tl;dr article about what to do with Oden

[Draco]

Wrong. Giving Oden a max deal means there is NO CHANCE that he leaves without compensation. Not doing it means that you probably only get one more year out of him, and he leaves with no compensation.

It's odd to me that people who are complaining about "an extra 30M" aren't worried about the 4 years + QO that we've given so far, but worried about paying a high-producing 7' player in his absolute prime 4-5 years from now.

I believe the odds of him resigning a long term ~$10 mil per yr deal is a lock; so initially beginning your negotiations with a max offer is pointless. We can resign him anyways for less. It reminds me of the same people up in arms that we didn't give Brandon a max offer with a player option from day one. Well I wish we had been more assertive in those negotiations.

Players never turn down their first huge payday from the team who drafted them. We can offer more money than other teams and Greg will take the extra money. Now if another team offers a max deal to Greg I would probably bite the bullet and match, but there is no advantage to preemptively backing your own ass into such a corner.

 

[e_blazer]

Which teams are under the cap this summer and could offer Oden a big contract if he chooses to become a RFA?

It's hard to say for sure since we don't know what the cap will be for next season. The teams that look to be able to make a sizable offer on a FA though, include the Nuggets, Pacers, Clippers, Nets, Kings, and Wizards.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Ben Gordon says hello. He turned down a 6/58M offer with Chicago to sign a 6.4M qo, and then as an UFA signed a 5/55M deal with DET. Chicago received nothing in return.

And I'm not advocating starting "negotiations" with a max. It's binary. If you offer him a contract it's either the Max or the QO. If he accepts the QO then he's gone in 2012. You don't get a chance to match. You lost out. If he signs the max he's a Blazer for the next 6 years at a price of an extra Darko or Webster or 2/3rds of an Outlaw.

It's not about price. It's about risk management. And the "likely" risk of him leaving combined with the "disastrous" effect if he goes somewhere else to play his prime without compensation to the Blazers is, imho, worth a Webster contract.

 

[BrianFromWA]

it's not the teams who will offer him a contract that you worry about. I think we'd all be ecstatic if Oden signed an offer sheet with the Kings for, say, 4/50 b/c we'd match it. That's not the issue. Once we offer the QO, he can take that 9M, play with us for a year and then go wherever the hell he wants to for whatever price he wants to.

It's about not letting it get to the Ben Gordon (or Josh Childress, for that matter) point.

 

[maxiep]

Mike Sweeney? They actually SHOULD have traded Sweeney, when they could have gotten value for him. he left KC when he was 33 years old, and washed up. Nice try. And, he went to Oakland. Funny, since they can't get anyone, as they were mentioned along with KC in your original post.

MacDougal? Again, see, poor management. If he was their top prospect, the issue wasn't being able to hold onto guys, but who their top prospects were. Dye also went to Oakland, which is funny. Since they are another cheap team as you said. And they paid him well. And the White Sox got a good deal on him. They easily could have kept him at the 5 a year Chicago paid. And etc. etc. etc.? Bullshit. That's about the only good players KC has had in the last 20 years. I'll give you Damon, beltran and Greinke.
Of course, it happens to every team. Should the Cubs bemoan the structure of MLB because they lost Greg Maddux as a free agent?

So my point is made. You can find something else to nitpick about now. Vaya con Dios.

 

[Draco]

Ben Gordon says hello. He turned down a 6/58M offer with Chicago to sign a 6.4M qo, and then as an UFA signed a 5/55M deal with DET. Chicago received nothing in return.

Stupid example and not applicable or relevant to us keeping Greg. Chicago withdrew their offer to Gordon as a RFA then never offered him a deal as a UFA. Gordon wanted to play in Chicago.

If anything your examples show how management has the upper hand in these negotiations and should be guarded in their offers.

Can you provide ONE example of a quality free agent leaving after his rookie contract when his team wants to keep him? There are dozens of examples of teams overpaying which sets the franchise back most if a decade.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Ben Gordon is completely relevant. He didn't get an offer that he wanted either in October 2007 (his extension, like Roy and LMA signed) or in 2008 (where he was offered 6/58 by CHI, whether it was rescinded later or not) and CHI DID offer him a deal as a UFA.

The loss of Gordon is a blow to the Bulls, who tried to re-sign the shooting guard. Gordon turned down contract extensions for $54 million and $50 million in the past two offseasons as a restricted free agent.

This actually shows, contrary to what you're saying, that a team that offered a long-term, contract worth over $50M to a player it drafted 3 years in a row, and it ended up that he left for nothing. Sure, CHI could get over it (and did) b/c they lucked into Rose with the #1 pick. Can't say that about the Blazers.

I'm assuming that you think Josh Childress doesn't count as a "quality free agent"?

 

[Denny Crane]

Chicago only made a token offer to Gordon and withdrew it quick. They didn't want to resign him. And he never got a max offer.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Didn't say he did. If he would've been offered one, I doubt he would've just signed the QO and attempted UFA.

 

[Draco]

Ben Gordon is completely relevant. He didn't get an offer that he wanted either in October 2007 (his extension, like Roy and LMA signed) or in 2008 (where he was offered 6/58 by CHI, whether it was rescinded later or not) and CHI DID offer him a deal as a UFA.

This actually shows, contrary to what you're saying, that a team that offered a long-term, contract worth over $50M to a player it drafted 3 years in a row, and it ended up that he left for nothing. Sure, CHI could get over it (and did) b/c they lucked into Rose with the #1 pick. Can't say that about the Blazers.

This ESPN article shows the Bulls didn't want to resign Gordon. "Right after the season, I knew I probably wouldn't be back in a Chicago Bulls uniform," Gordon said, adding the Bulls didn't negotiate to re-sign him. As Denny also said, the Bulls were not interested in resigning Gordon at the overpaid amount the Pistons offered. How has overpaying for players worked out for Detroit?

Chicago was reluctant to invest huge dollars and lose possible future cap space for a player who hadn't proven to be an above average starter. Chicago was careful not to overpay and give out bloated contracts, as a result they've been able to surround Rose with a quality supporting cast.

I'm assuming that you think Josh Childress doesn't count as a "quality free agent"?

Childress was traded to Phoenix, Atlanta didn't want to sign him. In hindsight that's a smart move for Atlanta, Josh has been a poorly performing reserve and is the likely candidate to be cut from the team if there is an amnesty clause in the next CBA.

 

[Denny Crane]

Anyone (Ben Gordon) who scores 20 PPG is an above average starter. Look at what he did in the playoffs against Boston - 33 points in game 7, 26 points/6 assists in game 5, 42 points in game 2.

The Bulls did give out bloated contracts to Kirk Hinrich and Tyson Chandler and Luol Deng. They also continuously paid huge contract dollars to a spot on the roster that contributed little - guys like Antonio Davis, PJ Brown, Tim Thomas, etc.

If anything, I think the Bulls scored well in the draft with Deng, Gibson, Asik, Noah, and Rose. The cap space allowed them to sign a perennial all-star (Boozer) that they have turned into mush, and a few less than average players that give the team a lot of depth.

Thibodeau sure looks like a great coach.