Heard that idea floated, but isn't Bledsoe in the backcourt with Lillard the same problem as him and Knight in Phoenix?Originally Posted by Kingspoint
Heard that idea floated, but isn't Bledsoe in the backcourt with Lillard the same problem as him and Knight in Phoenix?
“I don’t care,” Votto said of passing his friend and former teammate. “He’s in the past. Bye-bye, Jay.”
Why would Aldridge want that max contract when it actually makes him more money to go for three years? Sure, he'd give up some on the front end, but he more than makes that back when the cap jumps.
Makes no sense for him.
He'll sign with San Antonio, IMO. They'll then be the favorites in the West. But they have to hope last season's Tony Parker isn't the Tony Parker that shows up this year. He was bad.
Why would Monroe go to Portland over Boston, New York, or LA (more media exposure)? Assuming the money's the same.
Pretty much. But, with the additions and losses the Blazers have made, they need Offense, better passing and a need to stretch the Defense. Bledsoe provides all three.
"One problem with people who have no vices is that they're pretty sure to have some annoying virtues."
Because NY and LA are terrible franchises right now and have been for awhile. They aren't going to win anything for many, many years. Portland has flirted with Monroe for several seasons and have made it known to him that they covet him. Players want to be wanted. Olshey is a great recruiter and Paul Allen has unlimited money and the team has a great plane to travel on, great facilities to practice at. Boston has a lot to offer, but they have Amir Johnson just signed to start at PF with Sullinger pushing for starters minutes there, too. Monroe would start over Tyler Zeller and Olynyk, so it's a possibility there.
But, most importantly, Monroe is going to feel most coveted by Portland, and that should be the main reason he signs, besides him having the best lineup around him by a very, very wide margin. He hated having so much responsibility on him last season, and it effected his play. He's a 28-minute per night player, not 31-minutes like he played last year.
"One problem with people who have no vices is that they're pretty sure to have some annoying virtues."
Financially, it's not a good decision. His best financial decision is to sign a 1-year contract with Portland, and then do a sign-and-trade next season. He gets an extra $60M over five years by doing this. But, if he leaves Portland now, then he doesn't get his Bird rights for three seasons, as you mention. He would get more money, but he'll also get two max contracts if he signs with San Antonio, whether he signs a 3-year or a max now. May as well take the extra guaranteed money.
"One problem with people who have no vices is that they're pretty sure to have some annoying virtues."
Monta Ellis is in Indiana to meet with Larry Bird and the Pacers.
The Pacers are reportedly prepared to offer a three-year, $32 million deal, so they might actually get a deal done after this meeting. If it doesn't go down, expect the Kings, Heat and Mavs to get a crack at Monta.
Source: Candace Buckner on Twitter
"One problem with people who have no vices is that they're pretty sure to have some annoying virtues."
McCollum blossomed in the playoffs last year with more playing time. He'll be given Wes Matthews' shooting guard spot to see what he can do. (With good reason-- Dude can play.) Aminu will play more PF this year in small ball lineups than SF. He just can't shoot well enough as a SF to keep him there.
I'm really interested in seeing how Portland attacks this season. They have some really novel players. Lilliard is a shoot-first PG who takes (and makes) ridiculously bad shots. (He reminds me of a superior Vernon Maxwell.) McCollum's a good shot who isn't good defensively but should be. Aminu is phenomenal on the boards and a decent defender, but he can't shoot to save his life. And won't. Ever. I've seen him pass up layups, for God's sake. His counterpart in larger lineups is likely to be Mason Plumlee, a hyper-athletic big 'tweener. Meyers Leonard is a stretch five who can shoot from distance. He's a match-up nightmare that should see much more clock this year. That doesn't include Noah Vonleh, who did absolutely nothing last season in no time on the court. He's a cypher at this point, but the Blazers should give him some time.
Should be a fun team to watch.
I just realized you were referring to a sign-and-trade with Phoenix to get the extra year. The reason would be about $25M more guaranteed monies over a five-year period. LaMarcus had a lot of injuries this season. One has to think about it when they are in their 30's.
"One problem with people who have no vices is that they're pretty sure to have some annoying virtues."
Olshey has stated the if McCollum wants minutes, he's going to have to improve his PG abilities. He won't start over Henderson at SG, and we still may not have our SG on the team. McCollum starting at SG is a fallback option, but it's not what Olshey wants. He wants C.J. backing up Damian at PG and backing up whoever at the SG position. The team is loaded at PF and absent of any SF's. Aminu is the only true SF on the team. While he's not a shooter, he probably won't play much at the 4 in small-ball lineups.
The most likely small-ball lineup Stotts would use right now would be McCollum-Lillard-Henderson-Leonard-Plumlee. Leonard can run the floor extremely well.
There's still a mystery player to be added to the rotation, and I really have no idea who that is. Again, this team is lacking enough passers, enough shooters and enough Offense....as it sits right now. They really need another Guard who can shoot and pass (Bledsoe) to play Stott's style of small ball.
There's some major spacing issues with this group of players as it is. You could move the wing players to the baseline to open things up for Lillard and McCollum, whereas Aldridge allowed it's wing players to be on the 45-degree arc and shoot from there. McCollum is probably the team's best mid-range shooter right now. That's uncomfortable.
Last edited by Kingspoint; 07-01-2015 at 04:51 PM.
"One problem with people who have no vices is that they're pretty sure to have some annoying virtues."
From Grantland's Zach Lowe:
That advantage means much less with the coming cap boom, which opens up options that used to be too risky for players or teams. Aldridge could sign a two-year max deal with another team, then hit free agency again, sign another two-year max deal, and make more money in just the next four years — about $111 million — than Portland can offer in that traditional five-year max contract. Over the full five years, Aldridge could earn about $35 million more double-dipping in free agency than by signing the longest possible contract with the Blazers this summer. THIRTY-FIVE MILLION...
That max percentage increases from 30 percent to 35 percent once a player logs 10 years in the league. Next year will be Aldridge’s 10th season, and that gap of five percentage points will represent something like $4 million or $5 million per year1 — or as much as $20 million over the life of a contract. Aldridge has a double incentive to hit free agency again as soon as possible.
From Rotoworld w/ Rotworld comments:
The Lakers will not be signing LaMarcus Aldridge, according to Mike Bresnahan of the Los Angeles Times.
According to this credible report, Aldridge disliked the basketball part of the presentation, which is a fairly important part of basketball free agency.
Source: Mike Bresnahan on Twitter
Unrestricted free agent LaMarcus Aldridge and Kobe Bryant "didn't quite gel" at their meeting.
LMA reportedly "didn't quite get answers from Kobe we was seeking." The Lakers have a lot of attractive parts of their franchise, but it's really going to be hard to convince free agents to sign there with Kobe's $25 million on the books this upcoming season.
Source: Mike Bresnahan on Twitter
Last edited by Kingspoint; 07-01-2015 at 05:07 PM.
"One problem with people who have no vices is that they're pretty sure to have some annoying virtues."
Lillard, McCollum, Henderson, Aminu, and Plumlee would be the lineup I'd go with in small ball. Unless, of course, Vonleh proves something over the next few months.
Too, if McCollum isn't starting over Henderson, it's a mistake. Henderson's okay, but he's certainly nothing special. McCollum has a chance to be a 20 point a game scorer. Henderson, because of his Duke education, can spell twenty. (But only just barely.)
From Dave Deckard of Blazersedge.com
As far as I know, LaMarcus Aldridge's free agency decision has nothing to do with hating Portland. He may have frustrations with the town or franchise but who doesn't when you work in the same place for 9 years straight?
But even if you just consider the money angle, things aren't quite as clear cut as you paint them.
It's true that the Blazers can offer more money than any other team when you compare any two apples-to-apples situations. But Aldridge isn't limited to just apples. Another team's orange (differently structured contract) can get pretty close to Portland's apple. Aldridge isn't just comparing a couple offers, but a virtual cornucopia.
Let's consider the max offer that Aldridge could take in one swoop right now. Other teams can offer 4 years for around $80 million. The Blazers can offer 5 years for around $108 million. That's a difference of $28 million in favor of the Blazers, which is huge. But notice the difference requires an extra year of service to Portland. If you factor in a prospective 5th year from another team (after his current contract expires) Aldridge would make over $110 million in that city too.
Now let's imagine another team offers him a 2-year deal at around $38 million, after which he'd re-sign. He'd be under special "Early Bird" rules, which would limit his raises to 150% of his former salary. But that still ends up being 150% of around 19 million, which puts his rake over the next 3 years between $28-29 million per season. With raises his 5-year take now stands over $125 million, not the $108 million the Blazers could offer right now.
But Portland can come back and offer a 1-year deal followed by a max-resigning with full Bird Rights for 35% of the 2016 salary cap. Now we're around the $150 million mark over the next 5 years.
Just in these brief, spitball examples we've set out a buffet of $80 million, $108 million, $110+ million, $125 million, and $150 million...and we could even put another year on that last Portland offer and push it above $180 million. Head spinning yet with the choices? Aldridge's may be too.
Portland always ends up with the top number in a given scenario, but understand that Aldridge can choose any of these levels to buy in on and he doesn't have to choose Portland in order to get some of them. If he wants to view an orange (county?) offer as equivalent to the Trail Blazers' apple because the dollar difference is only a few million and the risk doesn't seem that great to him, that's within his prerogatives.
A "Clear-cut" decision would be Portland being able to guarantee Aldridge a $108 million, 5-year deal right now and other teams only able to guarantee 4 years at $80 million with no reasonable expectation that the 5th year of service to them would push him past the $108 million that the Blazers were offering. That's how it's worked every season CBA up until this very moment, which is why these decisions have been more obvious. But new TV money will soon push the salary cap--and the willingness of teams to pay star players--far higher than it's been heretofore. $80 million vs. $108 million aren't the only choices anymore, just two of many. It's a great time to be a free agent, not so great if you're trying to retain one.
