The Curious Case of LaMarcus Aldridge
by Dave on Sep 3, 2009 11:33 PM PDT
Email
PrintAs Cavejunctionblazer has pointed out in the sidebar, one of the continuing dramas of the late summer is the contractual status of LaMarcus Aldridge. While the process is garnering far less ink and angst than Brandon Roy's contract negotiations a few weeks ago, two facts remain clear:
1. Aldridge is a key player for the Blazers. Without his full production (and more) the team has no hope of bettering their finish from last season. Indeed, LaMarcus could be considered the most indispensible member in the lineup right now for the simple fact that he's the only guy playing without a potential full-time reserve behind him.
2. He ain't been re-signed yet.
Obviously the Blazers will have Aldridge's services this year no matter what. But just as obviously they won't want him to get anywhere near restricted free agency. Not only is it a sloppy and tension-fraught way to do business with your main players, you also run the risk of having to march to someone else's tune even more than is true in standard negotiations. Toxic contracts work both ways. The only way the Blazers will accept Aldridge getting through this year and testing the market is if he absolutely insists on a maximum deal, they absolutely don't want to give it to him, and they think there's no way he'll be offered anything close next summer. Failing that he'll either be extended or moved this year. Since the latter is far more complicated let's assume now that extension is the first choice for all involved. Let's throw open the discussion on the main page as well. What do you think LaMarcus is worth and what would/should he accept?
These negotiations are far more complex than the Roy discussions. Brandon clearly held all the cards as he played his hand. The Blazers could posture and delay but everyone on the planet knew he was worth everything he asked for and almost everyone knew he was going to get exactly that. The Aldridge tableau is harder to figure.
Is LaMarcus a max-level player? He's not at this point. He, himself, has alluded to that fact. But I wouldn't put a ton of stock in those mutterings right now. Things have a way of changing when you see the dollar figures of your colleagues in black and white. Even if Aldridge doesn't want precisely the deal that Roy got he's going to be asking to be a shade under, not a mile under. He's never viewed their respective roles as Batman and Robin. It's more like the Superfriends. He's willing to contribute to the whole, I'm sure, but he's not going to be content to play clear second fiddle on the court or financially. He's going to be a star and he'll want to be recognized as one on his pay stubs.
Adding to the murk is Aldridge's future potential. While he's not a max-level player now it's possible that he could become one. A Chris Bosh level of play, if not statistically at least in effect, is not wholly out of the question. It's more likely (especially in his own view, I'm sure) that he will be limited by having to fit in with the team than it is that the team will be limited by his lack of talent. It's seldom prudent to give a huge deal to guys based on potential but when you see so much in a player, and more to the point you depend on him so much, it's not unheard of and may be smart.
But we're not done yet. Since he came on board it has seemed clear that if any one of the Big Three would be prone to leaving the team to find happiness elsewhere it's LaMarcus. Roy is Mr. Blazer and always will be. Oden fits in here too well, both in terms of need and personality, not to stick around. If he thinks he was ill-treated here during his somewhat disappointing rookie season he should try the spotlight in New York. How long do you think it would take Knicks fans and their media to figure out that "Oden" is an anagram for "Done"? How about the "Go-‘Den!" and "No Show-Den" signs? But LaMarcus has both the justification (talent and usage) and personality to believe that the grass is greener elsewhere. Proving or disproving that, or rather costing him the chance to do so, may require extra dollars on Portland's part. He's the shakiest fit and thus possibly the most expensive relative to contributions.
On the other hand you know if the Blazers dug in to the extent they did with Brandon Roy they're going to dig in harder with LaMarcus. With all of the young players on the roster they're almost certainly wary of being seen as the ATM franchise. At some point they're going to want to prove that the bucks stop here. If they couldn't do it with #1, then #1a seems like a pretty good place to start. Having signed Roy's check and not wanting to break the bank for Outlaw, Fernandez, Oden, et al Aldridge looks like the logical place to start. Whatever they actually end up spending they're going to make sure it was hard-earned.
With all of these factors coming into play to one extent or another mapping a clear course is hard. I don't see any way the Blazers can afford to lose LaMarcus short of a spectacular trade. But I don't see them eager to pay above market price for him either. And we don't know exactly what market price is at this point.
So let's throw it open. Is LaMarcus worth a max deal? Is he worth a ton of money but short of max? As with Roy, should the Blazers just give him whatever he asks for and count themselves fortunate to have him? Is he a future Co-#1, #1a, #2, or eventually something else altogether for this team? How much negotiation power do you think he has and how much will the Blazers fight to lower his price? Most importantly, how does this all turn out?
Share your thoughts and reasoning below.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
294 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think they ought to shade more towards the incentivising (sp?)
than they did with Roy’s contract. LMA has said he’s not a max player yet, so he won’t get paid quite what Brandon is. Fine. We all know he’s got a high ceiling though, why not pay him what he’s actually worth right now, while showing him belief in his abilities and putting the ball in his court to earn it?
by Montavilla Steve on Sep 3, 2009 11:43 PM PDT reply actions
Also, I realize I didn't put any numbers in that post
It was just a thought on a philosophy that might be used to navigate the tension between LMA/Roy’s relative pay and how LMA views his own contributions and potential.
by Montavilla Steve on Sep 3, 2009 11:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Tend to agree here
that LaMarcus should be rewarded for improving into a budding star and proving that he’s the ying to Roy’s yang for this team. That means show him some money and a long-term contract that puts faith in him while essentially squashing any reason for him to even consider shopping his services elsewhere, ever.
To the extent that he’s just at the cusp of being a bona-fide go-to guy himself, it doesn’t serve him well to think he should seek out doing that on a team where he’s the 1 and only option. I hope he realizes he’s got the sweetest deal ever playing with/and off Roy.
The self-feeding dichotomy of being a player that compliments another star is that when it comes time to come up with contract numbers, people like to weigh your production on paper so heavily that it can create in a player the feeling that he needs to be more of a focal point, on his current team, or another, so his stats can reflect what he’s ‘truly’ capable of. . and then get $$rewarded$$ in kind.
That said, I don’t have a set number yet either but the guiding philosophy would be offer him something scaled a shade below Roy’s deal and to lock him up for 5 years as well.
It does us more good to invest in earnest regarding a cornerstone player than to insult him on the cheap and see him want to leave thereby costing you more dollars down the road (in championship revenue!) than the initial outlay of dollars.
LA is our Duncan, our Dirk. We’d be fools to think otherwise. Pay the man before camp.
Tie down the furniture kids, it's time for another ride down Ulcer Gulch!
------------------------------------------------------------------
Got Blazers?
Fiendin for some footage of Blazers ballin it up?
- Click nameplate, click Web site link.-
FIve years and $65 million.
In my opinion his ceiling as a player is higher then Brandon’s. LaMarcus has the potential to be the best pf in the league (once Duncan, Garnett, and DIrk retire in two to three years). Pay the man. If you want to haggle with role players be my guest. LaMarcus along with BRoy is the franchise and should be treated as such.
LMA is replaceable
Roy is not…5 years and 40 million.
"No disrespect to Jeff Blake"
by Eat Politicians on Sep 4, 2009 1:33 AM PDT up reply actions
There is no way he signs that. The price was set above 10 million per year by the contracts for Bargnani, Villanueva, Bogut, ...
There's Gotta Be More To Life
by Norsktroll on Sep 4, 2009 1:45 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sorry
But that kind of deal is going to be fairly insulting. His qualifying offer is something in the region of $7.6m. You’re going to try to strong-arm him into a lengthy contract that averages just a shade more?
Watch him play out next season and look for a deal on the open market.
you're right
40,000,000.01
I’m reasonable…
"No disrespect to Jeff Blake"
by Eat Politicians on Sep 4, 2009 6:28 PM PDT up reply actions
5/65 too much!
We also have to remember that the cap is shrinking and contracts will need to as well. LA should definitely be re-signed but only at a fair price. He’s shooting .486 and averaging 7.5 8 reb. If he wants to earn a star-sized paycheck as a front court player he’s got to do better than that.
Right now, he’s a good complementary player and has potential, but we need to see real improvement before he would be worth more that 5 and 50. 5 and 40 is what he’s worth right now and a minimum.. 5 and 50 takes his potential into account and 5 and 60 would assume he completely grows into the player he can be. Anything over 60 would be a major mistake.
I would over 5 and 50 with incentives that could make that grow to 5 and 60 (FG%, reb, etc). I would also want to make it a set amount per year rather than doing increases so we can maintain more cap flexibility. If he thinks he’s going to not only achieve but surpass incentives then give him the 5th here as a player option so he can opt out if he does turn out to be worth more.
by teg on Sep 4, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions
This is basically what I'm looking for
8-10 mil a year with up to 12mil/year in incentives for rebounding, efficient scoring, drawing fouls, etc.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
All-star and games played are good too (stole this from below).
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Not Max YET
Lamarcus is a hell of a player, all blazers fans will agree, but a max contract player he is not. Give him .5-1mil more than Bargnani with an all-star and games played clauses (like Roy) to bump it up to the 15mil level. Give him what he’s worth (definitly more than babydirk in Toronto) with opportunities to prove himself and to prove he’s worth the close to Max.
I’ve said this before, Roy is the present and future of the franchise, believe it; but Aldridge’s ceiling is infinite, Roy’s is not (and I think the world of #7). Give 12 market value, skewed market value at that (damn cosmopolitan cities) Pay the man.
by DribbleDriveDish on Sep 3, 2009 11:52 PM PDT reply actions
100%
Not worried.
I do just have to point out though that this is a little bit of pot-stirring on the BEdge. Not exaclty at one of those Canzano-Roy Contract levels, but still.
I know less than half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
by haildablazer on Sep 4, 2009 12:21 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Pot stirring?
This is just a discussion of how much LMA’s worth. They’ve been talking to him, they haven’t reached a deal. There may be some distance between the two sides. Not miles, but not inches, either.
This is a legit topic of conversation… maybe THE topic of the summer. There was no real intrigue with Roy. There is with Lamarcus. This is not a sure thing.
This decision could have a lot to do with the Blazers future, for good or ill. Probably the Blazers want to pay 10-11 mil per year, and Lamarcus wants 13-14. Who blinks?
Q: Is Greg favoring his knee?
Frye: He favors dunking on your head, that's what he favors.
Aldridge is a pretty good defender inside. He runs the floor better than most all star power forwars and gets easy
dunks on fast breaks. He actually scores the majority of his points in the post. I don’t see the problem.
Did Reggie Miller get lots of money?
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
That's weak sauce, jscot.
Reggie Miller was a shooting guard — with an emphasis on “shooting” — while LaMarcus Aldridge is a power soft forward.
Also, let’s check out career TS%: Miller 61.4% > Aldridge 52.7%.
All right, I think that settles this sidebar.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
fair enough
If he makes near max money, it has to be because he is supposed to be more than a jump shooter.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
Right. There are lots of examples of overpaid players
that players and their agents can and do use to justify big contracts.
Garnett and Shaq contracts led to the CBA and the '99 lockout
those guys weren’t really worth the $100+ million at the time they signed, but you knew they would be. Yet those guys contracts were being used as examples for other to get paid exorbinantly. Clearly the sky is the limit for the true stars, thus the CBA and putting a cap on those stars so that 2nd teir guys like Lma wouldn’t be outrageously overpaid since their production isn’t that far behind the teir 1 stars.
team leader on a team that was always in the playoffs
Reggie deserved all the money he made. – Elgin
Without you out there, we're nowhere here
Mios Dio!
You don’t pay max contracts for guys who always make the playoffs, you pay them for guys who get their teams to the finals. Reggie Miller was never going to be 1st banana on a championship team. Nevaaaa!
LMA is a shooting forward
I like the sauce…
"No disrespect to Jeff Blake"
by Eat Politicians on Sep 4, 2009 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions
NO
Antwan Jamison, Gilbert Arenas, World B. Free, Mitch Richmond all come to mind.
I believe that LMA has already been on record as saying he doesnt deserve as much as B-roy.
But he definitely deserves more $ than the chump drafted one spot ahead of him too. Give him 12.5/year to start with incentives and raises and let him force your hand the next time around.
Blazers win!
by The X-man on Sep 4, 2009 1:16 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
Not quite true.
What he did say is Roy is a max player, and deserves max money.
He at no time mentioned what he thought he himself was worth.
Smart move, its to his benefit for Roy to get a high contract,
which give him a high target to ask for.
I agree 100% with the post, and Aldrige is not about to be
Roy’s Robin when it comes to pay.
is this like BE poetry?
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
No max deal for LMA
Sorry, maybe next time…Roy yes, absolutely. Needed. Required. Done.
LMA, however, is another story. And we are going to have to pay some other players as well once they grow up so he should be getting something reasonable considering his position and current economics for like players. 4-5 years, 30-40 mill, something along those lines.
