Lamarcus Aldridge and the salary cap

by flurryofcurry on Oct 30, 2009 4:00 PM PDT Comment 7 comments

So right before the season started the Blazers and Lamarcus Aldridge finally agreed to a contract worth $65 million for four years. Although I am a huge fan of LA, I don't think this was a good move on the Blazers part. He might have been worth close to that much if the salary cap wasn't actually going down instead of up. In the same situation three of four years ago, this signing would have looked a lot better.

It's not his fault the caps are going down. Players are still going to be looking for more money, that's just how things go naturally. If the average salaries a psychologist has always gone up, why shouldn't the athlete's? They forget about the economic crisis this country is still treading through and trying to recover from. If a psychologist of equal talent is looking for a new job, he's not going to make as much money now as if he started looking three years ago (if he manages to find one). The same goes for the athlete, or else teams are just going to get screwed down the line. With the smaller caps, teams are going to have a lot less money to spend on role players because all their cap space is going to their stars.

So two seasons from now, instead of shopping for a Juwan Howard, Ime Udoka, and Jarron Collins, we'll have to settle for nobody unless we can use or exceptions. If this trend of stars still thinking they're values should be increasing, this is what's going to happen. They're aren't really any solutions to this, are there? Athletes and their agents aren't going to just understand that they should settle for less money. The only thing that makes sense to me is to sign a shorter contract extension and hopefully the economy will recover and the salary caps start going up again. That leaves a chance the player might leave earlier than you want them to though. Look at what's happening to the class of 2004. Lebron, Dwyane and Chris Bosh all signed just three year extensions. We won't know how that will play out until the summer of 2010.

So back to Lamarcus. The Blazers could have used this situation to stop this trend, which would have helped enough teams in the NBA. But they didn't, they gave in to keep their star happy. What is the best thing we could have done? They could have either signed him to a shorter contract with promises of a big payoff if he deserved it. Or they could have let the market decide what he's worth. The Blazers have nothing to lose here. Lamarcus would have been a RESTRICTED free agent, meaning we can match whatever anyone else wants to offer him and keep him. Just like what happened with Paul Millsap when we tried to sign him this summer. I'm pretty he's happy with his contract now. He probably got more money than if he were an unrestricted free agent. That won't happen with our guy. Lamarcus would still play hard, maybe even harder, because he would now be in a contract year. Right now he's set for the next five years. I don't see Lamarcus going Raef on us though. He's too good. Don't get me wrong, I love his game. And he deserves a big contract. But we still could have kept him long term for less and still have kept him happy while leaving the team's salary cap healthier. What do you think?

Poll

Did Lamarcus get the contract he deserved?

Yes, 5 years $65 million is perfect

55 votes

No, he should have got a max deal

0 votes

No, he hasn't proved himself as a $13 mil/yr player yet

64 votes

119 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 7 comments | Add comment

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

He could've got more in free agency next year

With the cap going down, it makes more monetary sense for max contract-level free agents to stay with their own teams. Couple that fact with the amount of teams who’ve been jockeying for 2010 cap space and you have a recipe for some average players getting overpaid this next off-season.

When Andrea Bargnani got paid 10 million a year it set the market and forced the Blazers’ hand. They had to pay Aldridge now or pay him basically the same amount later. If they waited to pay him later, they could have run the risk of alienating their 2nd best player and given other teams the chance to offer him a “toxic” contract.

by BlazerTag on Oct 30, 2009 5:55 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Too many risks ...

The fact is that there will be more teams with cap space this summer than there will be big-time players, so a couple of teams are going to be left out in the cold looking for somewhere to blow their wad after all the big players sign elsewhere. The fear is that LMA would have gotten a big offer from someone, which the Blazers would have had to match.

Also, the future salary cap number with regard to our team is a non-issue. Even if we pay LMA a few million less, we’ll still be over the cap for years and years to come, so the only free agents we’re getting in the future are mid-level free agents. But that’s OK since that’s all our team could possibly need at this point …

"These are dreams that we have." --Rudolfo Fernandez

by bfan on Oct 30, 2009 7:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The cap was exceeded no matter what LMA received.

