According to Canzano...

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
They should let him have the option, but I get why the Blazers would balk. Although they should just do it. Most stars only ask for 3 year deals. Brandon wants to be here for 4 at least
 
PapaG said:
It does make Roy's public messages a bit more difficult to understand, though.
Click to expand...
Not exactly, since they haven't offered him a 5 year deal without a PO. He might sign that and just wants to keep the middle ground at 5 years without a PO. Or am I misunderstanding you?
 
Zybot said:
Not exactly, since they haven't offered him a 5 year deal without a PO. He might sign that and just wants to keep the middle ground at 5 years without a PO. Or am I misunderstanding you?
Click to expand...

It depends on if the hang-up is the player option, although as far as we've heard, nothing ove r4 years has been offered by the team.
 
I guess what has bugged me is the term "Nickle and Diming". I never thought this was true and I still don't. The amount of money does not seem to be the problem so i doubt any animosity will come from it. They are not insulting him here.
 
Mediocre Man said:
They should let him have the option, but I get why the Blazers would balk. Although they should just do it. Most stars only ask for 3 year deals. Brandon wants to be here for 4 at least
Click to expand...
They won't know though if he will exercise his PO and a team might try to pry him away during that option year and if the CBA is changed such that it makes it impossible to match, that may be a big hang up for the Blazers. Still, I agree with you.
 
PapaG said:
Or, leak a 5 year offer with no player option. That puts Roy on the spot in terms of not wanting the longest possible commitment to Portland.
Click to expand...

Did it occur to you that the 5th year is what Roy really wants? Negotiating is fun!
 
Zybot said:
They won't know though if he will exercise his PO and a team might try to pry him away during that option year and if the CBA is changed such that it makes it impossible to match, that may be a big hang up for the Blazers. Still, I agree with you.
Click to expand...

But if we were only offering 4, adn he opted out of his PO from the 5th year, we would be in the exact same situation regardless. What this seems to show is that they DON'T want him to have that 5th year. I guess that ties into the injury risk thoughts or something, I dunno. But there is absolutely no reason on Portland's part to fear him opting out of a 5th season, while you are only offering him 4 seasons.
 
I don't get the "injury risk" thing so much.

If he goes down hard, they'll get RL-level insurance money. Not to mention a probable injury exception (like Yao). Financially, it's not that big a deal.

Cap-wise? Yeah, it could hurt the cap. For the last year they're haggling over. Where they'll be over the cap (and probably lux tax) anyway.

So we're not giving Roy max yrs/max $ on the chance that he'll suffer a catastrophic injury that will limit his usefulness in the 5th year? When we'll get insurance $ and injured player exception relief anyway? Seriously?
 
Obviously, I don't know. Just saying the injury possibility was floated before. I can't think of a reason you wouldn't want him locked for 5.
 
maxiep said:
Did it occur to you that the 5th year is what Roy really wants? Negotiating is fun!
Click to expand...

Of course it occured to me. It's what I've posted. What are you talking about? The Blazers coulds put the cards on the table in public to see if it's about a PO or a commitment. The fact remains that Roy wants, at the very least, to make a longer commitment to the Blazers than the Blazers are willing to make to him.
 
Last edited:
PapaG said:
Of course it occured to me. It's what I've posted. What are you talking about? The Blazers coulds put the cards on the table in public to see if it's about a PO or a commitment. The fact remains that Roy wants, at the very least, to make a longer commitment to the Blazers than the Blazers are willing to make to him.
Click to expand...

We don't know that that's true either. Roy could very easily be asking for 5 years with a player option.
 
I think they do not want to give him the 5th year because that's the time HCP's extension kicks in.
 
e_blazer said:
We don't know that that's true either. Roy could very easily be asking for 5 years with a player option.
Click to expand...

Apparently he is, or at least was. That still doesn't change the fact that the Blazers are offering a max of 4 years though.
 
Canzano said if the Blazers agree to Roy's player option, and Roy declines that fifth year option when the time comes, then he becomes a UFA. Is that true?

Does a player option change the status of whether Brandon will be a UFA or RFA after a four-year contract that the Blazers are offering?
 
Nope. Whenever this contract ends (through completion, ETO, team declining option, whatever) he becomes an UFA and we retain his Bird Rights.
 
Well, then, that makes it more obvious why the negotiations aren't going so smoothly. A player option is purely to the player's benefit, zero benefit to the team. It's basically a four year deal or a five year deal, and which one it is depends purely on which benefits the player more at the end of four years.

I can definitely see why the Blazers would negotiate to remove a player option. I can also see why Roy would want one, but he's certainly not automatically entitled to a completely risk-free add-on. He can ask for one, but it's totally reasonable that the team would negotiate hard against it.
 
BrianFromWA said:
Nope. Whenever this contract ends (through completion, ETO, team declining option, whatever) he becomes an UFA and we retain his Bird Rights.
Click to expand...

So he becomes a UFA regardless of whether it's an fifth-year option contract that he declines when it's time to decide for him, or he finishes out a four-year guaranteed contract?
But since we have his Bird rights, we can sign him to much bigger money than any other team if the current CBA's rules are in effect by that time.

Is there any scenario that Roy would become a RFA after his next contract?
 
No. RFA is a mechanism that teams can keep their good rookie-contract players.

There's no way to lock a player up indefinitely. Player's Association probably wouldn't go for that. The Clippers, technically, could then just keep matching Blake Griffin's contracts and he'd always be in basketball hell. LBJ would never be able to leave CLE, for that matter.
 
If what Canzano is saying is indeed true, I take back my bitching about KP (for now).
 
And the Bird Rights don't guarantee much bigger money, b/c the starting max salaries are the same from any team. What POR can offer is an extra year and 10.5% raises vs. 8% raises.
 
BrianFromWA said:
No. RFA is a mechanism that teams can keep their good rookie-contract players.

There's no way to lock a player up indefinitely. Player's Association probably wouldn't go for that. The Clippers, technically, could then just keep matching Blake Griffin's contracts and he'd always be in basketball hell. LBJ would never be able to leave CLE, for that matter.
Click to expand...

Hmm.. good point. Thanks for the clarification. You're like the resident Tom Penn around these parts.
 
I'm a rookie compared to some, but I have upside! Glad I could help.
 
BrianFromWA said:
And the Bird Rights don't guarantee much bigger money, b/c the starting max salaries are the same from any team. What POR can offer is an extra year and 10.5% raises vs. 8% raises.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess that's what I meant. We can offer more money per year. But to me as just a normal working person, that's a lot of money.. a 2.5 percent raise for me at an NBA player's rate is big time.
 
So I'm still trying to grasp this situation. Brandon can choose the four-year guaranteed contract, and will negotiate a new one anyway after that.
If he gets his option and then he declines that fifth year, then we're left negotiating a new contract anyway after the fourth year.

The only way I see it being a benefit to the team is if we're so paranoid about Roy getting some catastrophic injury after four years, then we're stuck with him for a year at whatever his max salary would be.
Seems like a lot of ego involved, and Vulcan or whoever just wants to be in control rather than giving the players, no matter who it is, any control. It's certainly a negotiable thing but nothing too big to me now.

I still don't think it's worth it to drag it out if it means pissing off the franchise player. Just pay the guy his money if you expect him to be here for a long time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top