"No disrespect to Jeff Blake"
This isn't close to market value for his production
Around $10 million is the starting point and how much beyond that is based on what you think of his potential.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
I will not rest until I have you holding a Vitamin Water, wearing your own shoe, playing NBA 2k featuring you, while singing your own song in a new commercial, starring you, broadcast during the NBA finals, in a game that you are winning, and I will not sleep until that happens – LaMarcus’ agent
There's Gotta Be More To Life
Start it at 10 million
Standard increases from year to year.
And heavy, heavy, heavy on the incentive and conditional stuff. Big allstar game bonuses, big rebounding bonuses (say, a million bucks if he averages 8 boards a game for a season), no scoring bonuses (we know he can score), big bonuses for defensive accolades, etc.
We are paying for both him being a true big (you always overpay bigs), and for his potential. So, tie as much money as you can into his potential and if he reaches it he gets paid.
If possible.
But with the Bargnani deal, Charlie V, Bogut, hell just pick a big man signing of the last 4 years… LMA is gonna be starting at 10 million. Anything less is a great deal for the Blazers.
Mortimer
by Mortimer on Sep 4, 2009 1:57 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
more than 8rpg
Maybe like 9 or 10 rebs/36 minutes.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
That'd be nice
But I doubt he’d ever get there, especially with Oden and Joel on the team. I’d like the “rebounding bonus” to be a number above where he’s at now, but not unattainable (and knowingly impossible to achieve). If he knows he can’t do it, it doesn’t help motivate to do it!
Mort—
Well, check this:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/aldrila01/splits/2009/
Post all-star break, he averaged 8.6 rebounds per game. So I’d say 9 is pretty reasonable. Maybe a bonus for 9 and a further bonus for 10, or even 3 split up bonuses at 8, 9, 10?
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Oh, and that's in 38 minutes/game, so even per 36 it's reasonable.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
That's better than I thought he had done, after the allstar break
Let’s just hope he can keep that up for a year!
M—
It is one of my fondest dreams.
I also like the increased FTA numbers, a sign of more aggressive post play.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Starting
at 10 million is what I had in mind as well, with strong incentives which could push him close to the max.
However, bonuses based on stats kind of scare me, reminds me of the mid/end of 80’s Hawks when players were missing close shots to get more rebounds…
While I’ve grown up as a stat freak and still like stats a lot, I think players shouldn’t even look at it. Zach Randolph is a perfect exemple of a player who puts great stats while being far from great himself to say the least.
Chris Paul puts crazy numbers in the steals category, yet is he a great defender ?
I'd offer Aldridge about 5 years 65 millions.
If Roy is getting 80 million, Aldridge should get about 65 million. It’s not too low to be insulting, it’s not too high.
That sounds like a fair deal.
I don’t know about the exact money amounts, But you must pay him enough not to be insulting but not so high that it sets a standard for the rest of the new players.
I also agree with the earning and incentive program. You shouldn’t put big value on All-Star games because that is mostly by vote and we are a small market team. Mortimer’s plan for incentive sounds good except for high scoring bonuses. maybe a bonus for keeping his scoring average above a certain number for the time of the contract. Some of BRoy’s conditions we know he can already do, but he may not be able to do that for a long period of time without a big effort.
Mortimer: It wouldn’t be fun if I agreed with you entirely but I agree with the philosophy of your incentive program. Make him earn the extras.
hg
by BBK on Sep 4, 2009 3:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Reason for allstar
He’d be a coaches selection, like Roy is, and if he is chosen it’s be a combination of his personal stats and our team success. I wouldn’t worry about the voting process, since if he deserves it he’ll go… because the good teams always have extra allstars from the coaches. Only the starting 5 are voted by the fans. Our small marketness will hurt us there, true.
I don’t mind a bonus for scoring really, I just like focusing the incentives on things he needs work on. I’m pretty sure we’ll always use his scoring ability, so I didn’t see the need to tie money to it for the worry of creating bad habits, but I don’t think we’d have that problem with LMA.
With Z-Bo, yes. But not LMA.
Mortimer
But Roy isn't getting 80 million
With the cap going down next year. Which is why Aldridge should get less as well.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Tough TImes, Tough Decisions
This statement is really the heart of the challenge for The Blazers. “We don’t know exactly what market price is at this point”.
That’s the problem.
If The Blazers are serious about maintaining the goal, the dream of hoisting a Championship banner within the next 2-5 years then Brandon must remain healthy, Oden must emerge and Aldridge has to consistently become one of the better forwards in the league and remain a Blazer. Towards that final point, that means we need to sign him.
No suprises here. When the franchise was re-born with the miraculous draft of Brandon and LMA in the same draft we knew the “best” case scenario would be we would have two young stars, both with rookie contracts expiring on the same timeline. Brandon has had more initial and consistent success so his contract was vital and perhaps more of a no brainer for The Blazers.
As has been pointed out by myself and about anyone who cares about The Blazers Aldridge is also an important piece of that puzzle.
I NEVER like paying for potential. Aldridge has demonstrated great potential and for stretches, periods, great skill. He’s already a very, very good player. But if you say Brandon is flying in the rarified air of the league elite, I don’t think you can put Aldridge in that stratosphere yet.
So what a puzzle. It’s challenging because I’m sure if I can figure this out sitting infront of my computer, then Aldridge, his agent and The Blazers are well aware of this reality. Aldridge isn’t going to care about The Blazers sending a message that The Buck is going to stop somewhere. Aldridge knows that he is important to any scenario that has The Blazers becoming anything more than just a “good” team. Of course he’s going to pursue the max. Aldridge is going to believe he’s worth it, not if based entirely on his ability as demonstrated thus far, but based on what he know’s he means to the future of this franchise. I’m afraid The Blazers don’t have too much leverage here. With the addition of Miller and another season to grow and gel, what do you do? Aldridge could easily have a fantastic season, which would make Aldridge a super hot commodity if you don’t extend him now. So you are almost forced to offer him a contract cut from the same fine cloth as Brandons.
But it still comes down to the reality of market value. The wild, wild wild card, is the economy. 2-3,4 years ago, it was almost a no brainer. But who know’s what type of economy or N.B.A. exists a year from now? Judging from what the evil Hedo Turkoglu was able to garner as well as a few other contracts signed this off-season, you’d think it would be safe to say a decent to good seasonal performance from Aldridge, coupled with Aldridges youth, would find some owner, some team willing to max him out in hopes of obtaining a young superstar at a valuable position.
So here it is, we sign him, for max, or near enough max that Brandon and LMA can share the same parking spaces. I don’t see The Blazers able to make a financial “stand” with Aldridge anymore than they could when dealing with Brandon.
Do we lose a player because of not being able to reach that magic point of value vs. willing budgetary expenditure? Maybe soon. But that’s when the depth of having an Outlaw, Batum, Fernandez, Webster, overload becomes valuable. That’s when having the european pipeline becomes important.
Someday, somebody isn’t happy with what The Blazers are willing to pay him. Someday somebody feels more money and better opportunity could be realized with another franchise. But in regards to Aldridge he isn’t that somebody. This franchise cannot afford to let him be that somebody, The Blazers know it, The Fans know it, and Aldridge and his agent know it.
Good place to be if you are Aldridge, challenging place to try to negotiate from if you are The Blazers.
"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"
by Krang on Sep 4, 2009 5:30 AM PDT reply actions 8 recs
well stated Krang
If there is uncertainty, pay him more per year on a shorter deal. – Elgin
Without you out there, we're nowhere here
Brilliantly put Krang!!!
I agree with that assessment 100%
Aldridge is most definitely a max contract guy no question about it!!!
Sign him up and let’s go get this ice!!!
5yrs 80 million straight up!!!
Because Aldridge and Roy will no doubt go down as one of the greatest 1,2 punches in NBA Finals history….. On their way to snatching 8 NBA Titles!!!
I'd give the exact same structure as Roy's
including guarantees, etc.
And 85% of the max, whatever that turns out to be. Well, I’d offer 80% (which is probably close to what Barg got), but I’d be looking to settle around 85%.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
Actually I think the estimates from Barg and the salary cap @ $50M
Yield a start for Bargnani of right about 70% of max or $8M. .
And, having crunched the numbers, calculate max to be close to $11.5M yielding Brandon, not $80M but $66M. Starting LMA at 87% would start at $10M but no options offered.
The economy is entirely the problem here. If General Motors can declare Bankruptcy then so can ABC and Turner. If the ad money does not pay for the contracts with the NBA they will be forced to renegotiate or go to bankruptcy. So even a $50M cap is not a given. It cuts both ways for the Blazers and the players. To get that first contract it nearly has to be with the drafting team. I believe Ben Gordon took a substantial cut with the Pistons (I haven’t worked out the precise numbers) over what he could have extended for 2 years earlier. On the other hand if the economy is driven by double-digit inflation the players lose and the team gains.
Maybe someone else knows the stat...
How many game-winning shots does LMA have? I can remember Roy with a few, Outlaw with a few, even Rudy and Blake taking some big-money shots (and in Blake’s case, missing) at the end of games.
What I remember being frustrated about with LMA in the fourth quarter in close games is his vanishing. I remember him setting screens. I remember him touching the ball.
I also remember him passing that ball back to someone else as fast as he could. I remember him getting the ball and not even looking in the general direction of the basket.
People get on LMA for being a “soft forward” mostly for his rebounding. But I think there’s something about the pressure of close games that gets to him and I don’t like it.
This is not hater theme music. I think LMA is valuable for his defense, his running, and his talents. I think his game in the first 3 qtrs is awesome and allows the Blazers to compete for the playoffs and then in the playoffs. But big money is—I feel—reserved for those players both WILLING to take the big shots and ABLE to make them. And in this arena, I have to say Outlaw and Rudy both have LMA beat.
Do these latter guys deserve more money? No, that’s not what I’m claiming.
I am claiming that we should not consider paying enormous, all-star money for guys who won’t/don’t take those kinds of shots. Far better to trade him.
And as the market valuation goes right now, I think it might be that LMA is more valuable in a trade than he’s worth on the court in money.
Buck Williams for the hall of fame
I have thought He fades out.
Not just the crunch time, but the whole fourth quarter. I am not a LMA hater for sure, but you don’t have to be a hater to observe the whole picture. A hater looks at nothing but the bad, and the lovers looks for nothing but the good. I don’t know where I fit in but I can see the good and the bad, I just don’t know the reason’s.
I am a long way from wanting to trade him because he is young and learning, and may need more time to get his confidence up. I am reminded of Uncle Cliff aways fading at the wrong time.
I do agree that his unwillingness to take part of the load off other shooters at crunch time should be factored into the equation with some sort of incentive to redeem himself.
hg
I'm really not trying to hate nor am I arguing for a trade...
I just think it’s reasonable to discuss. If we were to agree (for the sake of argument) that LMA fades in the fourth, then he’s not worth max money.
If he insists on max money and—more to the point!—can command max money on the market, then PDX needs to be open-minded about the broaching a trade.
One simply can’t fight the market.
Buck Williams for the hall of fame
I see what you mean but I was just saying that trade is not an option. but they should stand up and fight maximum pay.
by BBK on Sep 4, 2009 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions
That again is true
But remember I am a terrible Homer. Besides, I hate to see players go that can bite us in the butt later or could help us win a championship. Then like you said as a fan we shouldn’t care because we have to control over the outcome and a championships would be as sweet with any other PF, except Rasheed and Zbo. actually I liked Rasheed until he hit Sabonis with that towel for giving him maybe the second black eye in a row.
hg
I care a lot, actualy
I don’t want to cheer for a team that buys championships. See Boston Celtics; see Whitsitt’s efforts; see Yankees. I want to cheer for teams that have a system that works and creates dynasties. See San Antonio; see Moneyball teams in baseball; see Phil Jackson.
Having reasonable and sound ownership is very important, to me at least, as a fan.
There’s also a very pragmatic end. Blowing up your salary cap with poor mgmt leads directly to the situations we had with Ratliff, with Miles, and with Zach. Poor money mgmt can poison a team for years. So, if you ignore the romatnic notion of dynasty that I tend to like, then you have to at least admit to the necessity of having long-term fiscal soundness in a franchise even to “buy” championships.
Buck Williams for the hall of fame
boston for sure. they developed only a few of those players.
phil jackson im not so sure for this last time around. He spend two years developing the most of that rotation and team structure. All those players were traded in before him and drafted, with the exception of pao… they sucked while he was there for two years. in fact i would say that first year (2006) maybe (when they took phonex to 7 games) was one of his best coaching jobs. that team should have been a lottery. it was kobe at 35 a game ( to me a much better year than dwayne’s last year (kobes was in a dominant west)) and not much else. smush parker and lamar were smush parker and lamar and kwayme.
its polly a combination of development and buying your way in to get you over the top. developing rhondo and perk as well as entire lakers bench and than adding some pieces ot get you over the top is usually how one gets to that super contender status in basketball (it also means that you have to go over the cap usually) i can see portland doing something like this once it was clear the right player was out thee.
I recall at least one game winner by Lma
…off a feed from Roy. However, I think Lma lack of production in crunch time is more a factor of Roy having the ball. Clearly in th elast 2 mins. Roy controls who gets looks and who doesn’t. I don’t recall Lma passing up many wide open shots, but he might have.
Lma role has been the primary scorer of the 1st and 3rd quarters. We need points then too. Roy often doesn’t score until the 2nd half of games yet he still gets max money. My point is Lma and Roy take scoring responsiblity at differing time in the game, yet each is very important.
by NWfan on Sep 4, 2009 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
I'd be happy to be corrected on this...
My brain is only reminding me of frustrating fourth quarters.
I hope, hope, hope that LMA starts bringing it in the fourth and I want him to have the ball with the game on the line. Maybe a new contract gives him the confidence to do that… if it does, then I suppose that the money is well spent.
But that’s a big gamble!
Buck Williams for the hall of fame
I see the opposite perspective as well
LMA carried a heavier load in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarters maybe not unlike a pacer runner in a distance race. His contributions are still nearly as vital. In today’s game the energy expended is more measured over the game. Just as Nic carried a heavier load of defense in the 1st and 3rd quarters and others took over in the 2nd and 4th. It should also be noted that LMA often did not play in the 4th quarter because the game was over (blowouts) before he was scheduled to return. It is true that in the 2nd half of the year his FG% seemed to decline in the 4th quarter while Roy remained high. Roy and Aldridge played tag team in middle quarters of games with Roy resting during the last part of the 3rd and 1st part of the 4th while Aldridge manned the team.One would hope that LMA comes into camp with a stronger body and be less prone to wer down by season’s end.
I'm not sure of the effects because I don't know when it was done,
But there were a lot of stretches early in games (seemingly) where LMA would play with the reserves and be the go-to guy. So that could affect this too.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
You could be right.
BRoy does most of his scoring in the second and fourth and LMA does most of his in the 1st and 3rd. As I stated above I don’t know why. I have always thought it was BRoy trying to get his team mates involved in the first then says to hell with them we have to catch up. Then usually in the third qtr the team mates does produce so he can afford to wait until the fourth.
This is where it is good not to be to knowledgeable of the game, because that makes since to a uneducated fan. (:>) ]
hg
by BBK on Sep 4, 2009 8:49 PM PDT up reply actions
He beat the Bucks in "The Good Land" with a baseline jumper
Nice shot, 2 ticks left. Winner. Winner. Chicken. Dinner.
Yep
and the pick and pop with Roy in the 2nd game of last season (against the Spurs). I honestly haven’t recalled too many last second situations where Aldridge has not hit the shot he attempted, rather, the team goes to Roy and Outlaw significantly more in these scenarios.
SOME PEOPLE ARE LIKE SLINKIES. NOT REALLY GOOD FOR ANYTHING BUT THEY BRING A SMILE TO YOUR FACE WHEN PUSHED DOWN THE STAIRS.
I think Al Jefferson's deal
is a good target for us with LaMarcus. 5 years, $65 million. Contract maxes out at $15 million in its final year (roughly $5 million less than Roy’s). In my eyes, it’s overpaying a little, but I think it’s a nice balance between paying for a potentially large improvement and paying for incremental improvements.
I’d prefer something closer to $60 million, but guys with size almost always get overpaid. It is what it is.
$5 of your own money for every million of Paul Allens' and you'd run like a little bee-atch!
You are the answer to why so many people that hit the lottery go broke within a few years.
Thanks for the financial advice
Funny because even living outside of Portland these days, between catching a couple games when I’m in town, buying some Blazer gear, and league pass, I did spend roughly $5 of my own money for every million of the Blazer’s payroll this year supporting the team. And somehow, I never complained about it.
I’ll be sure to look you up if I ever hit the lotto, though. I’m sure I’d just blow it on a d-league team anyways.
I don't quite get what you're going for
Yes, Paul Allen is rich, and yes, NBA players make a lot.
As fans, we hope the team offers LMA a deal that he is happy with (and doesn’t feel slighted by), but not so much that it hamstrings us for paying others or, Yahweh forbid, LMA doesn’t improve or regresses and we’re paying 15 million bucks for a non-allstar PF.
The money these players make can last generations. A million dollars is a million dollars even if you’re already getting 70 million. It’s a short career, you never know what will happen to your family over the next 60 years PLUS the generations after your career, and not taking your fair market value can mean a lot over the long run.
Of course, we also don’t want the sort of player who will play for a bad team because they get paid a bit more, over playing for a possibly great team. If LMA is someone, like Hedo, who wants a few million bucks more than being a big part of something special here in Portland, then I don’t mind us losing him in the long run.
It’s the happy medium.
Mortimer
Make it a 2 year at max
With a team option for a 3rd year.
Everyone will know more then. In the meantime, LMA gets real paid and the Blazers don’t have to worry about being locked into paying him $20 million in 2015 or whatever.
I would do 5 yrs 65 mil
9 mil 1st year
11 mil 2nd year
13 mil 3rd year
15 mil 4th year
17 mil 5th year
And also add incentives. If he makes the all-star team it’s an extra $1 mil/year, if he wins a championship, etc. I think that’s more than fair for your #2 player. But I have a feeling he’ll be getting paid more than that…..
10.72 mil for 4 years
4th year team option. 10% increasing salary every year with 2 all-star showing incentive option. Of course this is just a ballpark guess…;-)
by ColoradoBlazerFan on Sep 4, 2009 8:00 AM PDT reply actions
A five-year, $50 million contract extension that starts with a $11 million base salary and has 4.545454% ...
annual decreases — as well as an early termination option that he can exercise after the fourth season, a 15% trade kicker, and annual performance-based incentives that can raise his annual salary up to $1 million and his total salary up to $55 million ($200,000 for each season he averages 8 or more rebounds a game, $200,000 for each season he shoots 50% or higher from the field, $200,000 for each season he makes an All-Star appearance, $200,000 for each season he plays 70 or more games, $100,000 for each season Portland wins 60 or more games, & $100,000 for each season Portland win the NBA title) — is a fair deal for both parties.
2010-2011: $11,000,000 (Base Salary) + $1,000,000 (Potential Incentives)
2011-2012: $10,500,000 (Base Salary) + $1,000,000 (Potential Incentives)
2012-2013: $10,000,000 (Base Salary) + $1,000,000 (Potential Incentives)
2013-2014: $9,500,000 (Base Salary) + $1,000,000 (Potential Incentives)
2014-2015: $9,000,000 (Base Salary) + $1,000,000 (Potential Incentives)
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Sep 4, 2009 8:23 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
That, by the way, would be my first offer from a negotiating standpoint. The following is the most I'd ...
put on the table prior to this November before wishing LaMarcus Aldridge good luck in his quest as a RFA during the frenzied summer 2010, which’d allow Portland the right to match an offer sheet that comes his way and allow the market to dictate his value.
2010-2011: $10,000,000 (Base Salary) + $2,000,000 (Potential Incentives)*
2011-2012: $10,000,000 (Base Salary) + $2,000,000 (Potential Incentives)
2012-2013: $10,000,000 (Base Salary) + $2,000,000 (Potential Incentives)
2013-2014: $10,000,000 (Base Salary) + $2,000,000 (Potential Incentives)
2014-2015: $10,000,000 (Base Salary) + $2,000,000 (Potential Incentives)
Total: $50,000,000 (Base Salary) + $60,000,000
*The same incentives listed in my above post, but with double the amount per season.
As it is, $50 million in guaranteed salaries is the most Aldridge has earned for himself over a long period of time. Furthermore, Aldridge should receive either decreasing annual salaries or non-escalating annual salaries to help the Trail Blazers avoid luxury tax hell by offsetting costs as Brandon Roy’s maximum-level deal climbs upward monetarily each season.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
Ugh, I wish sometimes that there was an edit function and I wasn't in a hurry to hit up McDonald's.
The bottom line in the contract layout above should read as follows: “Total: $50,000,000 (Base Salary) +$10,000,000 (Potential Incentives) = $60,000,000 (Possible Earnings).”
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
While I agree with the principle of the contract,
I think you’d have to bump it up to $11 per plus the incentives to have a chance of LaMarcus biting. That’d keep his guaranteed comp to just over Bargs while limiting his max value to Jefferson’s. Big Al had shown maybe a little more offensively than LaMarcus before signing his deal but was still worse defensively. If he’s reaching those incentives, $13 million is more than a fair price for his play. If not, an extra million a year probably won’t break the bank, and it alleviates the risk that some team with cap space next year that misses out on one of the top guys will panic and offer him something closer to the max.
Well, Aldridge’s first season earnings shouldn't total more than a combined base salary ...
+ potential incentives equaling $12.5 million — since the maximum for next season will most likely decrease from this season’s $13.5 million by roughtly $1 million — thus, if $2 million per season is allotted to potential incentives, then Aldridge’s starting base salary should be $10.5 million.
If we use that initial amount as a barometer and go with a yo-yoing contract — which includes an early termination option that can be exercised by Aldridge after the fourth season, as well as a non-essential 15% trade kicker added in case he’s dealt elsewhere at some point — then here’s the results.
2010-2011: $10,500,000 (Base Salary) + $2,000,000 (Potential Incentives)* = $12,500,000 (Possible Earnings)
2011-2012: $11,000,000 (Base Salary) + $2,000,000 (Potential Incentives) = $13,000,000 (Possible Earnings)
2012-2013: $12,000,000 (Base Salary) + $2,000,000 (Potential Incentives) = $14,000,000 (Possible Earnings)
2013-2014: $11,000,000 (Base Salary) + $2,000,000 (Potential Incentives) = $13,000,000 (Possible Earnings)
2014-2015: $10,500,000 (Base Salary) + $2,000,000 (Potential Incentives) = $12,500,000 (Possible Earnings)
Total: $55,000,000 (Base Salary) + $10,000,000 (Potential Incentives) = $65,000,000 (Possible Earnings)
*$200,000 for each season he averages 8 or more rebounds a game;
$200,000 for each season he shoots 50% or higher from the field;
$200,000 for each season he makes an All-Star appearance;
$200,000 for each season he makes an All-Defense team (Ha-ha!);
$200,000 for each season he makes an All-NBA team;
$200,000 for each season he plays 70 or more games;
$200,000 for each season he plays 3,000 or more minutes;
$200,000 for each season Portland wins 60 or more games;
$200,000 for each season Portland wins the Western Conference;
$200,000 for each season Portland wins the NBA title.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
I like your incentives in particular
But I’d say 9 rebounds per game. 8 isn’t much for a PF who plays 38mpg like LMA.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
I'm not sure that an incentive based on number of games is a good thing.
It motivates players to come back too early from an injury. I would insist on such an incentive if we’re talking Theo Ratliff, but not most players.
I think it's fair to include incentives for games and/or minutes played in any player's contract.
Although LaMarcus Aldridge isn’t injury prone like Theo Ratliff or Marcus Camby — with the latter actually have such incentives in his contract — that doesn’t mean he should be held to a standard of being compensated in part for the amount of time he’s out on the court.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
Hey ak1984
are you really somebody important in the basketball world?? cause you seem to be pretty darn good at these contract salaries and incentives etc etc??
Nope, I'm a certifiable scrub in life.
It’s all good, though, for it takes all kinds in this world.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
id like to think that alot of "regulars" would actually make it as big time sports decision makers. its just not the same oppurtunities and not being in the networks.
for the most part.
there is so much luck involved in making it into an industry with limited slots
Popular music shows this too. It can be just chance (or connections) that make the difference.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Certifiable scrub
Me, too. I’m not a certified scrub, though. No one considers it worth their time to certify me.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
It's almost as bad as getting a procrastination license.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
I keep meaning to get one of those
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
He's good at it, ain't he
AK needs to go pursue some sort of career in the NBA world and work his way up with gumption and moxie.
He can learn the people skills along the way! He’s got a good basketball mind, and an eye for detail.
Morty
by Mortimer on Sep 5, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
We'll teach him the people skills here at Blazersedge. The rest is up to him.
Maybe AK can become KP’s apprentice.
Remember us when you are running the team someday, AK.
rec for gumption and moxie
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
by austinpwnz on Sep 5, 2009 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'll put in a good word for him
Nate always listens to me. That’s why Blake is still the starter.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
I'll take your theory and raise you.
I worked for a company who offered safety incentives as a bonus to employees who “worked safe”. What this actually meant was if you became injured thru no fault of your own you would lose your bonus. If someone came up to you and purposely broke your kneecap, you’d lose your bonus. Needless to say this type of atmosphere did nothing but encourage people to hide their legitimate injuries. It may have saved the company money in the eyes of their insurance carriers, but the employee was the one who ultimately sacrificed. No one should be penalized for being injured any more than they should be rewarded for when they are not. Games and minutes played are not in the control of the player but the coach.
But we know that if LMA is healthy, Nate will play him.
Minutes would be something reasonable, like 30 mpg, just enough to ensure a contributing or major role.
I don’t think LMA could hide an injury or something. In any case, incentives are either for the things that require greater effort from the athlete, or things that should probably happen anyway (say 70 games played) and are sort of hedging bets.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
If they're smart, they should be able to figure out that coming back early would hurt their stats or lead to more games missed.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
rec
for somehow putting all of that into one sentence, and the entire contract into simply the subject of the sentence. This was beyond even your usual standard.
Your decreasing provision makes it highly likely he will opt out of the fifth year if he is successful. Do we want to encourage that?
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
Yeah, the more I think about it non-escalating base salaries of $10 per season over the five-year ...
contract extension makes the most sense altogether. At first, I was keen on the thought of decreasing base salaries to help the Portland Trail Blazers avoid having its payroll surpass the luxury tax barrier a few years down the line; however, it’s highly doubtful that either LaMarcus Aldridge or his agent would sign off on such a provision.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
If I'm his agent
I don’t mind decreasing salaries, as long as the total amount is high enough. I think it is much to his advantage. Guarantee the higher early years, and the fifth year, which is lower, he has the option of cutting off the cheap part of the contract and getting even richer, if he’s playing like an all-star. I would go for that — it seems much to his advantage.
I don’t see the team wanting to do it, though. It gives him the choice of opting out of the cheapest year of the contract. If I’m giving him an option on the last year, I want it to be the most expensive year.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
Decreasing contracts make sense on paper
but they feel wrong in certain situations like this in which a young player with upside, like LaMarcus, is expected to improve each of the next several seasons, yet you’re suggesting paying him less, not more, each year. It works better for a player on his last contract. I think most players don’t like the symbolism of decline it suggests.
one thing that AK didn't do
which may tip the tables, and get LMA to agree to a decreasing salary is make the signing bonus payable upfront. This gives LMA a big lump some of cash right away, while the Blazers just have to avg it out over the life of the deal.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
20% is the limit accordin to Storyteller.
So using AK’ s numbers.
On his “minimum” offer above that is $10,000,000 up front right away. (I believe the 20% only applies to guarenteed money $50 million)
I think it will take $60 million guarenteed to sign him, which would put the bonus at $12 million up front.
I really believe that signing him to a decreases contract scale is a big deal for the Blazers, as it will make a huge impact on their ability to stay under the tax threshold when Oden, Batum, and Fernandez are extended.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
LaMarcus at signing of his front-loaded contract: "Yippee, I'm rich!"
LaMarcus in Year 2 of his contract: “Hey, these checks are getting smaller!”
LaMarcus in Year 3 of his contract: “I’ve been Pritchslapped!”
LaMarcus in Year 4 of his contract: “I am so OUTTA HERE this summer!”
Precisely
If we are going to frontload it, we could do this. If it is $60 million, you make it something like this, by year:
$13 Million
$12 Million
$11 Million
$10 Million
$14 Million (player option, but half conditionally guaranteed like Brandon’s)
That helps with luxury tax trouble but means the fifth year opt out isn’t a sure thing.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
there is a maximum fluctuation in salary from year to year, isn’t there? I think it’s 10.5% if the team has Bird Rights… thus a leap from 10 to 14 wouldn’t be plausible.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
Oh
I don’t know. I’m sure you can increase from 13 to 14 over the life of the contract, or even from 10 to 14 over five years (at 10.5%, that would be allowed). I’m not sure why there would be a problem with playing games with the order, as long as the total increase is legit.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
I’m not sure on the specifics. I’m sure Storyteller, AK, or douglast will be here with the answer soon.
I have a vague memory of there being a rule against it due to potentially circumventing the salary cap… but that’s just a guess. I think year to year fluctuations have to be within 10.5%.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
There's some problems with this idea.
1. $12.5 million will probably be the maximum-level starting salary for free agents of LaMarcus Aldridge’s tenure next year, so let’s stick with that as a baromete.
2. If $12.5 million is the starting amount and $2 million are tied up in incentives, the maximum amount that each season can go up or down by from the previous season is 10.5% of $10,500,000 (i.e., $1,102,500).
3. I’ll now try to layout a five-year contract extension that includes a signing bonus, yo-yoing annual salaries, incentives, and a ETO.
LaMarcus Aldridge signs a five-year, $55 million contract extension with a 20% signing bonus, $10 million more in possible incentives, an early termination option that can be exercised after the fourth season, and a 15% trade kicker.
Signing Bonus: $9 million (i.e., 20% of $45 million guaranteed over the four non-option seasons).
2010-2011: $8,250,000 (Base Salary) + $2,000,000 (Potential Incentives)* = $10,250,000 (Possible Earnings) w/ $2,250,000 Extra Cap Hit (Signing Bonus Allocation).
2011-2012: $9,250,000 (Base Salary) + $2,000,000 (Potential Incentives) = $11,250,000 (Possible Earnings) w/ $2,250,000 Extra Cap Hit (Signing Bonus Allocation).
2012-2013: $9,750,000 (Base Salary) + $2,000,000 (Potential Incentives) = $11,750,000 (Possible Earnings) w/ $2,250,000 Extra Cap Hit (Signing Bonus Allocation).
2013-2014: $8,750,000 (Base Salary) + $2,000,000 (Potential Incentives) = $10,750,000 (Possible Earnings) w/ $2,250,000 Extra Cap Hit (Signing Bonus Allocation).
2014-2015^: $10,000,000 (Base Salary) + $2,000,000 (Potential Incentives) = $12,000,000 (Possible Earnings).
Total: $47,000,000 (Base Salary) + $8,000,000 (Signing Bonus)+ $10,000,000 (Potential Incentives = $65,000,000 (Possible Earnings).
*$200,000 for each season he averages 8 or more rebounds a game;
$200,000 for each season he shoots 50% or higher from the field;
$200,000 for each season he makes an All-Star appearance;
$200,000 for each season he makes an All-Defense team (Ha-ha!);
$200,000 for each season he makes an All-NBA team;
$200,000 for each season he plays 70 or more games;
$200,000 for each season he plays 3,000 or more minutes;
$200,000 for each season Portland wins 60 or more games;
$200,000 for each season Portland wins the Western Conference;
$200,000 for each season Portland wins the NBA title.
^ETO Season.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
It should read as $46 million base salary and $9 million signing bonus.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
If I'm LaMarcus, I say that if I'm getting signed
under current salary limits, I should be paid according to them, not according to someone’s estimate of what the future limit might be.
Let's ask the Swamie
I remember when Clyde Drexler signed his new contract. At the time it was one of the most lucrative contracts in the nba. But it wasn’t long before he was going thru a box of kleenex crying over how under-paid he was. In the end Clydes’ loyalty swung elsewhere and back to his Houston roots. He offered lip service to the blazers but when he was named one of the 50 best players of all-time, it was a Rockets jersey he was sporting. At least Charles Barkley didn’t sell out to Philadelphia that way. As for LMA, even if he’s happy today that doesn’t guarantee warm feelings tomorrow.
jscot that is basically lamar odom's maimi contract...
and that was when contracts were super inflated too. thats the stand number 2 guy’s contract for sure. everyone back then thought lamar legitimately could be a number 2 guy on a winner (scottie pippen they said)… so ya. 14 million looked bad when it was clear lamar could barely be a 3 guy in that last year.
That was $65 million over six years
In any event, I was talking about structure rather than amount — declining then with a big jump on the last year.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
ya i guess what i mean is that ending with it on the the high end sometimes looks bad
cause more often than not players dont meet high expectations of a 14 mill contract. gm’s are weary of looking bad.
I'm actually surprised
we didn’t do something like that with Brandon. And Martell.
It makes a lot of sense because it increases our flexibility by making players much more attractive in a trade.
Of course, it costs Paul Allen more money right now, and maybe that isn’t what he wants to do.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
I was wondering that too. It might be pointless
if they have figured they’ll be in luxury tax anyway if they want to keep all the cheap, great talent they’ve assembled on this team who will need new contracts in the next three years.
Signing bonuses
have no impact on luxury tax. But players like it because it means lots of money now (which they can invest), and rival GMs/owners like it (when you trade a player to them) because they can trade away a lot of salary and get back a guy with equivalent salary (for cap purposes) but that actually doesn’t cost them as much money.
It boosts the trade value of your players. Especially if you are trading an expiring contract.
But it does cost your owner more money right now.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
And considering inflation over time, it's actually somewhat more expensive to pay up front
Assuming someone who is rich enough to own a pro sports team can invest their money decently.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Upfront signing bonuses and decreasing salary contracts are beneficial to the player
as long as the total dollars are the same. The sooner you get the money the more its worth.
However, you shouldn’t give the player an opt out in the last year if you do that. It’s an incentive to opt out and cost the team more money, or lose the player. Roy’s contract rises to over $19M in the last year, so I’m not too concerned about him opting out.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Sep 4, 2009 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions
What makes any player worth a max contract?
What makes Joel so valuable?
Defense, rebounding, blocked shots, and overall intensity.
What makes Greg potentially so valuable?
Defense, rebounding, blocked shots, and overall presence.
What makes Travis valuable?
Leadership in 4th quarter scoring.
What makes Brandon especially valuable?
Leadership in 4th quarter scoring.
LMA has the ability to exceed what he is doing now in all of these areas. I say pay him max money if he is willing to become a complete player and a leader. Start with a solid base salary, around the 10 million range, and then add incentives up the kazoo that would allow him to get paid max money as soon as he demonstrates that he deserves it.
In other words, give him his respect, give him the opportunity to get paid, and let him earn it. The main categories that I would set minimums on are defense (all defensive teams), rebounding (9 per game), blocked shots (1.75 per game) and 4th quarter scoring (7 per game). I want to put the emphasis on these categories because they will directly lead to more wins.
Overall scoring is often overrated. Defense and rebounding directly lead to winning as well as more scoring. Also, I think this sort of contract could set a tone for how Portland wants to play, with an emphasis on clutch play, defense, and rebounding. It could help LMA serve in a key leadership role for the whole team.
There is more to an athlete than how fast they can run, they also better be able to see what they are doing and know why they are doing it.
LaMarcus Aldridge averaged 2.9 points per 4th quarter last season, so you'll want to account for that.
On a related note, Aldridge averaged 6.0 points per 1st quarter, 3.3 points per 2nd quarter, and 6.0 points per 3rd quarter last season. By the way, all of those stats can be found at www.82games.com for anyone who’s interested in verification.
Brandon Roy averaged exactly 7 points per 4th quarter last season, although he’s the go-to guy in crunch time.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
Those numbers are perhaps held down somewhat
by the fact that we did have quite a few blowouts.
Aldridge by quarter
1st — 81 games, 896 minutes, 6.0 pts, 2.2 reb.
2nd — 81 games, 581 minutes, 3.3 pts, 1.1 reb. About 65% minutes, 50% production vs. 1st.
3rd — 81 games, 893 minutes, 6.0 pts, 2.4 reb. Virtually identical to 1st.
4th — 78 games, 601 minutes, 2.9 pts, 1.7 reb.
Per minute, it’s a dropoff in scoring, but not as bad as it looks on the surface, because he played fewer minutes. Rebounding per minute actually improved in the 3rd and even more in the 4th. So that would say that he didn’t exactly disappear, but neither would you say he really stepped it up in the fourth.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
Frankly, I don't care about how many points LaMarcus Aldridge scores per quarter. The only ...
reason I brought it up was in response to the post above mine. As it is, I’d prefer to have Aldridge focus on his fourth quarter defense and rebounding more than anything.
In the fourth quarter, Roy already gives the ballclub a go-to scoring punch down the stretch. Also, Rudy Fernandez does his fair share of filling up the basket in crunch time, while Greg Oden and Andre Miller will soon be doing the same thing — albeit in a secondary role to Roy, of course — this upcoming season.
For Aldridge, my main concerns are improving his offensive rebounding a slight bit, playing better man-to-man defense against 4s, playing better weakside help defense, improving his first step and handles on dribble-drive moves from the high-post to the hoop, and working on his back-to-the-basket game from the mid block.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
I agree
although I would put the offensive rebounding last in that list, rather than first — he’s pretty decent as an offensive rebounder already.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
he’s actually a very good offensive rebounder. It’s at the defensive end that he has obvious shortcomings.
I would rather have a player who excels rebounding at the offensive end than the defensive end, though. This study by a statistician who was hired by Morey in Houston shows that defensive boarding is subject to diminishing returns.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
Yeah
because you’ve got the edge there, anyway, and if your center is great he’s going to gobble them no matter how good you are — having two great defensive rebounders is superfluous.
Offensive rebounding can have diminishing returns as well, but you’ve got to have a couple other great offensive rebounders before that kicks in.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
How long until Dave Berri finally recognizes that he overvalues defensive rebounds?
If it weren’t for that flaw in his WoW metric, he’d almost have his all-encompassing stat down to a science.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
Well, he regresses the value of each statistic against wins, and it works pretty darned well.
And I think he does each rebound separately, and they come out fairly similar. shrug Plus it’s not hard to mentally adjust WoW if you believe it overvalues rebounds and such.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
doesn’t he do some magical “adjustments” to his raw data to form his WP48? Pretty sure that’s why it has a high correlation to wins… could be wrong, but I remember hearing something along these lines.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
I'm not sure what you mean.
The best reference on calculating wp48 is this:
http://www.wagesofwins.com/CalculatingWinsProduced.html
From a skimming, I do know that he’s gone back to calculating each position separately rather than just big man, forward, guard.
I don’t see the magical adjustment, but it’s a pretty dense process. All that really matters is that he looks at the explanatory power of each statistic on wins, and then weights each statistic accordingly. It’s kind of late and I easily could have missed something in there, so if you find anything interesting or suspicious, let me know.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
I’m still unsure of how it measures defense. Adjusted +/- is one of my favorite metrics to look at when judging a player.
WoW would be far beyond PER if he would only tone down the defensive rebounding numbers. It is to the point of being ridiculous.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
Well, I think it's beyond PER anyway. And while at first glance it appears ridiculous that all rebounds are worth the same
I’d argue that there’s a good reason it shows up that way in the day.
In short, the net gain of a defensive rebound is the same as the net gain of an offensive rebound.
If we say that an offensive rebound is worth the same for both teams, and a defensive rebound is worth the same for both teams, then we can look at each rebound has having two effects. An o-reb gets the rebound and prevents a d-reb, whereas a d-reb gets the rebound and prevents an o-reb.
Since all you have to do in a game is make net gains over your opponent, rather than absolute gains, I’d argue that the preventative value of a defensive rebound makes its net value (by taking away an opportunity for the other team) equal to that of an offensive rebound.
I think this is why the value of rebounds and the correlation of rebounds to a team’s wins are about the same for offensive and defensive rebounds.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
*it shows up that way in the DATA
It’s late.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
It's ridiculous
If you don’t get the defensive rebound, chances are high that a teammate will. If you don’t get the offensive rebound, chances are very high that the opponent will.
Overall correlation is similar because most good defensive rebounding teams are also good offensive rebounding teams, and vice versa.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
Okay, that makes sense
On the level of the individual player, yes, that makes sense. But on the team level, my explanation still makes sense to me, which makes me wonder if an issue in the model might be the transfer of the effects of statistics from the team level to the individual (if that makes any sense).
I’m clearly tired, I used the phrase “makes sense” three times in the last paragraph. So I’m just going to say that I’m still surprised that the weight on o-rebs and d-rebs is so incredibly similar. The example just sticks in my head of how LMA is a much better offensive rebounder, and I wonder how often that’s the case…
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
At the team level, sure
but the difference is, he’s giving the entire credit for that defensive rebound to one player when that individual player has much less to do with getting that defensive rebound than they do with getting the offensive rebound. The way Berri has it set up, he’s essentially saying, “If Joel doesn’t get this rebound, the other team will” and that just isn’t the case.
In fact, if you put our worst defensive rebounding lineup (by individual DR%) that played regular minutes at how they actually did (Blake, Rudy, Roy, Outlaw, LA), they were one of the best rebounding lineups we have. Just because you play alongside a prolific defensive rebounder doesn’t mean you can’t do it, even though Berri’s method basically assumes that.
Very interesting.
I’m trying to think of the easiest way to correct for that and nothing comes to mind.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
You've pretty much nailed it
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
Oh, and yeah, I'd say it doesn't measure defense too well because there just aren't enough defensive stats.
I’d like to see something like 82games.com’s opposing player stats, but instead of just showing the opposing player’s stats, show a comparison of the opponent’s stats vs. this player alongside the opponent’s averages. Obviously this means a lot of work with aggregating all the opposing players into one average, but it would seem to be a pretty clear defensive measure.
I like +/- as well, but I’m curious what exactly is “adjusted” (team defense, teammates on the floor? etc) cause I haven’t really looked into that.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
here’s a good article on what exactly adjusted +/- is.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
Thanks
Interesting, and I’ll have to keep it in mind more. I know it rates LMA very highly.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
I go here for the basketballvalue adjusted +/- rankings. Just an interesting stat to compare to PER, WoW, etc.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
Are the numbers on 82games.com just raw +/- then?
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Also, (I'm getting kind of spammy, sorry), it is a science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_analysis
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
This confirms my belief of what defines Lma's scoring role
Lma’s bread and butter scoring role was to put up point sin the first and 3rd quarters. For comparison let’s look at Roy’s by quarter stats
1st — 78gms, 770mins, 5.6pts, 1.3 asts, 1.0reb.
2nd — 78gms, 661mins, 5.0pts, 1.3asts, 1.1reb.
3rd — 78gms, 818mins, 5.9pts, 1.3asts, 1.6reb.
4th — 67gms, 625 mins, 7.0 pts, 1.3 asts, 1.3 reb.
Roy steps up in the 2nd half and especially the 4th quarter, that’s his role. He’s really consistent on those assists. My point is that roles change during the game and Lma gets his points during the course of a game while Roy makes his statement at the end of games. Clearly Roy is better /more consistent than Lma at this point, but Lma is very productive when asked to be a go to guy.
Account for it in what way?
If you’re saying it proves he deserves less money because he doesn’t deliver the goods in crunch time, you have to consider a variety of factors. One in LaMarcuses case is that Brandon and Travis are excellent iso scorers. Another is that PFs and centers don’t have the ball in their hands the way guards bringing it upcourt do and must receive the ball under pressure to attempt a shot. Another is that you want your best rebounders ready to grab a shot if it misses, not be out of position because they were the ones shooting, and so on.
No, I meant for KINGofMACct to account for it in his analysis of what kind of contract to give ...
a player. At any rate, it seems excessively finicky to have an incentive based on points per quarter.
Besides, the last thing LaMarcus Aldridge should have included in his contract is incentives that are related to scoring points.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
LMA has to get it done at winning time!
Agree with you that scoring in general is not a good idea from a team perspective.
But, I want to see Lamarcus be more like he was when Brandon was out last year, such as when we played Boston. I want to see him get a max contract and consistent fourth quarter scorers who can rebound and defend are a prime commodity! Brandon needs a true fourth quarter side kick, and I do not think that should be Travis (Poor defender/rebounded). It should be LMA, with others supporting.
And by the way, "Just get me the darn ball!"
There is more to an athlete than how fast they can run, they also better be able to see what they are doing and know why they are doing it.
I completely agree
I actually think the reliance on Outlaw late in games actually stunts Aldridge’s growth into being a bonafide All-Star calibre player. One more reason why I won’t be surprised it TO and his expiring deal is traded mid-season or let go after season end, especially if Cunningham (or Pendergraph) turn out to be reliable backups… and I think Cunningham has every opportunity to do that with his good off the ball play and decent mid-range jumper.
Outlaw's role in the fourth quater has been a concern of mine for some time!
There is more to an athlete than how fast they can run, they also better be able to see what they are doing and know why they are doing it.
I'll buy this...
I argued above that LMA fades in the 4th qtr but I also agree this could be an adverse outcome of Trout in the 4th. (There’s a guy who’s ruthless about taking shots.)
But perhaps—Nate being the coach and all—he feels better about Trout taking those 4th qtr shots. Which would say something else about max money.
Buck Williams for the hall of fame
I don't think an analysis by quarter...
…really does either player much service. It simply points out that the Blazers have complementary pieces and they’re used to shoulder the scoring load in different parts of the game.
I think a 5 year deal for $66.57m seems about right, that is $11m base with increases of 10.5% (of base) each following year.
Try this again.
I have noticed that the 1st and third quarters was his best quarters. Do you have the stats for the number of touches he has in the 1st and third quarter in comparison to his 2nd and 4th. Of course stats doesn’t show double teams and plugging the middle to force us to beat them from behind the arc.
Somebody that can observe the game with the eye (no comcast and a long way from the RG).could tell why. I thought maybe the rest of the offense just went away from him
hg
hg, I believe you are on to something!
Your thoughts raise some important questions. What quarters do you want your max players doing most of their leading in as a normal practice. Do they have to lead in every quarter of every game? I hope not! Hopefully the role players are going to step up at certain points during each game.
So what are the most important quarters? Where do you want your stars to spend their energy?
As a first priority, I would lean toward the second half, particularly the fourth quarter (closing out the game).
Second, I would lean toward the first quarter and getting off to a good start (setting a tone).
Third, I would say the status quo should at least be maintained in the second and third quarters (role players time, help as needed).
If this pattern, in any reasonable way, relates to winning, and if you have a top scorer who does not score much in the fourth quarter, then you may have a problem. And certainly, if a player wants to be a max player, they need to score when it counts most, i.e. when the games is on the line late.
Now, more to your point hg, this pattern is also an important aspect of team leadership. Max players are asked to lead in the fourth! It has been my observation that the PTB do not look for LMA to lead in this key part of the game. They do not get him the ball enough in the fourth with a single minded intent of having him score.
In essence, he inexplicably becomes a third or fourth option in the most important quarter! Is this a reflection of a real lack of ability on his part, or is this symptomatic of some other problem such as a lack of confidence in him.
At any rate, for me, if he is going to be a max player, he is going to have to put his foot down, demand the ball, and be willing to take the shots coming down the stretch with the game on the line. If he is not willing to take these shots, and make them, then that drops him into another category as far as contract negotiations and all star appearances are concerned.
There is more to an athlete than how fast they can run, they also better be able to see what they are doing and know why they are doing it.
It could also be another factor.
If LMA comes out gunning and hitting his target in the first, then the D tries to take him out of the game so he becomes a decoy to keep the D busy. That is when BRoy takes over. I have noticed in several games that BRoy doesn’t shoot hardly at all in the first quarter because he is getting LMA off to a good start and the rest of the crew.
I think you are right that the offense just goes away from him and forgets to come back to him. Then the coach shows the guards at half time what opportunities they are missing by not looking for LMA. Therefore in the third quarter they start going to him again. Then goes away from him again in the fourth. So ya he needs to get more confident and demand the ball in the fourth and not depend on BRoy so much.
I am not a statistician, but when BRoy missed the Cleveland game didn’t LMA score heavy in all four quarters. Meaning he was just leaning on BRoy to much. If that is so I will go kick him in the butt.
hg
by BBK on Sep 4, 2009 9:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Clearly, two points in the first quarter, count more on the scoreboard than two points
in the fourth quarter. Right? Am I right?
Or vice versa
The whole points by quarter thing is not a valid argument. We have several finishers. We don’t need another guy demanding the ball in crunch time. We need guys who can consistently score, no matter what the quarter is. And Aldridge can do that.
"HA HA HA HA HA
I'm not laughing, I'm just listing the five ugliest Blazers ever."
- rockingharder
Aldridge DOES NOT score consistently by quarters, that is part of the point. Also, LMA is not just another player, he is potentially a max or near max player, the second most important Blazer.
Also, a crunch time scorer’s value cannot be underestimated, even if they only score 12 points a game.
Lets say the game is tied at 95 with two minutes left. Who do you want in the game (foul trouble), LMA or B Roy? (and I do not think that decision is even close) Who do you want at the free throw line late, Rudy or Steve Blake? The mental aspects of the game really come into play as the game is on the line, and the clock is winding down. The real question here is, "what is LMA worth, is he a player that is going to continue to disappear in crunch time, or is he a max player just waiting to step up?"
There is more to an athlete than how fast they can run, they also better be able to see what they are doing and know why they are doing it.
Jamon51 is right that the points are needed throughout the game
The team concept uses different players for different roles. LMA’s role is different than Roy’s. One role not discussed here is LMA covering and carrying the team while Roy is on the bench. During those times LMA stays on the floor and pulls the defense away from other players allowing the offense to flow. That role likely reduces LMA’s shooting % because he draws the double teams. Without LMA’s production there is no crunch time because we are too far behind.
Your question (actually Dave’s) as to value depends on replacement value, not comparison with his teammates. Can the Blazers obtain comparable production from a replacement and if so, at what cost. Since the draft is the usual method to obtain high production players (especially bigs) while still young and the CBA skewers the advantage to the current team in FA contacts the team and the player both hold significant cards at the negotiation table. A closer is indeed harder to find than a consistently productive big man but both are scarce commodities.
Two points is always worth two points, it’s just that sometimes they go on sale, and other times they come at a premium!
There is more to an athlete than how fast they can run, they also better be able to see what they are doing and know why they are doing it.
All points count the same no matter when.
IMO, it is a myth that scoring the last point is more important then the first.
We have this discussion in bowling all the time. you put the best bowler as clean-up, supposedly because he can more likely get a strike to win the game. but the truth is that he just has the last chance to win the game. all the other players strikes are just as important. The team couldn’t have been in the position to win the game if somebody else missed their shot. The same thing is true in BB. The points in the first is just as important as the points in the fourth.
hg
by BBK on Sep 5, 2009 7:20 AM PDT up reply actions
I'd take Brandon Roy (recognises time and situation) over Allen Iverson (volume shooter) any time, any day.
Sorry hg, but bowling is not a good comparison. The bowling lane and the ball remain the same for every frame. The lane and the ball are not human, not emotional, not subject to time and score.
Basketball is a game played with defense. The levels of defense are always fluctuating, either from substitutions or defensive sets or time and score, or even from personal vendettas. As a simple matter of fact, the defense is tougher coming down the stretch of a tight game, particularly in playoff games.
That is why we see an increase of coaching involvement, with many coaches using their timeouts in this section of the game. That is also why we almost always see the personnel that the coach feels is going to give him the best chance of winning (i.e. situational substitution). And, that is also why a Brandon Roy or a Kobe Bryant is so important to have on a team if you want to win a title. Who is going to score the ball when all the marbles are on the line?
There is more to an athlete than how fast they can run, they also better be able to see what they are doing and know why they are doing it.
And without a ring!
If you value individual stardom over team play AI is among the best. If you consider team goals as preminent than AI was/is uncoachable wherever he has played and his teams ultimately suffered.
he took a HORRIBLE team to the finals.
i know there is all this revisionist history on him and some other players. but AI was devastating and his defense was considered decent at the time.
ridiculously talented and skilled, no doubt
But he didn’t produce effectively, which is why his teams weren’t that great, got better when he left, etc.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
dude. ai was dominant. im sure its hard to believe that now.
that team was all defense. araon mckie off the bench was the only other scoring source really (guy who could create his own shot.
ai’s quickness was literally unstoppable and his defense was disruptive. AI made the shots when it counted to. I still cannot believe that team made it that far.
his eFG% over that 22-game playoff run was .425%.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
dude! ai was dominant. his quickness was unparalleled.
he was a GREAT closer down the stretch. and on a team with no other scorers at all.
that lineup was deke, tyrone hill, eric snow… and one other guy i froget…
lol. they can’t even shoot! he was playing 1-5 lol.
Example: Robert Horry
16 seasons 7 NBA titles (great)
.359 career 3 point shooter (not so great)
7 ppg for his career (poor)
AKA= Big Shot Bob! (one of the best at money time!)
There is more to an athlete than how fast they can run, they also better be able to see what they are doing and know why they are doing it.
Ageeed, but a key, "crunch time," player on 7 championship teams.
At a career average of 7 points: with a high of only 13.
There is more to an athlete than how fast they can run, they also better be able to see what they are doing and know why they are doing it.
Having the poise to score the last point is invaluable in any sport.
All things being equal (talent, etc), I’ll take the player who can make the last shot any day. There are plenty of people who have the raw tools to be great, but only a few don’t let other things interfere with that.
Yes, all the points count, but momentum always shifts between teams that are within a stone’s throw of equal. Teams get up in the score column, relax, have mental lapses, etc. In NBA basketball, bias studies have shown that referees tend to favor the losing team. At the end of the day, the score is often closer than the teams’ overall skill levels would suggest. It comes down to which team will make the right decision in this scenario and which guy has the nerve to make that last shot.
It’s the quintessential human element of sports.
Here’s a hypothetical challenge: Find some dude at the Y, a great shooter in ratball games. Have him take 10 threes when he’s on. Then bet him your paycheck that he can’t match that percentage. Unless his heart pumps ice water, I’m sure you’d win some money more often than not.
They way people talk about his potential around here than those same people
should think that he deserves a max deal.
you can’t go claiming he is gonna be the next whomever and dominate with his high-release and competitive attitude and than turn around and say he aint worth the max. players get paid on potential all time.
further, teams have two guys at max deals all the time two. if he is indeed a #2 guy on a championship team he is max baby.
not saying i agree with it… in fact i think myself he would be a great #3. but thats just me. but that way i get to say he deserves less than the max.
I think he's going to be #3
even if he ends up the leading scorer, he’ll be less important than Brandon and Greg.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 4, 2009 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
ok than you got it right. if thats what you think (and i agree) than he shouldn't get the max.
im just saying i hear allot of LMA is gonna be an a-list player and then (im not sure if its the same people) saying he shouldn’t get paid the max.
players get paid on potential all the time and if people think his potential is sky high than show the man his money and be consistent. can’t ahve it both ways. its kinda getting me angry on here. not sure.
LMA could still be a-list
but he’s got some distance to go for that. He’s not an all-star yet.
A guy who has never been an all-star isn’t a max player, in my book.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
You can't ignore context, though.
Would LaMarcus be an All-Star in the Eastern conference? Who is better than him (or regarded as better or is more popular) among East forwards whose team is good enough to give them a shot at an All-Star berth?
- LeBron
- KG
- The Truth
- Predator
- Half-man, Half-marketing
Am I missing anyone? LaMarcus is right there.
rashard lewis made it...
but ya.. forwards are less deep in east.
kinda funny to think lewis is hyper max….
i think this conversation is funny cause of course he SHOULNT" get paid max… if your a fan of any team you dont want any player taking max cause that means more leeway for your team. the point is wha tis the market for lamarcus…
we will know if he rejects the blazers final offer of less than max and if he wants to hit free agency.
bosh a little sknny for predator nickname. brian grant is where its at.
bosh’s nickname is the rue paul of big men. lol shaq will be namen people for ever. he did the truth to me thinks.
Are you blind!
If Chris Bosh shaved his head down the middle, he could be the predators’ twin brother.
ronnie turiaf looks like the predator more to me. he blks shots too.
i really hope he gets some run. to me i dont know why don neslen didn’t play him at the 4 next to biedrens. oh ya cause don nelson doesn’t wanna play actual basketball.
ya see your opinion is more he COULD be but is more likely to be #3 and therefore deserves less than max.
if you are one of these peeps that says he is gonna most likleybe high-releasing it to a-list caliber then you can’t go saying he doens’t deserve max.
All-Star is overhyped
Doesn’t mean anything in my book.
"HA HA HA HA HA
I'm not laughing, I'm just listing the five ugliest Blazers ever."
- rockingharder
i think it means things to the players... agents... and the money making people...
not to mention that its endlessly fun to debate about it with buddies…
Yeah
it’s not going away. I just pretend it doesn’t exist. When the ballots come out literally weeks after the season starts it just looks like a sham.
"HA HA HA HA HA
I'm not laughing, I'm just listing the five ugliest Blazers ever."
- rockingharder
It means someone is scoring a lot on a winning team.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
All-star starter is overhyped
but the coaches choose the subs, so almost always the top five forwards are on the team.
If a forward has never had a single season where he is in the top five forwards in his conference, it’s hard for me to think he’s a max player.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
That's a great theory except....
Everyone knows that the All-star game is nothing more than a popularity contest. The same goes for the slam dunk competition. If you saw the dunk contest you know that Rudy did the most technically difficult dunk in the first round. 5’ 8" Nate Robinson jumped off of someones’ back for a dunk. Who got the higher score? Was there ever any doubt about the outcome? Even where the coaches select the rest of the players, don’t think that they’re not influenced by who the fans want to see. Just because Aldridge isn’t one of the top 5 forwards isn’t grounds by itself not to deserve a max contract. However, I agree with you in principal. He’s not a Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett type player. Let’s ask Washington what they think about the contract they gave Gilbet Arenas.
Popularity contest for starters
which reduces the opportunities for some better players. But coaches might be more inclined to recognize talent. The problem is that there are only so many slots for a particular position so a deserving player might be left off because someone else in the conference is even better.
Washington might still surprise some folks this year if Gilbert does get back to form (but I agree that he is not a max player to me).
One factor to remember is that max next year will be below top second-tier salaries two years ago. That is the effect of the economy.
5 years 63 mil.
+/- for incentives (all star) (rebounds) (assists) (championship)… or something along those lines. Similar to Roy’s contract. Let’s not forget that Roy has been making much less than LMA so far. I think that needs to be taken into consideration. I think that 4 years with 5th year hinged around incentives, at least two years allstar, at least 8 rebounds per game aver, at least 4 assists per game, and/or championship. Some combination of those 4, hitting at least 2 out of three in 4 years with the exception of a championship, would guarantee a 5th year bonus around 4-5 mil, although I’m no CBA expert, I think the numbers would work. That would be 67-68 mil if he hits the kickers in 4 years. If not, then 12.6 aver per year sounds about right… imho.
Get busy livin', or get busy dyin'. -the shawshank redemption.
Is adding rewards for past performance is good valuation technique?
Past performance might indicate future performance but what a player made in the past is history – is this relevant to the future (for future contracts)?
well, you're paying for what you expect to get
and past performance is the main indicator of that.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Thanks Dave--great coverage as always
Q. Is Lamarcus worth a max deal?
A. At this point he is close, but no. I guess he gets between 60-70million 4-5 years.
Q. As with Roy, should the Blazers just give him whatever he asks for and count themselves fortunate to have him?
A. We are very fortunate to have him, but you cant give him whatever he asks for. He is essential to our success, but contracts are to deep to just give money away. He deserves whatever is the most the Blazers can afford to give.
Q. Is he a future Co-#1, #1a, #2, or eventually something else altogether for this team?
A. I believe he will be a co-#1. He is that good already and getting better each season.
Q. How much negotiation power do you think he has and how much will the Blazers fight to lower his price?
A. I think he has barely less negotiating power than ROY. The Blazers shouldnt fight to lower his price, they should fight to make a fair deal though.
Q. Most importantly, how does this all turn out?
A. Ive been thinking about LMA’s contract alot, especially since Roys, deal was finalized. LMA should be signed before the start of the season is my guess (60 – 70 mil 4-5 years), and to quote some of Storytellers stuff from my earlier post:
SToryteller:
“I don’t know if I’d call this my official ‘guess’ but it was something I’ve been thinking about. In 2010-11, the Blazers look to be above the cap but below the tax threshold. Probably in the same boat in 2011-12. It’s starting in 2012-13 when the trio of Fernandez, Bayless and Batum all come off their rookie scale deals that the team salary figure could really go up. So, what about signing LMA to a deal that doesn’t have increases yearly but is flatlined or even drops a bit each year? As a way to ‘save’ money for future salaries.
For example, pay LMA in 2010-11 the same amount as what Roy gets – the max. This will probably be in the $12.5 to $13.0 million range. But instead of getting the raise in 2011-12 that Roy gets, Aldridge gets the same amount (or perhaps a bit less).
So let’s say the max is $12.5 million in 2010-11 and he makes that same amount each of the 5 years. That’s $62.5 million for the length of the contract. If he signed a ‘traditional’ contract for that amount with maximum raises, he’d make $10.3 million in 2010-11, $11.4 in 2011-12, $12.5 in 2012-13, $13.6 in 2013-14 and $14.7 in 2014-15. So he gets more upfront (when the team can afford it better) and less when the team is looking to up his teammates.
If that’s too much, give him a 2% decrease every year (2% of the first year’s salary), but again start him at the max. So if his first year was $12.5 million, he’d make $60 million over 5 years, but a bit frontloaded.
Just some ideas of how creative financing can fit LMA’s new deal into the timeframe in which future extensions/re-signings are going to be important."
http://www.blazersedge.com/2009/9/1/1011829/any-guesses-on-lmas-new-contract
The Dude: Hey, careful, man, there's a beverage here!
by cavejunctionblazer on Sep 4, 2009 10:46 AM PDT reply actions
In terms of winning titles
I agree wholeheartedly.
But the problem is that a baseline for Aldridge has to be set before the team has to go through the same process next year evaluating Oden. Greg is going to have to have some kind of breakout season this year to even be close to the figures we’re looking at for Roy or Aldridge.
Having two bigs with considerable potential is a bit of a double-edged sword for this team, since they’re historically going to be on the overpaid side.
The main sticking point in Aldridge’s negotiations may actually be due to the Blazers problem of having to account for Greg’s future contract as the future #2 title contending option conflicting with Aldridge’s desire to be paid as the current #2 producer.
Since the Blazers will be over the cap next year anyway
I can honestly say that I do not care how much PAM he takes home.
it matters if Mr. Allen wants to stay under the luxury tax, long-term
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Well, I'd like to see the team succeed, and it costs money to do that, and at the luxury tax threshold the cost doubles.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
I agree with the 10 mil a year people
He’s not a max player yet. He doesn’t dominate, and he is seemingly streaky at times. If I was him, I’d sign a shorter contract, and play for that max deal. Some of my rationale is based on the fact that having two max players is going to be fiscally difficult, especially in small market Portland where the Vulcans hold the purse strings.
Run. The vulcans are coming
Fine, the OLP album grew on me. It's defiantly change.
Pay him the max
Paul Allen’s yacht’s skiff has more square footage than the combination of all the houses I’ve ever lived in. LMA is the man. Pay him the max.
by 50backflips on Sep 4, 2009 12:56 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
gotta pay pux tax if u want ring
if portland ever wants a ring they are gona have to join the ranks of lux tax… just like every other good team out there..
by blazermania92983 on Sep 4, 2009 1:33 PM PDT reply actions
I hesitate...
To pay a guy who isn’t going to be handling the ball every trip down the court the big money. Simply put, he’s able to be shut down a lot easier than a guy like Brandon, or another guard/SF type.
That being said, he’s probably a year away from a max money contract, and the idea of a mid-range (7.5-8 Million a year) with LOADS of incentives, sounds fair to me. Lets say he averages 20-10. 5 Million for that. All-Star Team? 5 Million More. All-NBA? 8 Million More. Then a few team incentives, if I were Lamarcus, that’d be a sweet deal. Simply because, he’s on the doorstep for most all of those. I would love to see a deal done soon, mainly because it’ll not only help us feel secure, it’ll also allow us to begin gauging the market for next year, a little.
Nonsense!
I agree with the FACT that LMA has not hit many game winners or even super clutch shots but it is not because he is passing them up, it’s because he is not given the opportunity to shoot in the clutch. Come on! With all the praise and credit that is heaped on his teammate Brandon for hitting the clutch shots, do you really think it is necessary for LMA to endure fans doubting his value because he isn’t hitting shots he has NO OPPORTUNITY to take?
I mean think about it. The team’s in the huddle and Nate says, “okay Brandon, we are going to give you the ball and Joel’s gonna set a pick for you. Lamarcus, you and the others need to spread the floor and let my man B-Roy operate.”
So Lamarcus does his job and then gets to read a post from you about how he never hits clutch shots!
The truth is, if you look at LMA’s performance in BIG games against top opponents all of his important numbers go up. I understand this is not the same as being a clutch player, but against good teams you can have the best clutch player in the world but if the game isn’t close at the end, that guy’s useless.
I disagree
Trout takes those shots. Blakes takes those shots. I even saw Rudy heave a couple.
Somehow, some way, other players are getting those opportunities. Why not LMA?
1) LMA himself shies away from them
2) The coach denies him those opportunities
If item 1) is the case, then we can agree he’s not worth max money. If item 2) is the case, then this is a murkier problem where Nate is seeing something that may or may not be true.
But it is demonstrably case that the ball—for whatever reason—is not finding itself in LMAs hands in late game situations.
And the ball don’t lie.
Buck Williams for the hall of fame
by Phizbin on Sep 4, 2009 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Great points
There is clearly a issue here. Why, is more open to question, but there is clearly a 4th quarter, key moment, problem that he is also aware of. (not to mention defense and rebounding)
LMA needs to step up if he wants to get paid. Right now, he is a good player, but not at an elite level yet. I believe he has the talent, but until he consistently expresses HIS WILL upon the game like we saw him do at times last year, he will remain somewhat of an enigma.
Sometimes a dog just has to take a stand against the pack if he ever wants to get a piece of the bone. I don’t believe that avoiding the risk of stepping up, whether he is successful or not, is an option for Lamarcus! He has to take the chance. He is too talented not to at least try to be the best. Brandon or no Brandon, Greg or no Greg. It is on him as a man; he does not have a valid excuse that he lacks the talent to get it done.
There is more to an athlete than how fast they can run, they also better be able to see what they are doing and know why they are doing it.
His FG% drops in the 4th quarter
(35% the last 21 games). So we don’t want him taking those shots do we?
My theory for this is fatigue. He has to carry more weight while Roy is resting and is usually at 39 minutes at the end of the third quarter. He seems to leave it all out there by then. He still rebounds and defends in the crunch time but his sweet shooting touch is mostly gone.
Also, fatigue probably leads him to take more jump shots (and worse) than aggressive post moves.
And we all know aggressive post moves are higher percentage shots.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Declining contract a no-go
Lma should expect two sizable contracts before his career comes to a close since by the end of the extension we are discussing he’ll be 30 and should be paid one more time. If Lma signed a declining ocntract than the starting point of the second contract will be lower unless he goes to a team with cap space. It doesn’t seem reasonable for a player to sign a declingin contract until ths second post-rookie contract (when age will actually be a factor).
The crux of the problem is that if you have three near max players(Roy,Lma, and Oden), you don’t have very much money left for the other 9-12 players on the team as nearly 75% of the cap is taken up by 3 players. This will all go out the window if Paul Allen agrees to pays all his players open market price and then pay the tax. The risk is that other teams can force Allen to grossly overpay for role-players. Also to find out market price you have to let your role-players hit the Rfa market.
All good points
and well stated.
It is going to be hard to pay $40M+ per year for your 3rd best player (2nd FA contract)!
I love this site....
my thoughts:
Give him a “maxable” deal.
cut enough fat off it with some pretty “difficult to attain” conditions.
and make him earn the extra fat if he likes fat ya know? or make it fairly attainable whatever… just make it very possible, for both parties to be happy. and I’m sure we’ll meet in the middle.
bottom line is, he doesn’t want to become a restricted free agent… I mean that title kinda screams “second rate talent” given if he was the total package he’d have never hit the free agent status, right?
So if it’s possible to structure the deal so it was possible to get max, but, also if he doesn’t play like the max player, he gets paid less, but still paid.
I just know it’s going to get done, I mean it’s Kevin Pritchard backed by Paul Allen.
seriously when have we lost a player we 89%ish didn’t want to lose? (that makes sense right?)
The Faith don't panic, the faith freaks out, burns out farms, and torchs small villages in the name of The Faith.
"New Man Law: If you don't show up for the draft you don't get to come later if you're picked. If you believe in yourself, show up and sit there. If nobody else believes in you, take it and cry like a man...in front of the cameras."
-Dave
89% k maybe 58%
The Faith don't panic, the faith freaks out, burns out farms, and torchs small villages in the name of The Faith.
"New Man Law: If you don't show up for the draft you don't get to come later if you're picked. If you believe in yourself, show up and sit there. If nobody else believes in you, take it and cry like a man...in front of the cameras."
-Dave
LMA has more leverage then most seem to think
Last year he was our best and sometimes only inside scoring threat. When he’s out of the game we become even more of a jump shooting team.
PF is our thinnest position.
Our interior defense greatly suffers when he’s out of the game.
His jump shooting ability moves opposing pf’s out of the lane for B-Roy’s drives.
JRogero
How much should we pay for the next
Bird, McHale and Parrish? Do you think that’s a stretch? I think not. If you’re Paul Allen would you miss your last best chance for an entire generation to win titles with a team that’s “already in place?” And miss it for what; a few lousey bucks you intend to recoup anyway from playoffs, television and ticket revenues. LMA is one of the most complete and impactful young PF’s playing today, so pay him like the star he is.
Good question perhaps Boston supplies the answer
Bird top year was 1991-1992 @ $7.07M (100%)
McHale top year was 1991-1992 @ $3.5M (49.5%)
Parrish top year was 1993-1994 @ $4.0M (56.6%) 1991-1992@ $3.0M (42.4%)
So basically if Roy gets $11.5M, LMA would get 42.4% or $4.9M and Oden gets 49.5% or $5.7M.
The other dominant team of the era was the L*kers. the last year they were together was 1987-1988;
Magic Johnson $2.5M (100%)
Kareem Abdul-Jabar $2.0M (80%)
James Worthy $1.1M (44%)
Using this model if Roy gets $11.5M, Oden gets $9.2M. LMA gets $7.4M.
Now we see the problem with historical comparisons. All 6 of these comparison players are enshrined in the Basketball Hall of Fame. All deserved it but Parrish and maybe McHale would not have been without Bird, and Worthy, maybe not without Magic and Kareem. Is LMA deserving of a higher stake? Jscot’s suggestion above of 80-85% of Roy would exceed these comparisons significantly (and is probably the most practical solution).
I would trade him
I’d trade him for David Lee. We had a power forward that was affraid of the paint in Wallace. Were going to need a banger down low to clean up any Oden misses. Not a power forward that’s already at mid court. Sorry, but he’s still too much of a head case. Seems like every year there’s an article written about him where he say’s that he’s “thinking” too much. Players that mess with thier own head don’t usually turn into superstars. I like LMA for his work ethic but I think David Lee would fit in better long term. And no, LMA is not a max player. I’m tired of players getting offended when they are not offered max deals. 40 mil is insulting? Pfff…
David Lee isn't a very good player
He’s a much better rebounder than LMA, but he has a limited offensive game boosted by the Knicks fast pace and loose style, and he is an extremely awful defender. He, in fact, does not defend, and you can’t have that in a starting big on a good team. Ever.
LMA isn’t a great defender, but he is decent and will improve with experience. He’s great at pressing, gets a lot of deflections, is decent man on man and rarely gets manhandled, and great on showing and recovering on the pick and roll. His biggest problem is offering weakside help and controlling the interior from drivers. He isn’t aggressive enough.
David Lee wants to be paid 10 million. I’ll go with LMA every day of the week.
LMA is a great offensive rebounder, by the way, so he and Oden should get a lot of each other’s misses.
Mortimer
If David Lee gets $10 million
LaMarcus should get $12 million or more.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
Well, I doubt Lee will get 10 million
But yeah, LMA should get more than Lee.
I am in the “David Lee is way overrated and a good rebounder but not much else and is best used as a 6th man and his limitations make him not a good starter for a good team” camp, however.
Imagine LMA in D’Antoni ball. His numbers would be silly!
Mo—
I should add
His defensive problems are greatly diminished as a 6th man. If Lee would be happy in that role (and apparently he won’t be), I’d love him as a Blazer. You’d never worry about rebounding and garbage buckets.
But I feel I can safely predict Lee will never be the starting PF for a team that goes deep in the playoffs.
Morty, again!
Word is Lee will be offered about $7M for 1 year only
Since the free agency money (except OKC) has dried up his value is not established beyond that for this year. Next year he is part of the big crap shoot but has the considerable risk that teams will need to put their wallets away and conserve to survive the economy and will have to compete with Boozer, Stoudemire and many others for the money that is spent.
And yes, LMA is certainly more valuable than Lee to me, even though my name is lee!
I wonder what David Lee's pace-adjusted stats look like
I’d wager somewhat less impressive.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
His pace adjusted stats
are nearly identical to his pre-Mike D stats. Maybe you don’t like PER, but it’s at least a decent amalgamation of box score stats that is pace adjusted. By the year’s:
15.4, 20.2, 18, 19, with only the last year being a D’Antoni year.
PER gets credit for being pace and time adjusted
Anyway, thanks for confirming my suspicion.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Oddly enough
at some point in my life I discovered that a dollar bill weighed about 1 gram.
1 dollar/1 gram x 1000grams/1kg x 907 kg/1ton = 907,000 dollars/1 ton
I actually think Lamarcus is worth 10 tons of cash Dave. (about 9 million per.)
"CRUSH YOUR ENEMIES, SEE THEM DRIVEN BEFORE YOU, AND HEAR THE LAMENTATION OF THEIR WOMEN." CONAN
by SELFDESTRUCTABLE on Sep 4, 2009 9:22 PM PDT reply actions
But are we going to pay him in $1 bills?
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
CTC?
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Oh, cut the check. Got it.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Ok, the way I see it
I look at who is out there in his age range who got a contract coming up that’s worth more than LMA.
I get Chris Bosh. That’s it. Unless Stoudamire is coming up, then him too.
Who else?
If there is only one guy in the league who is better than you at this point in your career, you’re probably a max or near max guy.
Josh Smith is in the discussion, who is also 23 but already has 5 years of experience and thus is already on his 2nd contract
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/tiny.cgi?id=kt7ak
He matches LaMarcus in scoring (both not terribly efficient from outside) and is the better passer, shot blocker, and defensive rebounder. Apart from that, there isn’t much coming. Stoudamire, Gasol, etc. are all older than LMA and Bosh. Of the younger guys, maybe one day Brook Lopez (though he is more a center) and Kevin Love (Wolves fans already think that, leading to some heated discussions. Well, and Bulls fans still think Tyrus but that’s pretty silly). Who knows how Griffin will turn out, maybe he could be a good mix between classic and modern PF.
So I agree, at the moment LaMarcus is the second-best PF under 25, definitely in the first tier of top guys.
There's Gotta Be More To Life
To all the posters
It is easy to throw out amounts and years when it is someone else’s money.
I know many of you are probably in the know of how negotiations work, but most of us are just speculating on his value.
All of the factors that has been discussed is important in negotiations, but how do you put a value on his potential or his worth for 5 years when that is an unknown. The incentive program sounds like the best option to us fans, but how do you put $ amounts on each incentive.
I don’t think there is a problem with LMA’s contract negotiations. his agent was on vacation and KP was in Europe.
what it will boil down to is LMA’s camp will try to get all they can and the front office will cut that as much as they can.
In the end I am very confident that LMA will get a good contract. It doesn’t matter if we think it is fair or not because that is all up to LMA and the brass.
I am for one hoping they get it settled soon soas I can take a deep breath in September (sorry Mike Barret).
Anyway, I was just trying to let everybody know that all these post has been fun and educational to me.
Now, I am like someone else above, my brain is dead and I have to go to bed
hg.
Why not just go 3 years
34-36M w/ some incentive bonus and his next contract w/ the Blazers will be max?