Greg, Rudy, Batum, all will get big contacts if they continue their development. The difference between paying LaMarcus $9M and $11M is just not enough to get worked up over. Both put us out of the FA big money.

Here is the essential question: If you lose him to free agency (he is certainly worth more than Charlie V right now) then how are you going to replace him? Second picks in the draft are not easily acquired while young (Thabeet might be the exception) and if they are you probably don’t want them. LaMarcus certainly will have no lack of offers around the league next summer when the league is motivated and he would be the 2nd or 3rds best FA on the market (even though restricted if he feels he is mistreated here he may insist on leaving). I cannot remember a drafted PF better than LMA for the Blazers at this age and stage in his career. Sidney Wicks? No, I don’t think so. Mychal Thompson? Maybe but not at this age and not by much (and played center more than forward). Jermaine O’Neal? Definitely but not in his second year. That is a very short list for 39 years. Trade for a better player? Possibly but only in the latter stage of their career or a salary dump (ala Pau Gasol). It is very hard to replace LMA.

Remember also that the team can sign free agents using one of three exceptions every year (or every other year on the 2-year exception) if the team exceeds the cap. The Spurs are over the cap and signed Antonio McDyess and the Celtics signed Rasheed. Both are looking for rings and accepted being underpaid to try to get them.

"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster

by lee3022 on Oct 30, 2009 11:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Drafted PF better than LMA in second year

Garnett
Bosh
Stoudamire

All had signifcantly better stats.

by boppitywop on Oct 31, 2009 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I meant "drafted PF better than LMA for the Blazers" = drafted by the Blazers

My point is that rarely does an impact big player come in the later stages of the draft. So long as no serious injuries occur the Blazers should be drafting late for years to come. If Victor Claver or Joel Freeman turn out to be better than LA it will be several more years before that can occur and even then LMA is eminently trade-able. But both of those guys are long-shots to even eventually be a starter if they come to the NBA, let alone approach LMA’s level. The great bigs are usually drafted in the 1st 10-14 picks.

Garnett = 5th pick 1995
Bosh = 4th pick 2003
Stoudemire = 9th pick 2002

"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster

by lee3022 on Oct 31, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your point is well made

but I respectfully disagree. As others have mentioned, a team like NY or NJ with lots of cap room next summer could have easily ‘overpaid’ to try and get LaMarcus (which you almost have to do to get a restricted FA), causing the Blazers to have to pay more to keep him than they have contracted to do so. I would rather know that Aldridge is under contract than watch the team play the full year with him having a question mark over his head. Yes, in the end, he might have been signed for less. I think the team is better, though, not only with the security of having Aldridge in the fold for years to come, but also sending a message to all other players in the league – ‘We take care of our own’.

I also would disagree with your statement in your 3rd paragraph, that in a couple of years, Portland won’t be able to attract FA’s like Howard, Udoka or Collins because they won’t have cap room. With all due respect, all 3 of those are minimum salary players. As such, Portland was not only able easily to sign them this past summer to minimum salary contracts, they would be able to easily do the same in the future. That level of FA player will be available to Portland – they won’t have to ‘settle’ for less.

"It's Our Time":http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O99POVJfglY

by Storyteller on Oct 31, 2009 10:05 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Nope. I disagree. Exactly what Storyteller said.

Lamarcus would have been a nice consolation prize for one of the teams looking to sign Lebron, Wade, Bosh, or Amare. I think half these guys stay with their teams, leaving teams with high hopes and money burning a hole in their pocket. Very good chance they would have just offered him a max deal, which we probably would have matched, ergo this contract is cheaper in that ( I think quite likely ) scenario. It was a risk to give him this contract, but I believe a calculated risk and worth it.

by dario argento on Oct 31, 2009 1:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs