Franchise Players

First of all, I'm a big fan of the Gay trade. In him we get a closer, someone who can command the ball, and a potential all-star in his prime.

That being said, it's really getting on my nerves that everyone who argues the trade that he may not be a franchise player and worth a max contract. Looking at the league (and I won't go into hard stats, since anyone can look at basketball reference/82 games) but I would think there are a MAX of 13-15 players that command franchise cornerstone status, and therefore the contract the comes along with it.

With that in mind what are the other 15-20 teams in the league supposed to do? Tank season after season waiting for the savior to arrive, when for every OKC model there are two Sacramento Kings Disaster? Meanwhile losing money by screwing over fans who won't show up and pay money to see a loser.

Overall, I like the Gay trade and am constantly battling those who always bring up the cap situation/contract status.

Thoughts?

What? What are you trying to get across here? The fact that Rudy Gay IS a franchise player worth a max contract, or... I really don't understand what your point is.

Clarity.

I think he's saying that while Gay isn't a franchise player the fact he's got a max contract shouldn't be an issue since there's tons of overpaid players.

Quote:

---

your mom wrote:

First of all, I'm a big fan of the Gay trade. In him we get a closer, someone who can command the ball, and a potential all-star in his prime.

That being said, it's really getting on my nerves that everyone who argues the trade that he may not be a franchise player and worth a max contract. Looking at the league (and I won't go into hard stats, since anyone can look at basketball reference/82 games) but I would think there are a MAX of 13-15 players that command franchise cornerstone status, and therefore the contract the comes along with it.

With that in mind what are the other 15-20 teams in the league supposed to do? Tank season after season waiting for the savior to arrive, when for every OKC model there are two Sacramento Kings Disaster? Meanwhile losing money by screwing over fans who won't show up and pay money to see a loser.

Overall, I like the Gay trade and am constantly battling those who always bring up the cap situation/contract status.

Thoughts?

---

I understand the point you make, and I generally agree. I find fans are way too reactionary about what a player makes and whether he's worth it.

Though I was also opposed to the Gay trade for reasons of salary, but not because I care about whether he's overpaid. My only concern is how much adding his contract compromises flexibility now. If this team needs to add a piece, especially if they don't get what they want for Bargs, they will have limited ways to do it...because even trades could involve moving a core piece of the rotation, and hence bring bigger risks. The flip side is trading more valuable pieces (and value will go up if the team is winning more) bring back more valuable pieces....it makes things a lot trickier in terms of understanding what they will want to do in the short term now that they have Gay, and how much are they willing to compromise the long term doing that??

My hopes are that I'm overreacting....that BC will not make significant moves after trading Bargs at least for all of next season, and possibly even the one after as well, where he goes back in evaluation mode of this team until the season where Gay expires and he plans the next set of moves to build around JV, Gay, Ross and/or Demar, and whoever else is around....I'm ok with Lowry in the short term, but he hasn't won me over in the long term yet.

Again though, I can't stress enough that on an individual level, you can have an opinion on how good you think a player is related to his contract, but that fans shouldn't really care.....I mean, the only reason to care is to think the contract is untradable....but BC even turned Araujo (any contract for him is untradable) into Hump, and Turk (his own mistake) into Barbosa. And we've seen that Bargs can at least attract a veteran all-star talent in Boozer...I was never one to advocate trading Bargs for any piece of crap just to get rid of him...Is Bargs overpaid? A bit, for sure...but the going rate in free agency for stretch 4s would be at least 8-9 million a year. I think the same can be said with Demar's contract...given the season he's having, it's hard to imagine someone not offering him at least pretty close to what his extension is.

Is Gay overpaid? Sure he is...but really, his contract should probably average at least around 13-14 million per season(if Granger gets paid that...)and he averages 16ish for the length of his deal...that's not a big gap. On an individual level, I think fans pretty much always overreact...it's just because we're all dirt poor compared to them.

Quote:

---

ceez wrote:

I think he's saying that while Gay isn't a franchise player the fact he's got a max contract shouldn't be an issue since there's tons of overpaid players.

---

Ah. Okay.

Agreed. To an extent, because he is a potential franchise player.

The term "franchise player" is so arbitrary. It doesn't mean anything. In the last 4 years, our franchise player has switched from Bosh, to Bargnani, to DeRozan, Valanciunas, to Gay. That's quite the broad spectrum without providing any clarity as to what defines a franchise player. It's a marketing term more than anything. As fans, we should be ignoring it at all costs.

Does Gay's contract hinder our ability to make future moves? Yes. But I'm ok with overpaid players who are actually productive. Although Bargnani, Kleiza, Fields, and DeRozan make less than Gay, I find their contracts to be bigger hurdles because of how little they contribute to winning.

Quote:

---

Nilanka wrote:

The term "franchise player" is so arbitrary. It doesn't mean anything. In the last 4 years, our franchise player has switched from Bosh, to Bargnani, to DeRozan, Valanciunas, to Gay. That's quite the broad spectrum without providing any clarity as to what defines a franchise player. It's a marketing term more than anything. As fans, we should be ignoring it at all costs.

Does Gay's contract hinder our ability to make future moves? Yes. But I'm ok with overpaid players who are actually productive. Although Bargnani, Kleiza, Fields, and DeRozan make less than Gay, I find their contracts to be bigger hurdles because of how little they contribute to winning.

---

Nail on the head.

If there's a player out there that can take over the 4th quarter and hit game winning shots half of what Gay is making and is available to acquire, then by all means the Raps should target that guy. But reality is, players like Gay dont come cheap. And, if there is such a player on a lower salary, you know that their home team is not going to release them at any cost. You can throw in the percentages, the PERs, the DRatings, etc etc but bottomline is you need a player who can win you games at the end of the day. So instead of trying to look for that guy with Gay's abilities at a cheaper price, why not get Gay and then look into trading pieces on your team that can play with him, or get players that can play around him with manageable contracts.

Quote:

---

Nilanka wrote:

The term "franchise player" is so arbitrary. It doesn't mean anything. In the last 4 years, our franchise player has switched from Bosh, to Bargnani, to DeRozan, Valanciunas, to Gay. That's quite the broad spectrum without providing any clarity as to what defines a franchise player. It's a marketing term more than anything. As fans, we should be ignoring it at all costs.

Does Gay's contract hinder our ability to make future moves? Yes. But I'm ok with overpaid players who are actually productive. Although Bargnani, Kleiza, Fields, and DeRozan make less than Gay, I find their contracts to be bigger hurdles because of how little they contribute to winning.

---

I disagree on Fields.

He does a lot of things that contribute to winning that come from essentially basketball IQ.

If he can regain his shooting stroke this summer, he'll still be overpaid, but he will definitely contribute to winning.

I really like Fields but not sure if that has to do with his g/f or not.

Gay has already won us two games in four(?). That's pretty cool.

Quote:

---

Nilanka wrote:

The term "franchise player" is so arbitrary. It doesn't mean anything. In the last 4 years, our franchise player has switched from Bosh, to Bargnani, to DeRozan, Valanciunas, to Gay. That's quite the broad spectrum without providing any clarity as to what defines a franchise player. It's a marketing term more than anything. As fans, we should be ignoring it at all costs.

Does Gay's contract hinder our ability to make future moves? Yes. But I'm ok with overpaid players who are actually productive. Although Bargnani, Kleiza, Fields, and DeRozan make less than Gay, I find their contracts to be bigger hurdles because of how little they contribute to winning.

---

+1.