We also have to understand that finances aren't just about math and ledgers. Numbers in a bank account quantify wealth in easily-defined terms, but perception of wealth is far more complex and personal.
When you say, "There's no way I'd turn down an extra $20-40 million! This is simple!" you're speaking from your own reality. If you're like most of us, you're lucky to have a bank account that reads 5 digits before the decimal point hits. If somebody offered you $20 million you'd jump in the air twice, fall to the floor, pee your pants, and scream. Then when you realized you just messed up your floor you'd say, "Screw it!" and buy yourself not just a new pair of jeans, but a new house to go around them. And no wonder! That amount would represent 1000 times your current savings.
LaMarcus Aldridge has made $70 million already in his 9-year career. He has a reasonable expectation of making at least $110 million more over the next 5 years alone. $20 million represents a smaller percentage of his earnings than yours. It may or may not be the same kind of obvious inducement to him that it is to you.
People view money differently. I don't presume to know how Aldridge views it. For most of us, though, wealth reaches a point of diminishing returns. Once we have our basic needs met, a few desires granted, and feel reasonably secure in our future, financial concerns become subordinate to happiness.
When you have nothing, you'll take $20 million over anything else that makes you happy because you figure you can buy a ton of other things that make you happy with that money. Whatever you're missing, you just purchase something to substitute for it. When you have $180 million you've already purchased most of the things that money can buy. You start weighing other types of happiness against the utility of $20 million more and find that decision isn't a simple as it used to be.
If someone offered me $500,000 a year to write in State A and $1 million a year to write in State B, I'd almost certainly take the million dollar offer no matter what I thought of the two states. I'd figure I couldn't make up that much money any other way.
Change those offers to $5 million a year versus $7 million and I look at the issue in a new light. If State A had better craft beer, if I were closer to my family, if I had my eye on a little house at the beach, if my spouse had a strong preference, I'd probably take the $2 million hit to live in State A.
Financially this make no sense. Over a 5-year period I'd be losing $10 million in the second scenario, which is twice as much as I'd even make in the first one. But I'd be comfortable with it because anything I really wanted to buy would be covered by $5 mil as easily as $7 mil, plus I'd be surrounded by readily-available beer choices, live closer to my family, and have a happy spouse.
If you doubt me, I sincerely invite you to try making these offers to me. (My e-mail is blazersub@gmail.com.) I'll be ecstatic to demonstrate how it works in real time. There's a nice place in Neskowin that was for sale the last time I was down there and for $5 million annually I can begin writing right away.
Again, though, we don't know what Aldridge is thinking. He may be the type that prizes every penny over other concerns. If so, that's good news for Portland.
Dave,
If LaMarcus leaves I'm calling him disloyal. I know you're gonna disagree with me but seriously won't you feel just a little burn? How about if he goes to the L*kers? I'm ready to boo him out of the building. After 9 years with the team that drafted you, you don't do that!
C.H.
Yeah, I'm gonna disagree with you. And yeah, even if it's the Lakers.
I'm going to disagree with you because of what I just explained. Nobody can tell Aldridge what it means to be happy and nobody has the right to take away his pursuit of that happiness. Even if he makes decisions with different priorities than I would, he's allowed. If he leaves, I'll be glad in a way that he's not simply pursuing the biggest paycheck. I suspect his life will end up better that way.
LaMarcus Aldridge has done everything he's contractually obligated to do for the Portland Trail Blazers and he's done it well. The city and the franchise owe him nothing but thanks. If he signs up to do it for another 5 years, that's great. Then new expectations can take hold. But if he doesn't, nothing more is owed or should be expected. He has the right to make that choice. It's neither disloyal nor worthy of reprimand.
If Aldridge remains with the Blazers and his stats fall to 9 ppg on 28% shooting, I will also defend your right to talk about trading him. That's how the game works. When a player is under contract to your team you have the right to speak about him as a player and consider him solely in basketball terms (as long as you don't deny or overshadow his humanity while doing so). This is what he gets paid for. When that contract is done, he gets to be a real person again and make his own choices. You don't have to like those choices, but he doesn't owe his entire life to you just because he signed a contract with your team once.
Do I hope Aldridge returns to the Trail Blazers? Yes. Do I want him to sacrifice his own happiness and perceived career/life path in order to make Blazer fans happy? No. It'll be far easier for Portland to find another player to love and obsess over than it'll be for Aldridge to get a new life.
.
More free agency talk is coming tomorrow. Send your Mailbag questions to blazersub@gmail.com.
--Dave blazersub@gmail.com / @DaveDeckard / @Blazersedge
"One problem with people who have no vices is that they're pretty sure to have some annoying virtues."
McCollum will still get 28 minutes per game off the bench, and get his 20 points (probably 18), but the entire team is going back to the drawing board defensively and Offensively. It's going to take a full season so see how both aspects work out. Really, a season-and-a-half.
"One problem with people who have no vices is that they're pretty sure to have some annoying virtues."
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
