Nas - 4 year / 28M

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
oldmangrouch said:
I am done with players who can't stay healthy. At best they are unproductive and worst they disrupt the team by flitting in-and-out of the line-up.
Click to expand...

better trade Dame, he hasn't been healthy for a few years.
Oh and Nurk. And Grant had issues. And Sharpe got injured in summer league, better trade him.

Did you know?:

The average NBA player misses 18% of his games throughout his career.

thats almost one fifth of each season, On average. Unfortunately, I think your wants are fairly unrealistic.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2022-10-17_10-3-2.png
    upload_2022-10-17_10-3-2.png
    256 bytes · Views: 2
Last edited:
oldmangrouch said:
After Zach Collins I thought the team was actually learning something. I guess not.
Click to expand...

It is worth the gamble. I remember last year some said they would not extend Ant for 7 mil per year because he had not proved anything. How did that work out?
 
Cheap contract. Idk why ppl are shocked. Nas isn’t that good to me. Journeyman energy guy tho
 
If Naz could become PJ Tucker type player by being a banger, scrapper, solid D, with a decent shot w/o all the high flying, he'll earn a much better contract in 4 years if not sooner.
He must become tough and durable.
 
BlazerBender said:
better trade Dame, he hasn't been healthy for a few years.
Oh and Nurk. And Grant had issues. And Sharpe got injured in summer league, better trade him.

Did you know?:

The average NBA player misses 18% of his games throughout his career.

thats almost one fifth of each season, On average. Unfortunately, I think your wants are fairly unrealistic.
Click to expand...

For the record, I didn't want Grant and questioned Nurk's deal as well.
 
BlazerBender said:
better trade Dame, he hasn't been healthy for a few years.
Oh and Nurk. And Grant had issues. And Sharpe got injured in summer league, better trade him.

Did you know?:

The average NBA player misses 18% of his games throughout his career.

thats almost one fifth of each season, On average. Unfortunately, I think your wants are fairly unrealistic.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see the breakdown on that. How many games missed by category, e.g., impact player and role player? Obviously, there would be grey area for the John Wall types who slide from category 1 to 2 due to said injuries, but I suspect a deeper dive into the data would show that the players that are contributing most to winning teams are not really reflective of that 18%. And the ones who are are probably buried on benches most of their career.
 
Cugel said:
That KPJ deal seems asinine to me.
Click to expand...

in what way?

last season, per36, he averaged 18pts-5reb-7ast. 31 minutes a game. His overall efficiency wasn't great but he's a couple of years younger than Simons, making 20M instead of 25M

and it's a leveraged team-friendly deal with less than 16M guaranteed with June 2024 trigger dates (he's still on rookie scale this season). Reportedly, he can be waived at any time in the 4 year deal without the team having to pay any further salary. So that's a very trade-worthy contract
 
handiman said:
It would be interesting to see the breakdown on that. How many games missed by category, e.g., impact player and role player? Obviously, there would be grey area for the John Wall types who slide from category 1 to 2 due to said injuries, but I suspect a deeper dive into the data would show that the players that are contributing most to winning teams are not really reflective of that 18%. And the ones who are are probably buried on benches most of their career.
Click to expand...

im not so sure of that:

games played last season:
Dbooker-68
Cpaul-70
Dayton-69

scurry-63
Kthompson-32
Dgreen-63

Giannis-61
Middleton-68

Pgeorge- 54
Kleonard-52

there are more, but most all of these players were on teams last year that went deep into the playoffs.

missing 10-20 games a season for impact star players does not seem to affect their ability to win or be a contender. Based off of last season only though.
 
wizenheimer said:
as someone said...it's a contract that matches his upside while accounting for his injury history. And if nothing else, it will become a fairly tradeable contract and decent salary filler in a larger trade. Also, considering he's making 4.2M this season, and his 1st year salary of the extension is probably somewhere in the 6M range, trading him this season, if it comes to that, won't carry any significant BYC differential. Although, maybe with the extension he can't be traded this season?...anybody know?

all things considered I probably like Little's 4 year deal more than the deals for Ant and Nurk
Click to expand...
You think $7m “matches his upside”?
 
wizenheimer said:
c'mon man...I specifically said "matches his upside while accounting for his injury history". Removing half of the equation I used is a straw man
Click to expand...
I didn’t read it the way you wrote it or intended to message it. I read it as it matches both things. It matches his upside and it matches his injuries.
 
wizenheimer said:
in what way?

last season, per36, he averaged 18pts-5reb-7ast. 31 minutes a game. His overall efficiency wasn't great but he's a couple of years younger than Simons, making 20M instead of 25M

and it's a leveraged team-friendly deal with less than 16M guaranteed with June 2024 trigger dates (he's still on rookie scale this season). Reportedly, he can be waived at any time in the 4 year deal without the team having to pay any further salary. So that's a very trade-worthy contract
Click to expand...

