuable trading chips in the league, especially for a younger team. This is all completely hypothetical, but say then that a max guy like Wade has a falling out with his team. Even if Miami really wanted to trade TO for Wade, without RLEC it wouldn’t happen because we’d have to throw in Pryz, Webster, and at least one of Blake or Frye to come close to matching salaries. Obviously if it were a guy like Wade, you’d think about that deal regardless, but you get the idea. Insert any other star on a ridiculous contract instead.

Finally, as far as not having big expirings in deals, the idea is to have large amounts of total expiring contracts in the deal. While Stack might not have been big, adding Diop and Van Horn brings the total to about $13 million in expirings, about what RLEC. Same with the Gasol trade. Kwame was only $9 million or so, but you add in Mckie’s sham deal and it gets about to the same RLEC level.

by Royster on Jul 29, 2008 6:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here's how RLEC might be used...

........................................ you will hate my choice of a player, but play along with me… Midyear and LMA goes down with a shattered funnybone that he broke on Shaq’s jaw. Out for the year. Frye is out with carpal tunnel syndrome from his daily blogging… Blazers have foul prone Center 1 and non-scoring Center 2 and large highly-paid Center 3 on the bench, and Ike, who for whatever reason isn’t curring it.

KP then has the luxury of going out and saying, boy, I wish I had Zach Randolph right now - I’ll take him off your hands team that is stuck with him and eat his contract for another year or two after this - and here’s your RLEC to make the deal happen.

OBVIOUSLY, KP is not going after Zach, but the point is that at the trade deadline if it looks like the Blazers are ONE PIECE SHORT, having the RLEC in the toolbox opens up possibilities for signing an overpaid vet that some team out of the hunt or out of money is trying to unload…

Is it likely to happen? No, I think the Blazers are stocked. But injuries are random things and if two players at one position go down, it could force KP into the open market, where big bad contracts abound…

"He shoots....................... he scores!!!"

by timbo on Jul 29, 2008 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"curring" -- not a subliminal request for Eddie Curry...

"He shoots....................... he scores!!!"

by timbo on Jul 29, 2008 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thank god Trout can slide into the 4 in a pinch

We’ll never need Z-bo to fill in cause rudy and Martell woiuld cover the 3 while Trout and Raef hold down the fort while Lma and the Buffet get better.

by NWfan on Jul 29, 2008 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Zach trade did have a large expiring contract

In the form of Steve Francis who was promptly bought out

Bayless isn't the second coming of Jordan.
Jordan was the first coming of Bayless.

by KP Corleone on Jul 29, 2008 6:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Kidd trade did have a large expiring contract

Stackhouse wasn’t even in the deal that eventually went through – thanks, Devean George >:-(
It was Keith Van Horn coming out of semi-retirement, a chip that Cuban didn’t want to use originally. Same with Aaron McKie in the Gasol trade for the Lakers (at this time already an assistant coach in real life). They just were included in the deals to assemble an expiring contract, cause nobody expected them to ever step on the floor for their new teams again. They just had to report.

Odenied: Coach, I promise I wasn't running hard ...

by Norsktroll on Jul 29, 2008 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

By limiting the discussion to trade deadline deals

There weren’t that many trades at all in the last several years, let alone thsoe that included expiring contracts. Most trades occur in the offseason,whereas only a handful of trades are completed mid-season in comparison.

by NWfan on Jul 29, 2008 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

whats funny is that before kevey

there wasnt as much draft day dealing. maybee hell continue to set new precident?

"Doing research= good
Making up things=bad."

---jksnake99

by ptwnblzr on Aug 1, 2008 12:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think anyone has pointed this out but the large number of expiring deals next year is a good thing. It means that a lot of teams will be getting close to having cap room and will want to maximize that. Take for instance Dallas, if they have a down year this year and are out of the playoff race or just barely contending they might want to blow the team up and start over with cap space for the summer. If we offer Travis and RLEC for Josh Howard and Antoine Wright they will have to think about it since that would take them from being appx 2 million under the cap to appx 15 million under the cap and they could sign a max type player to play along side Dirk.

Brett Pill - Lord of the double.

by malarky on Jul 29, 2008 10:48 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs