LMA Signed Prematurely - Overpaid?

[Boob-No-More]

And by paying him so much, it takes away options to sign FAs in the future.

Wrong. Whether they gave Aldridge $65 million, $40 million or didn't extend him, the Blazers are going to be over the cap for the next 6 years (at least). So, our only options to sign free agents will be the exceptions (MLE, bi-annual, rookie exceptions, minimum salary exception, etc.).

Even if we hadn't re-signed Aldridge, the only way we could get under the cap next summer would be to let Blake, Outlaw and Przybilla (assuming he opts out) all walk for nothing - and that would put us at 10 players and barely under the expected cap. If we are looking to sign someone next summer, the MLE will be more than any cap space we could create.

Aldridge is young, he's already very good, has improved every year he's been in the league, is the perfect compliment to Oden and still several years away from reaching his peak. He wasn't re-signed on potential. He was re-signed because he is a key piece of this team who has proven his worth over the last three seasons.

BNM

 

[jlprk]

I hope you're right.

 

[axs88]

Wrong. Whether they gave Aldridge $65 million, $40 million or didn't extend him, the Blazers are going to be over the cap for the next 6 years (at least). So, our only options to sign free agents will be the exceptions (MLE, bi-annual, rookie exceptions, minimum salary exception, etc.).

Even if we hadn't re-signed Aldridge, the only way we could get under the cap next summer would be to let Blake, Outlaw and Przybilla (assuming he opts out) all walk for nothing - and that would put us at 10 players and barely under the expected cap. If we are looking to sign someone next summer, the MLE will be more than any cap space we could create.

Aldridge is young, he's already very good, has improved every year he's been in the league, is the perfect compliment to Oden and still several years away from reaching his peak. He wasn't re-signed on potential. He was re-signed because he is a key piece of this team who has proven his worth over the last three seasons.

BNM

I was gonna point this out but then I thought he meant it as in less financial flexibility under the luxury cap, which is about correct if you think PA is convinced about staying fiscally responsible. Even so, I still can't picture him refusing to give out full MLE contracts during our championship window.

I think there is a chance they could have gotten Aldridge signed as a RFA for a smaller contract, but I prefer him extended now, knowing he's bound to take these as slights, and I wouldn't want him to play for stats.

 

[Boob-No-More]

I was gonna point this out but then I thought he meant it as in less financial flexibility under the luxury cap, which is about correct if you think PA is convinced to stay fiscally responsible. I still can't picture him refusing to give out full MLE contracts in our championship window.

PA has said he'd be willing to pay the luxury tax if he thought it would help us win a championship.

I think there is a chance they could have gotten Aldridge signed as a RFA for a smaller contract, but I prefer him extended now, knowing he's bound to take these as slights, and I wouln't want him to play for stats.

There is also a chance Aldridge averages 20/9 this year, makes the all-star team and would earn an even larger contract. Both sides looked at the risks and benefits of signing now vs. next summer and decided on a reasonable compromise. In the end, I don't think Aldridge's average annual salary under this contract is off by more than +/- $1 million per year over what he could have gotten next summer as an RFA. In the end, I think it was a fair deal for both sides - and so did they or it wouldn't have happened.

BNM

 

[mook]

The real limit an overpaid contract would put on this roster comes in limited trading flexibility. What I mean is "Damon Stoudamire Land," where you get the GM publicly saying that he couldn't trade him for a folding chair because his contract is so out of whack with his production.

Barring injury (which could happen to any highly paid player), that almost certainly isn't going to happen to Aldridge. If he starts to fall in production somewhat (seems unlikely, but always possible) and if he looks like he doesn't fit on this team (again, unlikely) there will always be a team in the market for a 6'11 power forward with Aldridge's speed, length and shooting ability.

It's hard to see how this ever becomes an untradeable contract. So even if though it is a little excessive, IMO, it's not really the kind of deal I'll lose much sleep over.

BTW--BNM, it's not really a great argument that Aldridge's contract compares favorably to Bargnani and Rashard Lewis. Those were really two incredibly bad contracts. The Lewis one is sort of justified in that Orlando doesn't get to the finals without him, but on a pure value basis it really sucked.

Rather than compare our team's management to the idiots in Toronto, I'd rather think about what a really smart team would do. Would the Spurs ink such a deal in similar circumstances? Maybe. They signed Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili for a lot less.

 

[Boob-No-More]

BTW--BNM, it's not really a great argument that Aldridge's contract compares favorably to Bargnani and Rashard Lewis. Those were really two incredibly bad contracts. The Lewis one is sort of justified in that Orlando doesn't get to the finals without him, but on a pure value basis it really sucked.

Yeah, I just cited those of examples of overpaid players to show that Aldridge's contract isn't nearly as bad as other "comparable" players. It's funny how people stopped talking about Rashard's contract when the Magic made the finals (but still - $112 million!). I suspect when we start making the finals, all our players will look like bargains.

Rather than compare our team's management to the idiots in Toronto, I'd rather think about what a really smart team would do.

