If Vulcan Is Behind the Roy Situation

[PapaG]

You don't know how much that hurts.

Obviously it's hurt Roy to some degree.

 

[Minstrel]

Whatever. Way to evade the question on what makes Roy a solid 5 years commitment, but not a 6 year commitment.

I presume you mean 4 and 5 years. Giving you an answer that displeases you is not the same as evading it. I answered precisely why it's rational to for Portland to prefer 4 years over 5 years.

 

[Minstrel]

Obviously it's hurt Roy to some degree.

You questioning my understanding of what sets market value has hurt Roy to some degree? My, he IS a sensitive soul. I'm touched, though.

 

[PapaG]

I presume you mean 4 and 5 years. Giving you an answer that displeases you is not the same as evading it. I answered precisely why it's rational to for Portland to prefer 4 years over 5 years.

No, I mean 5 and 6 years, since Roy still has one more year under his rookie contract before the extension starts.

 

[Sedatedfork]

You questioning my understanding of what sets market value has hurt Roy to some degree? My, he IS a sensitive soul. I'm touched, though.

Why do you insist on pissing off Roy?

 

[PapaG]

You questioning my understanding of what sets market value has hurt Roy to some degree? My, he IS a sensitive soul. I'm touched, though.

OK Mr. Literal, funny one.

 

[Minstrel]

No, I mean 5 and 6 years, since Roy still has one more year under his rookie contract before the extension starts.

Fair enough. I answered why it's rational for Portland to prefer 4 extra years instead of 5 extra years.

 

[Minstrel]

OK Mr. Literal, funny one.

Thanks.

 

[PapaG]

Fair enough. I answered why it's rational for Portland to prefer 4 extra years instead of 5 extra years.

And I wonder why 5 years is ideal, while 6 years is off-limits.

I guess we'll see next week when Roy puts out his statement. I'm hoping it's not "I'm ending talks until training camp", but who knows at this point.

 

[Minstrel]

And I wonder why 5 years is ideal, while 6 years is off-limits.

I don't know what number of years is "ideal." I haven't been arguing what the ideal number of years is, just that I can see why the team might prefer a 4 year extension to a 5 year one. Ultimately, if that's a deal-breaker, I hope they go 5.

 

[Ed O]

And I wonder why 5 years is ideal, while 6 years is off-limits.

Why would I pay $500 for a certain television but not $600?

A fifth year in the extension increases the risk and increases the guaranteed costs. Maybe not enough to push it beyond the cost you find acceptable (perhaps you value the TV at $750 and think $600 is a bargain) but it still adds costs.

I guess we'll see next week when Roy puts out his statement. I'm hoping it's not "I'm ending talks until training camp", but who knows at this point.

He better hope he doesn't get hurt without signing that extension. Do you think Webster would have got the same money if he hadn't signed his extension when he did?

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

.He better hope he doesn't get hurt without signing that extension. Do you think Webster would have got the same money if he hadn't signed his extension when he did?

Ed O.

That's a great way to treat one's primary asset. "Sign this right now, or you might get hurt busting your ass for this franchise and get nothing."

 

[Ed O]

That's a great way to treat one's primary asset. "Sign this right now, or you might get hurt busting your ass for this franchise and get nothing."

First of all, I'm not saying that's the BLAZERS' position. It has to be on his mind. Or it has to be on the mind of those to whom he pays money to help safeguard his financial future.

Secondly, it's no less offensive than the idea you were throwing out there that Roy might simply refuse to play baseketball since he's not getting a fifth year in his max dollars extension. That possibility has to be on the minds of the Blazers, however remote it is.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

First of all, I'm not saying that's the BLAZERS' position. It has to be on his mind. Or it has to be on the mind of those to whom he pays money to help safeguard his financial future.

Secondly, it's no less offensive than the idea you were throwing out there that Roy might simply refuse to play baseketball since he's not getting a fifth year in his max dollars extension. That possibility has to be on the minds of the Blazers, however remote it is.

Ed O.

I never said it was offensive. I'm only going by what we know about the negotiations. Your view is quite clear to me, since the Blazers have Roy "by the short hairs". In dealing with top talent that fits your business culture and actually leads it, I've always made exceptions in any negotiation from a purely analytical viewpoint. I've overpaid for it once or twice, and I didn't regret doing so.

Additionally, I've never had a top 15 in the world talent leading my "team", so I have trouble understanding why this top 15 in the world talent is "frustrated" and "disappointed" when he doesn't need to be. I don't recall Tod Leiweke scoring any points, ever, for the Blazers, and I've never gone to a game because Tod Leiweke was calling the shots.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Risk of Roy getting hurt: speculative.

Risk of a new CBA: 100%

Risk that the new CBA will punish teams that have players on long-term, maximum deals: 90%+ (Stern hasn't lost a major battle yet, but I suppose it could happen)

 

[PapaG]

Risk of Roy getting hurt: speculative.

Risk of a new CBA: 100%

Risk that the new CBA will punish teams that have players on long-term, maximum deals: 90%+ (Stern hasn't lost a major battle yet, but I suppose it could happen)

Then James, Wade, and the rest are in for a world of hurt next summer. This would be the season for a strike considering many of the best players will be up for extensions after it.

 

[Ed O]

Then James, Wade, and the rest are in for a world of hurt next summer. This would be the season for a strike considering many of the best players will be up for extensions after it.

The players won't strike while things are so severely in their favor. They should continue to take advantage of the current CBA, which is out of whack with real-world economics even for pro sports, and stockpile funds for the 2011 lockout.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

The players won't strike while things are so severely in their favor. They should continue to take advantage of the current CBA, which is out of whack with real-world economics even for pro sports, and stockpile funds for the 2011 lockout.

Ed O.

Well, with the top players likely to be lowballed next summer due to the upcoming new CBA, striking this season sometime after the All-Star break would put the most hurt on the owners. I'm not saying it will happen, and it most likely will not happen, but from a player perspective, it's really all they have in terms of maximizing their value next summer.

 

[Ed O]

Well, with the top players likely to be lowballed next summer due to the upcoming new CBA, striking this season sometime after the All-Star break would put the most hurt on the owners. I'm not saying it will happen, and it most likely will not happen, but from a player perspective, it's really all they have in terms of maximizing their value next summer.

I don't think anyone will "lowball" those guys. They will be unrestricted and there will be multiple suitors. We're also talking about players like James and Wade that are MVP-level players. Some might get less money or fewer years than they otherwise would, but they would still be wise to take the best offer they can because it'll be better than under the new/future CBA, IMO.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

I don't think anyone will "lowball" those guys. They will be unrestricted and there will be multiple suitors. We're also talking about players like James and Wade that are MVP-level players. Some might get less money or fewer years than they otherwise would, but they would still be wise to take the best offer they can because it'll be better than under the new/future CBA, IMO.

Ed O.

That's assuming that the owner's get their way in the next CBA. One way in this economy to put the hurt on them is to strike early in the process. Teams are already borrowing money from the league; put them out of a revenue stream and perhaps some concessions can be made before the CBA expires a year and a half later. I'm just brainstorming here from a leverage perspective. Plus, Roy (IMO) is getting lowballed right now, and you yourself have posted that part of it could be due to the upcoming new CBA.

 

[STOMP]

That's a great way to treat one's primary asset. "Sign this right now, or you might get hurt busting your ass for this franchise and get nothing."

thats precisely why players generally sign for less on the extension... they are choosing security over the absolute max dollars. It's ultimately their choice whether that seems like the right way to go or not, but plenty of players have been burned by passing on a lucrative but less then max deals to ultimately end up signing for far less. Injuries happen, and situations change.

While of course every Blazer fan wants Roy back, I'm rooting for team success much more then Brandon Roy success. The team has a lot of leverage in this negotiation which I don't begrudge them using. It want a reasonable shot of keeping the club together if the youngins turn out as good as hoped... totally maxing Roy out doesn't serve this interest. I understand that negotiating often shows us the ugly side of people. But for some it must hard to see their hero going public (in this economy) wanting extra millions to not "feel insulted" by an offer that only pays 10M more yearly then most Portlanders will ever touch in their lives. Arguing meriting the max in public absolutely will tarnish his golden boy marketing image. Hopefully he'll look at the big picture and realize settling for a little less is arguably in his best interest. If he's to truly cash in it will be on the contract after this one when the Blazers are dominating the league.

STOMP

 

[Ed O]

Plus, Roy (IMO) is getting lowballed right now, and you yourself have posted that part of it could be due to the upcoming new CBA.

As I said: the players are UFAs (unlike Roy). The odds of all teams ALL deciding to "lowball" the players seems outlandish.

I wonder, though, wow (in your opinion) could the Blazers negotiate here without "lowballing" Roy? It's not like they're offering Bargnani-like money.