Hey hg how are you?
You’ve pretty much echoed what I said elsewhere about the ease with spending other peoples’ money. Everyone’s so generous on these sites when it comes to ponying up Paul Allens’ cash. I’m not a big fan of incentive clauses simply because I don’t believe it actually makes any difference in the level of play that you’re going to coax out of someone. If millions of dollars and the ‘love’ of the game can’t light a fire under your ass then nothing will. The color of money is the same as the color of greed and envy, Celtic green.
The incentives aren't just to make him want the money
It’s so we aren’t paying for a player we don’t get, should he not fulfill his full potential.
By making performance markers, we pay him more if he continues to develop, and if he remains the same we pay him for his current production.
In theory.
It isn’t so stoke some “love of the game” fire out of him, or for him to focus on stats. It’s so, if he plays better and improves, he gets paid thusly, and vice versa.
Mortimer
OK, I'll bite
Does this mean that if a player fails to meet his full potential that he will have money taken away? I’m not talking about money not earned yet ,in the case of incentive clauses. You can’t lose something you never had possession of in the first place.Hey, what does Mortimer mean anyway? Is that the code word for Darius Miles? Darius, is it really you? If it’s the clown from the movie “Trading Places” than take a cue from Eddie Murphy and declare “I can see!”
What?
I don’t understand your response, but the way I see it is:
LMA says “I’m going to be a 20-10 or 22-9 guy, consistently, for the next 5 years. I should be paid like that.”
Blazers come back with “Well then IF you put up those numbers, you will be (incentives), but until you do that, only so much money is guaranteed.”
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Stats are for rats. Are we mice or men?
I think not so fondly of Zach Randolph whenever I hear someone preaching statistics. It was our own beloved Nate McMillan who ran seemingly every play thru Randolph at the offensive end. I’ve developed some mind reading skills over the years, and what I heard out on the court was, “If one more play goes through Zach I’m going to pull a Vernon Maxwell and go into the crowd and rip someones toupe’ off!” Statisticly the blazers were in the middle of the pack when it came to team defense. I watched every game they played last season and can say unequivocably that they got beat on defense on a regular basis. Other than steals, there is no statistic that can equate a players’ value defensively. All the smoke and mirrors is just that, smoke and mirrors.
Well yeah, stats are limited, but they do give a strong indication of what production a player offers.
+/- or on/off court stats are the only way to really measure defense though, it’s much more subjective.
I don’t think LMA is going to turn into Randolph, and furthermore, I think it’s kind of assumed that some of the incentives clauses would be for wins, WCF, Finals, championship.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Steals don't give a good picture, either
And as far as getting beat on defense on a regular basis, every team in the NBA gets beat on a regular basis.
There is no way to consistently stop an NBA team. Too many advantages lie with the offensive team.
The Blazers were an average defensive team last year.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
Give me a break
It’s simple economics. He’s going to play basketball anyways, “for the love of the game”, so that’s irrelevant. If I can do something I love for $50 million, why would I accept $40 million to do it. He’s playing the game either way. It’s not like his options are either to make $40 million playing basketball or make $65 million at a desk job.
As far as the incentive clauses, it’s to induce him to sign. He’s probably not going to sign a flat contract for about $50 million because he could probably be guaranteed more than that on the open market. If the value of the contract can rise above what he might be able to get on the market, he’ll be more likely to sign. He wins because he has a nice chunk of change guaranteed, but also is somewhat in control of making more money (if he puts in the work to meet the incentives, he gets paid more). The Blazers win because if he’s meeting the incentives, then we have him at a fair price.
All this crying over billionaire’s pocket books is a little ridiculous, as is the assertion that the Celtics are somehow more blindly money-driven than any other team in the NBA.
Some issues for LaMarcus to discuss with the Blazers
This is not a slam dunk or it would be done. Here are some issues not resolved:
1. The Blazers are soon moving into luxury tax space. Every dollar added to salaries will cost two. How important are the team goals to LMA? Is he willing to see himself as a slightly-sacrificial critical part of a smooth efficient machine or must he have money as a higher goal?
2. The statistics for the team last year showed that it got stronger and played better in the second half of the season, unlike the year before. Unfortunately this was not true for LaMarcus (note the declining FG%), raising stamina and conditioning questions among others and rendering him relatively ineffective in the 4th quarter. If he wants to be paid as a star should he be working to improve on this critical area? How can he demonstrate to the team that this is going to has changed?
3. Although LaMarcus is a key part of the Blazers’ foundation, historically the 2nd or 3rd leg of a championship team is paid considerably less than the top star (see my notes above regarding Boston and LA in Oregonslee post). Does LaMarcus see Brandon Roy as that star and if so is he willing to slot into that place of 50-80% of the top? If LaMarcus now wants to be the top star what is his plan for improving to move past Brandon and how soon will that become reality?
4. If the Blazers are committed to continue to build on their momentum and move to the next level is the organization willing to sacrifice by paying market value for the key PF in that equation.
In response to 2
LMA played much better after the All-Star break, getting more rebounds and drawing more fouls. Also I remember him playing very well down the stretch, and fairly crappily in November and December.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
He did raise his defensive rebounding about 1.8 boards per game in the last quarter of the season
But his FG% dropped 3% in the 2nd half and his FG% in the 4th quarter of games went sour at 37% and 35% in the last two quarters of the season.
by lee3022 on Sep 6, 2009 2:18 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Wow, I hadn't noted the 4th quarter drop, but I did see the overall fg%. Can't have it all our way.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Great stat!
There is more to an athlete than how fast they can run, they also better be able to see what they are doing and know why they are doing it.
Just CTC baby!
Royster sweet Royster:
Your logic makes perfect sense in a me-first world, and sadly that is the world we live in today. Your opinion is popular among those who value money above all else, I can’t argue that. I bring up the love of the game because so few professional athletes can remember the days when that’s all there was when they stepped out onto the court or the field. That is why it was so refreshing to hear Martel Webster make such a bold revelation. Playing sports has been reduced to a mirage of loyalty to whomever doles out the most coin. I know there are plenty of people who exist who would applaud Hedo Turkaglu for reneging on a handshake for another cool $5 mil also. Just don’t count me among them.
Are you kidding me?
If Martell were making the minimum rather than just having signed a $20 million extension, maybe he would e singing a different tune.
The point I was making above that you seem to be so offended by is that LaMarcus probably won’t sign a deal for $50 million or $55 million total because he thinks he deserves more. I’ve stated above that what he’s probably looking for is something in the $65 million range. So rather than just guarantee that to him, it makes more sense to put it in the form of partial incentives so if he stalls in his development, gets injured, or stagnates, Paul Allen saves a cool $10 million (or some percentage of that). I’d think that’d be looking out for his wallet, if anything.
As far as this reducing to who doles out the most coin, give me a break. This is these guy’s livelihood. All of a sudden I’m some sort of money-worshipping nihilist for suggesting that LaMarcus would sign a contract elsewhere if he was offered more money? It’s called reality. Were you busting on Roy for not signing the first contract the Blazers put in front of him, too? I mean, he’s making millions of dollars, he should just be happy to be out there playing a game he loves, rather than insisting on the max, right?
Paul Allen just got finished paying Raef Lafrentz and Steve Francis a combined $60 million over the past two years to not play, and now it’s an affront to suggest that he pay a guy who’s actually a solid player his going rate. This isn’t anything out of the ordinary. Even the Hawks, one of the notoriously cheapest teams in the league are paying Joe Johnson max money and Josh Smith roughly what’s being proposed of LA. The Blazers roughly broke even last year and now they get to clear off $30 million in payroll, but I guess it’s more important to you that Paul Allen can turn a profit than putting together a good basketball team.
If you want to make a moral stand and refuse to pay him any more than some presumably lower amount, then I hope you’re happy with not seeing LaMarcus in a Blazer uniform that much longer.
Or any of our other good young players
To keep guys like Rudy, Batum, Oden around, we’re gonna “overpay”.
It’s how it works.
Of course, if we aren’t GOOD, then we don’t overpay. We trade.
M—
The league is aging
the big names of yesterday are on their last legs. LMA is something new and special, like Chris Bosh. People just don’t see it yet because they still have images of Tim Duncan or Amare Stoudemire in their heads. Whether he is worth the max or gets the max is not very relevant. He will be paid the going rate for an A List entertainer. We can debate a little if he’s a full fledged A Lister because he’s still a little young and a little unpolished, and because it’s fun to debate a little.
Amar'e is only 27
Though it seems like he’s been a fixture a long time, he’s no Tim Duncan age-wise.
Potential is exciting though.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Yes, I knew his age when I posted
Yesterday’s news is what I might have stated. LMA is really today’s story along with Randolph, Smith, MIllsap and Bosh. There are more worth mentioning and they are belong to the new wave. They have nice games without the injuries and headcases some of the established players show.
Royster and Mortimer: Are you guys a couple?
Relax spanky, you’re starting to foam a little bit.
?
I know you’re thinking you’re sounding biting and witty, but it comes across as offputting and weird. I’m not sure what you’re going for, both with the talks about how it’s not our money, and acting as if we’re freaking out at the thought someone would discuss this matter in a way we don’t necessarily agree with.
You don’t want stat-whores, but stats are still the way to measure performance and productivity.
Paul Allen is rich.
NBA players make a lot for playing a game, a game many play for free.
LMA, as a big, and with recent contracts to other bigs, will have a contract that at least begins at 10 million.
Which are you arguing for or against? I am not sure if you know what you are arguing. Just typing confusing snippy remarks does not equal sarcastic funnies.
Mortimer
And also
It might be easier to follow your line of thought if ya hit the ‘reply’ button underneath the post you’re referencing. That’s not me being snide in return, it’s just how people respond to the comment they’re responding to.
Morty
Ya, I tried that but sometimes it doesn't work.
If it’s clarity you are seeking than let me put it this way. A statement was brought up in another column about leadership. By this persons definition, a leader was one who put the best interests of the group first and self last. Kind of the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. If this leadership quality was applied to nba players and the contracts they demand, then the financial implications to the team would come first. The point I was making about Hedo Turkaglu seemed self explanatory. Maybe you are among those who find nothing wrong with turning your back on a commitment. A mans handshake and his word used to mean something. If you want to accuse me of being on a moral highhorse, that’s ok. I do not admire anyone who lacks integrity. As for your snare of a question about Brandon Roy and whether he deserved his max deal. The answer to players’ escalating salaries lies in the collective bargaining agreement, the players union and the owners. Unless some drastic measures are taken soon you are going to see more and more teams going belly up.
First off, while I'm flattered to be grouped with Mort,
I don’t see what Hedo has anything to do with here. If you agree on a deal, you should keep your word regardless. The difference is, LaMarcus hasn’t agreed on any deal with us. Because he signed a 4 year contract after we drafted him, he’s suddenly somehow obligated to stay with us his entire career?
He agreed to play with us for 4 years after getting drafted. Beyond that, if we want him to keep playing for us, we have to make an agreement to for the next 4 years (or 2, 3, 5, or whatever). This isn’t a referendum on whether LaMarcus keeps his word because he hasn’t promised anything. Hedo’s situation may have been a question of integrity, LaMarcus’s isn’t. If he had agreed to a $50 million deal and then turned around and said, “Nope, I want 65”, there’d be an analogue, but since that hasn’t happened, the situations have nothing in common.
Personally, I really don’t see how proposing that Paul Allen pay what is most likely market value is a matter of integrity.
Well, I think we agree on most of it
I don’t like what Hedo did, it showed what sort of person he is. I know 5 million is still 5 million bucks, but a chance to be a part of something special (a chance he won’t get in Toronto, as he just waits for his contract and career to end) is worth that at the end of his career.
I PERSONALLY didn’t ask whether Roy deserved a max contract, so you might have me confused with another poster, BUT, salaries aren’t escalating. They are shrinking already. The last CBA limited contracts to 5 years (a good compromise) and the first contract after a rookie deal is limited by a certain percentage of the salary cap. As the cap shrinks, so do the max deals.
No teams have gone belly up, and no teams are set to. I’m not sure why you say that, or what it is based upon.
The contracts were out of control in the late 90’s and 00’s, and the last few CBA’s have reigned it in quite a bit. I personally think the players deserve as much as they can get, because they are why we watch and follow this sport. They have a special, elite talent.
Mortimer
I was the one who threw out the Roy comparison
just because I’m sure if Roy had wanted to, we could have had a deal done the first day, but it got dragged out because he wanted more guaranteed money. I don’t think that makes him some sort of mercenary any more than LaMarcus’s situation makes him one.
Somewhere along the line this got dragged into a completely different discussion along the lines of Hedo/Boozer that I simply cannot see any parallel with LaMarcus. I don’t fault Brandon or LA, or even CP3, Deron, Joe Johnson, Bosh, LeBron or whoever for negotiating what they feel is a fair amount, but once a deal is agreed (Hedo), I’d like to see them stick by it.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