Injuries
 
calvin natt said:
I didn’t read it the way you wrote it or intended to message it. I read it as it matches both things. It matches his upside and it matches his injuries.
Click to expand...

like I said, twice, the contract matches both things and they are welded together

something else is that a contract also reflects what a player has established. In Little's case:

* his career PER is 12.0 and his best is 13.5; the league average is 15.0

* he's a good rebounder for his position, but he's a weak passer who has more turnovers than assists

* he has a good FT Rate but he's a shooting forward who has shot under 32% from 3

* his winshare/48 is .071 and his best is .082; the league average is .100

essentially, he's a rather injury prone player with below average numbers after 3 seasons. And he just signed an extension with below average salary. Seems like a match. Sure, that contract can quickly become a bargain, but Little signed it
 
I want to just be positive about this signing and realize that Nas didn't have much of a negotiating position but this is what a deal is supposed to look like when you don't let your player test the open market. This deal has no downside for the team and a ton of upside without being disrespectful to a player we really appreciate in Nas.

I realize that Ant and Nurk both have either more production under their belt and are therefore more proven when healthy (Nurk) or less negative things like an injury history to go with their upside (Ant). I still can't understand, especially with Ant why his contract is so much higher than every single pundits' prognostication was... when all we had to do was have him go sign an offer sheet and if it was as huge as his current contract that would be fine but at least then we'd know that we didn't bid against ourselves. The same can be said for Nurk because his salary is several million higher than most thought he could get especially given the fact that his particular position in today's NBA is being relegated to a specialty that cannot be on the floor at all times effectively.

All of that said, great signing today and maybe it shows that Cronin does know how to negotiate and that complainers like myself didn't have the whole story on Ant and Nurk. I very highly doubt it but our FO could have known that there were deals out there for the two that were close to what we gave them but had something toxic in them and the team just wanted to get them locked up.
 
BlazerBender said:
im not so sure of that:

games played last season:
Dbooker-68
Cpaul-70
Dayton-69

scurry-63
Kthompson-32
Dgreen-63

Giannis-61
Middleton-68

Pgeorge- 54
Kleonard-52

there are more, but most all of these players were on teams last year that went deep into the playoffs.

missing 10-20 games a season for impact star players does not seem to affect their ability to win or be a contender. Based off of last season only though.
Click to expand...

The problem with that list is, those are all teams with significant star depth to keep them afloat while someone is down. So, that clouds any sorting of the data even further. And makes me unsure what my point even is.
 
handiman said:
The problem with that list is, those are all teams with significant star depth to keep them afloat while someone is down. So, that clouds any sorting of the data even further. And makes me unsure what my point even is.
Click to expand...

Lol. I get your point and believe it to be valid. Im just not sure how to accurately quantify it.
The one rebuttal i would have to this though is that i listed the teams stars. So yes some can keep them afloat, but if they are all still missing 15-20 games?

The other factor is show me a contending team without multiple stars? I think its fairly obvious a team like us would be devastated by Dame missing the season. Nas? Not so much.

So even though i get your premise, im not only sure how to quantify to with references, but not so sure it is all that accurate.

With that said, we both seem to be leaning to “a contender must have multiple stars to allow for them to rest and still stay afloat, to be a real contender”.

not sure i can disagree with that.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
The fact that he would agree to this contract suggests that even HE doesn't think he can stay healthy.
Click to expand...

probably

at the same time. a guaranteed 28M is a pretty attractive carrot. At 22, he gets to look forward to $583K/month for the next 4 years
 
Glad to see the Blazers used the leverage they had--paying him an amount as if he were a full free agent totally defeats the purpose of extending him, and I'm glad that the Blazers didn't do that here.

I'm nowhere convinced that he's ever going to be much of a much, even if he stays healthy (he's not a very good perimeter shooter, he's short, and he's not especially athletic) but at least this contract won't cripple the Blazers and it has upside for the team.
 
inconceivable said:
28M for a 22 y/o is life-changing. It's insurance that he'll be set for life no matter what. He still has opportunity to make more over his career.
Click to expand...

Exactly. His injuries have not been major, but it is smart for him to cover his ass. You never know what can happen.
See Ramon Ramos
 
blazerkor said:
All of that said, great signing today and maybe it shows that Cronin does know how to negotiate and that complainers like myself didn't have the whole story on Ant and Nurk. I very highly doubt it but our FO could have known that there were deals out there for the two that were close to what we gave them but had something toxic in them and the team just wanted to get them locked up.
Click to expand...

I think the tank complicated things. The Blazers were negotiating from a place of weakness where they needed to convince both guys to sit in a contract year. With all the other teams tanking as well it could have really inflated their numbers and resulted in toxic offers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top