It seems to me that you are, for some reason, offended that the Blazers would negotiate at all, rather than immediately give Roy what he wants.

Ed O.

 

[oldmangrouch]

That's assuming that the owner's get their way in the next CBA. One way in this economy to put the hurt on them is to strike early in the process. Teams are already borrowing money from the league; put them out of a revenue stream and perhaps some concessions can be made before the CBA expires a year and a half later. I'm just brainstorming here from a leverage perspective. Plus, Roy (IMO) is getting lowballed right now, and you yourself have posted that part of it could be due to the upcoming new CBA.

From a leverage standpoint, it would make sense...but I doubt the union could pull it off.

The NBA players' union has too many grasshoppers, and not enough ants. They have guys making millions - and still living paycheck-to-paycheck. Asking them to sacrifice today to get a better deal tomorrow is like asking them to recite Hamlet in Sanskrit.

 

[PapaG]

But for some it must hard to see their hero going public (in this economy) wanting extra millions to not "feel insulted" by an offer that only pays 10M more yearly then most Portlanders will ever touch in their lives. Arguing meriting the max in public absolutely will tarnish his golden boy marketing image. Hopefully he'll look at the big picture and realize settling for a little less is arguably in his best interest. If he's to truly cash in it will be on the contract after this one when the Blazers are dominating the league.

STOMP

Paul Allen X1000 in terms of wealth FTW. Portland as a city will side with Roy and not Tod Leiweke/Paul Allen, Golden Boy image or otherwise. Are you saying Roy should sign for less than what Bargnani signed for, knowing that his owner is the 3rd richest man in the USA? LOL

 

[PapaG]

From a leverage standpoint, it would make sense...but I doubt the union could pull it off.

The NBA players' union has too many grasshoppers, and not enough ants. They have guys making millions - and still living paycheck-to-paycheck. Asking them to sacrifice today to get a better deal tomorrow is like asking them to recite Hamlet in Sanskrit.

I totally agree with that, but IF they had their s**t straight, sometime this season would be the time to strike. LIke I said, I'm just throwing stuff against the wall in terms of how the players could gain some leverage.

 

[PapaG]

It seems to me that you are, for some reason, offended that the Blazers would negotiate at all, rather than immediately give Roy what he wants.

Ed O.

Roy seems offended; I am offended. That's my starting point.

 

[barfo]

From a leverage standpoint, it would make sense...but I doubt the union could pull it off.

The NBA players' union has too many grasshoppers, and not enough ants. They have guys making millions - and still living paycheck-to-paycheck. Asking them to sacrifice today to get a better deal tomorrow is like asking them to recite Hamlet in Sanskrit.

I don't think they could do it either. For one thing, the PR would be horrific. "We are striking because our contract runs out in a couple of years and we want the owners to agree to a new deal now even though no one knows what the economy is going to be like by then."

barfo

 

[barfo]

Roy seems offended; I am offended.

But Roy only seems offended. Shouldn't you just seem offended too?

barfo

 

[STOMP]

Paul Allen X1000 in terms of wealth FTW. Portland as a city will side with Roy and not Tod Leiweke/Paul Allen, Golden Boy image or otherwise.

Paul Allen isn't the one asking for a larger slice of the Blazer salary pie that takes away the chances of resigning other key Blazers, and I very much doubt he'll be calling into radio shows on the matter. Brandon speaking publicly on this will not resonate with every Blazer fan. I'm sure one of the local Canzano's will call him just another out of touch money hungry athlete out for themselves. It's Brandon's choice how he wants to come off.

Are you saying Roy should sign for less than what Bargnani signed for, knowing that his owner is the 3rd richest man in the USA? LOL

hulk think... math very hard.

What does an average Portlander make over the course of their lifetime? I'm guessing well over a million dollars. Bargnani signed for 5 years 50M and I stated that Brandon has a deal on the table paying him more then 10M a year more then most Portlanders will make in a lifetime. Does that help?

STOMP

 

[PapaG]

hulk think... math very hard.

What does an average Portlander make over the course of their lifetime? I'm guessing well over a million dollars. Bargnani signed for 5 years 50M and I stated that Brandon has a deal on the table paying him more then 10M a year more then most Portlanders will make in a lifetime. Does that help?

STOMP

No, it doesn't help when the owner is worth 1000x times what the player the city loves is worth. As for the "hulk" comment? It's a tell on how you view your argument.

PapaG