Interesting (Troubling?) Quote From Tod Leiweke

[PapaG]

Bump again.

 

[Minstrel]

Interesting quote. At odds with Allen telling Pritchard to spend, spend, spend.

I'm not sure what you desire out of us in this thread. What will appease you?

 

[barfo]

I don't see what is so troubling about PA wanting the blazers to break even. Seems like a reasonable, sensible goal.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Interesting quote. At odds with Allen telling Pritchard to spend, spend, spend.

I'm not sure what you desire out of us in this thread. What will appease you?

I don't need to be appeased. I'd just like that quote to be taken into consideration when assessing deals this summer. It seems fairly significant to me in terms of dollars being allocated for the long- and short-term.

 

[PapaG]

I don't see what is so troubling about PA wanting the blazers to break even. Seems like a reasonable, sensible goal.

barfo

Of course it is. Which is why paying a back-up PF $11 million next year while pissing off our franchise player makes perfect sense!

 

[Minstrel]

I don't need to be appeased. I'd just like that quote to be taken into consideration when assessing deals this summer. It seems fairly significant to me in terms of dollars being allocated for the long- and short-term.

Since I don't think Pritchard values Millsap over Roy, I don't think there's a mandate to slash spending and Millsap has been chosen over Roy.

It's possible, but pretty unlikely. So, beyond that, I'm not sure how to take that quote into consideration. I prefer to judge actions, not words. Offering Millsap, a not urgently needed player, a rich contract is an action that says Portland can still spend money. Now, if the Blazers and Roy break off talks, that will be an action.

 

[barfo]

Of course it is. Which is why paying a back-up PF $11 million next year while pissing off our franchise player makes perfect sense!

Well, Millsaps money comes in 2009. The money that Roy is arguing about comes in what, 2014? They aren't the same budget year. In 2009, the big 3 are on rookie scale contracts. In 2014, if all goes well, Oden, Roy, Batum, Aldridge, Rudy, ... will be off their rookie contracts and into big paydays.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Since I don't think Pritchard values Millsap over Roy, I don't think there's a mandate to slash spending and Millsap has been chosen over Roy.It's possible, but pretty unlikely. So, beyond that, I'm not sure how to take that quote into consideration. I prefer to judge actions, not words. Offering Millsap, a not urgently needed player, a rich contract is an action that says Portland can still spend money. Now, if the Blazers and Roy break off talks, that will be an action.

Millions are millions against the bottom-line in terms of "breaking even", aren't they, regardless of where they are spent? Why did Leiweke allow that quote to be put into the public domain? Why is Paul Millsap getting $11 million next year if the object is to "break even"?

Questions, questions...

 

[PapaG]

Well, Millsaps money comes in 2009. The money that Roy is arguing about comes in what, 2014? They aren't the same budget year. In 2009, the big 3 are on rookie scale contracts. In 2014, if all goes well, Oden, Roy, Batum, Aldridge, Rudy, ... will be off their rookie contracts and into big paydays.

barfo

That has nothing to do with breaking even in two years, when Roy and LMA supposedly would be in the first year of a large contract extension and Millsap would be at around $9 million to be LMA's back-up. Plus, Oden/Rudy/Bayless/Batum would be up for extensions prior to that season.

Exactly what is going on here?

 

[barfo]

Millions are millions against the bottom-line in terms of "breaking even", aren't they, regardless of where they are spent? Why did Leiweke allow that quote to be put into the public domain? Why is Paul Millsap getting $11 million next year if the object is to "break even"?

Questions, questions...

Perhaps they've made budget projections for 2009, and Millsap's bonus doesn't push them into the red?

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

Millions are millions against the bottom-line in terms of "breaking even", aren't they, regardless of where they are spent? Why did Leiweke allow that quote to be put into the public domain? Why is Paul Millsap getting $11 million next year if the object is to "break even"?

Yeah, good questions. Why isn't Quick asking Leiweke these questions?

 

[PapaG]

Perhaps they've made budget projections for 2009, and Millsap's bonus doesn't push them into the red?

barfo

How about 2010, when presumably Roy/LMA/Millsap are pushing them toward the luxury tax, with Oden/Rudy/Bayless/Batum still left to extend?

 

[PapaG]

Yeah, good questions. Why isn't Quick asking Leiweke these questions?

Let me at Leiweke!!! I'll ask him!

 

[barfo]

That has nothing to do with breaking even in two years, when Roy and LMA supposedly would be in the first year of a large contract extension and Millsap would be at around $9 million to be LMA's back-up. Plus, Oden/Rudy/Bayless/Batum would be up for extensions prior to that season.

Exactly what is going on here?

Now that I go back and read it, Millsap's contract makes even more sense. If the boss gave you a two-year window to break even, that means a front-loaded contract like Millsap's is more attractive - you pay more of the contract before the window closes, and less afterwards.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Now that I go back and read it, Millsap's contract makes even more sense. If the boss gave you a two-year window to break even, that means a front-loaded contract like Millsap's is more attractive - you pay more of the contract before the window closes, and less afterwards.

barfo

Really? Seems to me that not using the cap space on a back-up makes the most sense. But Utah will match, so maybe that's the plan after all?

 

[barfo]

How about 2010, when presumably Roy/LMA/Millsap are pushing them toward the luxury tax, with Oden/Rudy/Bayless/Batum still left to extend?

Yeah, how about that. Explains why they are being careful about committing to a huge salary for Roy, doesn't it?

barfo

 

[barfo]

Really? Seems to me that not using the cap space on a back-up makes the most sense. But Utah will match, so maybe that's the plan after all?

It would depend on what the revenue numbers look like, and neither of us have access to them. If they can afford Millsap, then he's a good pickup. If they can't, he isn't. Obviously.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

It would depend on what the revenue numbers look like, and neither of us have access to them. If they can afford Millsap, then he's a good pickup. If they can't, he isn't. Obviously.

barfo

I dunno. I've just seen one of your fellow producers make the argument that shorting Roy on years 5 years fron now makes financial sense. I can't reconcile that with Leiweke's quote that pertains to the next two years, however.

 

[barfo]

I dunno. I've just seen one of your fellow producers make the argument that shorting Roy on years 5 years fron now makes financial sense. I can't reconcile that with Leiweke's quote that pertains to the next two years, however.

There is a difference between two years from now and five years from now. That's why they give them different numbers. 2011 for two years from now, and 2014 for five years from now. That way you can tell them apart.

The next two years are under the current CBA, five years from now we'll be under a new, as yet unknown CBA. I believe my fellow producer was suggesting that salaries are likely to be lower under the new CBA, so it makes financial sense to commit as little money long term as possible, so that the team can take advantage of the declining salaries. That's really a completely different subject than whether the Blazers have a goal of breaking even in the next two years, and the two don't have a lot to do with each other, given that all the salaries in the next two years will be paid under the current CBA.

barfo

 

[Draco]

Roy has been injury prone, there's a chance he ends up being a McGrady limping around on a microfractured knee at max dollars. Or worse he ends up as a Marbury or Francis peaking at age 26 with a sharp decline.

For the Blazers, if Roy stays healthy at a top level of performance giving him a big extension or big new contract later on will be an option, but if he's injured there isn't any way to cancel a max contract.

Roy knows his body might not hold up so he's looking to cash in as much as he can while he's healthy.

 

[PapaG]

Roy has been injury prone, there's a chance he ends up being a McGrady limping around on a microfractured knee at max dollars. Or worse he ends up as a Marbury or Francis peaking at age 26 with a sharp decline.

For the Blazers, if Roy stays healthy at a top level of performance giving him a big extension or big new contract later on will be an option, but if he's injured there isn't any way to cancel a max contract.

Roy knows his body might not hold up so he's looking to cash in as much as he can while he's healthy.

Really? Are you just making this up, or do you have inside information that Roy knows this is his one big cash grab? If Roy decides to play the year without an extension, he's going to get a 5 year contract from somebody, and Portland will either match it or they won't. Why offer him at all if injuries are a concern?

 

[alex42083]

Roy has been injury prone, there's a chance he ends up being a McGrady limping around on a microfractured knee at max dollars. Or worse he ends up as a Marbury or Francis peaking at age 26 with a sharp decline.

For the Blazers, if Roy stays healthy at a top level of performance giving him a big extension or big new contract later on will be an option, but if he's injured there isn't any way to cancel a max contract.

Roy knows his body might not hold up so he's looking to cash in as much as he can while he's healthy.

Roy played 74 games two years ago, and 78+6 playoff games this past season. I think he's held up pretty well other than that talus bone injury that doesn't seem to be a problem anymore, and just minor aches and pains that NBA players get.

The problem has been getting a sidekick for him on the perimeter to shoulder the load, or else you get stuff like him saying how tired he was in just the first round of the playoffs. He's not injured, but just tired from having to do everything for the team.

Any player has a chance to end up like T-Mac so why bother giving anyone a five-year contract, when we gave Hedo five years when he's much older than Roy? I don't think we're playing hard ball with Brandon because we're afraid he might get injured. And unless the team knows something we don't, I hope that's not how our team operates.

 

[Minstrel]

Roy played 74 games two years ago, and 78+6 playoff games this past season. I think he's held up pretty well other than that talus bone injury that doesn't seem to be a problem anymore, and just minor aches and pains that NBA players get.

Didn't he also have a knee surgery last off-season? Didn't cost him games, but it's still part of his medical history.

 

[Ed O]

Any player has a chance to end up like T-Mac so why bother giving anyone a five-year contract, when we gave Hedo five years when he's much older than Roy?

Because they might not HAVE to.

I don't see why people keep asking that question when the answer is so CLEAR.

If I want two different couches, one might cost $1000 and the other might cost $500. I might value the second couch at $1200 and the first one at $1100, but I'm not going to pay $1000 for it just because that's what I spent for the other one.

I'm also not going to only be willing to pay $500 on the first couch just because I can get the second one so cheaply... assuming I don't have liquidity issues, I'm confident in my valuation, and have no opportunity costs associated with the purchases, I'll buy both.

Ed O.

 

[alex42083]

Didn't he also have a knee surgery last off-season? Didn't cost him games, but it's still part of his medical history.

If the team knows something that we don't that B-Roy won't be around here when he's 29, then sure I could understand it and I'll side with all of you about him being injury prone. But with what we know, nothing tells us Brandon will be broken down in five years.

And why should I bother then investing in anything then? I guess I shouldn't buy a car if there's a possibility of it breaking down or getting totaled in a year.
Or a big screen TV, if I know a possibility of a house fire burning it down.
Or stocks, if I'm going to lose everything.
Or just going outside, if I know I could die somehow.

The investment I'd make in Brandon is that I'm banking on him bringing us the ultimate prize, which is a championship, full arenas, merchandise sold, and money into the franchise. Even if he gets injured that fifth year hypothetically, then that investment I make in him would be worth it over the first four years of his contract in money and revenue he's created for the team.

 

[Minstrel]

And why should I bother then investing in anything then? I guess I shouldn't buy a car if there's a possibility of it breaking down or getting totaled in a year.
Or a big screen TV, if I know a possibility of a house fire burning it down.
Or stocks, if I'm going to lose everything.
Or just going outside, if I know I could die somehow.

I think you're mischaracterizing the point. It's not "If there is ANY chance of something bad happening, there should be no investment at all." The point is, risk factors should be built into the investment. It's not "Roy is risk-free, give him max years and max money" or else "Roy is going to break down, don't sign him at all."

It's "Roy is a great, young talent who has some risk...we should try to sign him to a contract that recognizes both his talent and risk." In that perspective, a 4 year max deal instead of a 5 year max deal is pretty reasonable to at least discuss.

 

[alex42083]

I think you're mischaracterizing the point. It's not "If there is ANY chance of something bad happening, there should be no investment at all." The point is, risk factors should be built into the investment. It's not "Roy is risk-free, give him max years and max money" or else "Roy is going to break down, don't sign him at all."

It's "Roy is a great, young talent who has some risk...we should try to sign him to a contract that recognizes both his talent and risk." In that perspective, a 4 year max deal instead of a 5 year max deal is pretty reasonable to at least discuss.

All right.. I get yours and Ed's points, despite it turning into a short-term PR nightmare for the team so far. Can't say I agree with the tactics itself, but I understand where you guys are coming from.

 

[Minstrel]

All right.. I get yours and Ed's points, despite it turning into a short-term PR nightmare for the team so far. Can't say I agree with the tactics itself, but I understand where you guys are coming from.

Fair enough. One thing I have to ask (you and anyone else who cares to answer): Is it turning into a short-term PR nightmare? Clearly it is on this forum, but does the casual fan (who doesn't follow the Blazers constantly and probably doesn't follow them at all, except the big moves, in the off-season) care much? Not living in Portland, I don't know how the "the city" (and state) is reacting to it.

 

[alex42083]

Fair enough. One thing I have to ask (you and anyone else who cares to answer): Is it turning into a short-term PR nightmare? Clearly it is on this forum, but does the casual fan (who doesn't follow the Blazers constantly and probably doesn't follow them at all, except the big moves, in the off-season) care much? Not living in Portland, I don't know how the "the city" (and state) is reacting to it.

I'd say to the casual fan, there's a "what the hell are they doing?" reaction when they have the general picture of the situation.
- Brandon Roy is the hero and face of the franchise, he wants to be here five years. Everyone knows who he is.
- Team only wants to give him four.
- And a reaction of wtf, why don't they want him for five, why don't they want to keep him here when he wants to be here for everything he's done?

It's been one of the lead stories on the local newscasts on the day Roy went on the Seattle radio show. I can say everyone here is pretty well-aware of the situation.

But when you get to the hardcore sports fans on sports radio talk shows, then I'd say it's about 50/50 that some know it's a part of negotiation and aren't worried things will get done, and the other half just don't agree with how the team is handling it.
But I'd say the general feeling among casual Blazer fans is "why?" and it's just been another flame to put out by the team that everything will be OK.

 

[PapaG]

Fair enough. One thing I have to ask (you and anyone else who cares to answer): Is it turning into a short-term PR nightmare? Clearly it is on this forum, but does the casual fan (who doesn't follow the Blazers constantly and probably doesn't follow them at all, except the big moves, in the off-season) care much? Not living in Portland, I don't know how the "the city" (and state) is reacting to it.

You don't live here, and it is leading newscasts. Mocking those of us who are living in the Portland area seems weird.