Colangelo was in desparation mode this summer. He overpaid Hedo, he overpaid Bargnani and he overpaid Jarrett Jack - with the hope he can also overpay Chris Bosh next summer. Seriously, he spent a TON of money on a team that has no chance of post season success - to convince Bosh to re-sign next summer. They are going to be stuck in mediocrity (at best) for five years with a huge payroll. But, that's their problem.

Would the Spurs ink such a deal in similar circumstances? Maybe. They signed Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili for a lot less.

Actually, both the Roy and Aldridge signings strike me as very Spur-like. By re-signing Parker and Ginobili early, they got them for less than they would have later. The Blazers are convinced that Roy and Aldridge are the cornerstones of this franchise for the next 6 seasons. So, they locked them up now before their value goes even higher. Another way to look at is out highest paid players make a lot less than San Antonio's (Duncan - $22 million and Jefferson - $14 million) and are a lot younger, too.

Plus, Roy's contract (and I believe Aldridge's) are tied to the 2010 salary cap. If the cap goes down next summer, Roy's contract goes down by a comparable amount (it's based on the max contract for the 2010 season which won't be known until next July, but is expected to go down).

BNM

 

[andalusian]

Plus, Roy's contract (and I believe Aldridge's) are tied to the 2010 salary cap. If the cap goes down next summer, Roy's contract goes down by a comparable amount (it's based on the max contract for the 2010 season which won't be known until next July, but is expected to go down).

I do not think Aldridge's is - they agreed on a number. With Roy they agreed on a MAX - which is the only way you can tie a number to the cap.

This, at least, is my understanding.

 

[Boob-No-More]

I do not think Aldridge's is - they agreed on a number. With Roy they agreed on a MAX - which is the only way you can tie a number to the cap.

This, at least, is my understanding.

You could be right. I haven't seen any details on Aldridge's contract - just rough amounts ($65 million over 5 years). I thought at one point I heard it was based on a percentage of the max, but that might not be true.

In any case, there are a a lot of guys in the NBA making considerably more money and producing considerably less. So, barring serious injury issues, I don't think Aldridge's contract will ever be totally out of line with his market value. And, if he continues to improve, he may turn out to be a bargain.

BNM

 

[andalusian]

You could be right. I haven't seen any details on Aldridge's contract - just rough amounts ($65 million over 5 years). I thought at one point I heard it was based on a percentage of the max, but that might not be true.

My understanding is that you are not allowed to do percentages of the cap - other than max. That's why I suspect that only Roy's is tied to the cap. But, I am not capologist.

 

[Masbee]

Wer'e on the same page here. Even with the current state of the economy, I don't think Aldridge is overpaid relative to other players. From his same draft class, Andrea Bargnani signed a 5 year $50 million contract this summer. Look at Bargnani's performance vs. Aldridge over their first three years in the league:

Andrea Bargnani PER:
2006-07 = 12.8

I contend that Bargnani is an outlier, thus not particularly relevant to establishing the "market".

When a good appraiser tries to find the market, they look for comparables, throw out the highest valued comp, throw out the lowest value comp and average the rest of comps after making appropriate adjustments.

Bargnani is overpaid. Most NBA observers laughed at the contract. How is a "laughable" deal a fair "comp"?

Why don't you mention David West?

Why don't you mention Rajon Rondo?

He helped a team win an NBA title. What is the market rate for him?

Can't use Ben Gordon. He was an Unrestricted free agent. The top 2 or 3 or 4 unrestricted free agents each summer are ALWAYS "overpaid". The CBA is structured to ensure that outcome.

LaMarcus may be paid the "right" amount compared to other forwards that have been paid. But, that was under the old economic conditions.

Moving forward under a declining cap the market rate has yet to be set.

We do know that LaMarcus was paid (about) the MAXIMUM offer he could have received NEXT summer as an offer as a restricted free agent.

In other words - the Blazers could have sat on their hands - played this season out - waited to see if LaMarcus signed an offer next summer - and worst case - they would have paid (about) the same amount they have paid him.

The Blazers are taking ALL the risk of injury or poor play 1 season sooner. In exchange for that risk they have received NO DISCOUNT.

Why?

 

[Masbee]

Another example of a player who plays a similar role to Aldridge (i.e. power forward who can score from the perimeter paired with a dominant low post center), is, of course, Rashard Lewis. In know the economy has changed in the two years since Orlando signed Lewis to a 6-year $112 million contract, but it hasn't changed THAT much.

WTF?

Hasn't changed THAT much?

Needless to say, I completely disagree with that statement.

Anywho. Rashard Lewis was an UNRESTRICTED free agent. That matters. A lot.

He got paid. And virtually everyone said it was way, way, way too much money.

Again, using an outlier, from 2 years ago (which was the market peak - Dow 14,000), as the comp is not appropriate.

We didn't lure a long-time proven vet who has an All-Star berth, away from another team. We drafted Aldridge. We hold his rights. He still has much to prove. He still has awards to gather. We don't have to pay him crazy money in the superheated free agent frenzy.

 

[Masbee]

There is also a chance Aldridge averages 20/9 this year, makes the all-star team and would earn an even larger contract.

How could this have happened?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I contend that Bargnani is an outlier, thus not particularly relevant to establishing the "market".

When a good appraiser tries to find the market, they look for comparables, throw out the highest valued comp, throw out the lowest value comp and average the rest of comps after making appropriate adjustments.

Bargnani is overpaid. Most NBA observers laughed at the contract. How is a "laughable" deal a fair "comp"?

Why don't you mention David West?

Why don't you mention Rajon Rondo?

He helped a team win an NBA title. What is the market rate for him?

Can't use Ben Gordon. He was an Unrestricted free agent. The top 2 or 3 or 4 unrestricted free agents each summer are ALWAYS "overpaid". The CBA is structured to ensure that outcome.

LaMarcus may be paid the "right" amount compared to other forwards that have been paid. But, that was under the old economic conditions.

Moving forward under a declining cap the market rate has yet to be set.

We do know that LaMarcus was paid (about) the MAXIMUM offer he could have received NEXT summer as an offer as a restricted free agent.

In other words - the Blazers could have sat on their hands - played this season out - waited to see if LaMarcus signed an offer next summer - and worst case - they would have paid (about) the same amount they have paid him.

The Blazers are taking ALL the risk of injury or poor play 1 season sooner. In exchange for that risk they have received NO DISCOUNT.

Why?

I agree, the Blazers got no discount with LA. From a strictly financial standpoint, this move didn't make much sense.

However, I think the Blazers have and enjoy the reputation of an organization that takes care of their players. They try to create a family atmosphere among the players and taking care of them through contracts is part of that. They extended Webster when he was hurt, they have been generous with Joel, Outlaw, Roy even Blake.

They gave Lamarcus an extention they could have probably given next year with really little to no chance of losing him . . . but they want to create a different type of relationship with the players, especially the core. Blazers reached out to Aldridge, showed how committed they are to him and hope this kind of gesture will help nuture a star player who will be committed and loyal to the Blazer family.

 

[Masbee]

Actually, both the Roy and Aldridge signings strike me as very Spur-like. By re-signing Parker and Ginobili early, they got them for less than they would have later. The Blazers are convinced that Roy and Aldridge are the cornerstones of this franchise for the next 6 seasons. So, they locked them up now before their value goes even higher. Another way to look at is out highest paid players make a lot less than San Antonio's (Duncan - $22 million and Jefferson - $14 million) and are a lot younger, too.

I am not sure what you are getting at with the Spurs.

They had contentious negotiations with Parker and Ginobili.

Ginobili almost signed with the Nuggets, and the Spurs only came up on their offer because of the threat of Ginobili bolting to the Nuggets.

Parker was not given the maximum extension, despite being the single hottest PG under 24 at the time he inked his extension, and despite asking for it. In fact, Parker, under the old, more generous economic climate, was paid less per year than Aldridge just now received.

The Spurs also went to Duncan and asked him to take less than he was allowed on his latest extension, which he did.

That kind of salary cap management was where I hoped the Blazer were headed. You praise the players and tell them you want them; you tell them you have a budget, salary slots and a plan; and that plan involves putting a team together that has several very good players each who could get more but wants to play together; then you tell them where they fit in the plan and why you are offering the deal you are and why it is less than what their agent is telling them.

Oh well. It isn't a bad situation the team is in, I just hoped for better (cheaper, more flexible contracts). At least Miller is a good contract signing for the team.

 

[mook]

In other words - the Blazers could have sat on their hands - played this season out - waited to see if LaMarcus signed an offer next summer - and worst case - they would have paid (about) the same amount they have paid him.

The Blazers are taking ALL the risk of injury or poor play 1 season sooner. In exchange for that risk they have received NO DISCOUNT.

Why?

Some of it is almost certainly psychology. Aldridge has demonstrated a certain paranoid streak in the past. He seems pretty sensitive about personal slights. (His comments during negotiation, his early minor rift with Roy over not being invited to some dinner with Outlaw.)

I really don't think he's the kind of guy you put in the situation where you leave him unsigned and hope to match next year. He could start to turn ugly.

There's so much momentum going the way toward a deep playoff run. I can see why the GM wasn't willing to risk that by having his second best player grouse all season that Roy got signed and he didn't.

 

[andalusian]

Some of it is almost certainly psychology. Aldridge has demonstrated a certain paranoid streak in the past. He seems pretty sensitive about personal slights. (His comments during negotiation, his early minor rift with Roy over not being invited to some dinner with Outlaw.)

I really don't think he's the kind of guy you put in the situation where you leave him unsigned and hope to match next year. He could start to turn ugly.

There's so much momentum going the way toward a deep playoff run. I can see why the GM wasn't willing to risk that by having his second best player grouse all season that Roy got signed and he didn't.

The right comparison, imho, is Al Jefferson - and LMA got about the same amount as Al-Jeff did. The reason they were willing to lock him down, even if they did not get the discount - is because they did the right thing. They have a plan, LMA is one of the 3 pillars of that plan, and they decided not to fuck up with it to pinch a penny. That was the right decision - see what happened to Chicago when they decided to screw over with Deng/Gordon after their 49 wins season.

If you have a plan, believe in it and you know what you are going to do - the correct thing to do is not to make last minute changes in order to save insignificant amounts of money.