"You do not let him opt out"? If the goal is to lock him up without him hitting RFA then you may not have a choice. For all we know the $9.5mm was more than what BC wanted to pay as it is; you yourself said that his contract value seemed nowhere near market value. They could have been so far apart on the terms (remember that the deal was signed at the eleventh hour in the tunnel at the ACC) that this was the only solution.
I wanted BC to wait for RFA on Demar but the fact of the matter is, we ended up with Demar on an advantageous contract, and complaining that Demar has a player option in year four is ridiculous. We can play armchair GM and that's all well and good but there's a limit to how much information we have.
Further, Lowry's contract provides a perfect example of the double standard we set for BC vs Masai. Lowry has a year-four option but we all laud Masai for getting him back on a reasonable deal.
BC messed up a lot of things but it's the height of absurdity to shit on him for this.
Its a complete joke actually.
People aren't happy unless they are telling everyone else how much smarter than their teams GM they are. It's ridiculous.
BTW, hearing DD is working with Gary Payton? Absolutely great news. Get that D up Demar!
Maybe when we get back to back ECFs and sign KD in 2016 he'll realize that he should stay here
RR Legacy League
PG: Isiah Thomas 84/85: 21.2 PPG 4.5 RPG 13.9 APG 2.3 SPG .458 FG% 22.2 PER 1st team All-NBA
PF: Tim Duncan 02/03: 23.3 PPG 12.9 RPG 3.9 APG 2.9 BPG .513 FG% 26.9 PER 1st team All-NBA 1st team All-Defence
DD's contract was inherently a gamble that he would outperform his contract. Including a player option nullifies a lot of the benefit of getting that gamble right. If he was being paid an amount that made sense considering his performance at that point, it would make sense to have a player option. No other comparable player both got overpaid based on potential and got a player option. Either or - not both. They are mutually exclusive ideas - the player option is to allow the player out of an underpaying contract in the event of unexpected development, the overpay is locking a player in on a gamble he will have expected development.
EDIT: Lowry will definitely opt out of that deal to benefit from a larger contract with the new cap (you know... exactly what DD is going to do). Even if his relative value remains the same he'll expect to be paid a larger percentage of the cap on a new deal.
What's being ignored here is that even if Colangelo had been able to plan in advance for the new TV Contract and CBA in 2016, and secure DD for 4yrs/40M or whatever with no player option. He STILL would get a similarly large contract in 2017 free agency...
I think some people are just annoyed that DD is taking away cap space from a potential KD signing. I really don't think we should be planning around signing KD, especially considering that virtually every single team in the league will have max space that year (including almost all the major market teams).
If 9.5M was more than BC wanted to pay, he should have let him go to RFA. Other GM's let similar players go to RFA, posters here and elsewhere were saying at the time it would have been the right choice, the media panned the deal. Hindsight allows us to see that all those people were right - DD's worst case would have been about 11M based on the market as it showed itself. He ended up with 10M AND a player option. Only solution. Right. Because you HAVE to sign an extension.
OK, so you, a fan, wanted him to wait for RFA. Many others did. The media did. Other GM's did it with their similar players (when they didn't, they paid a LOT less in extension money). The market proved to be such that his value would likely have been 11M per year, with no player option. People predicted this would be so (not in exact terms, but that he wouldn't get much more than his extension amount in free agency).I wanted BC to wait for RFA on Demar but the fact of the matter is, we ended up with Demar on an advantageous contract, and complaining that Demar has a player option in year four is ridiculous. We can play armchair GM and that's all well and good but there's a limit to how much information we have.
Now, we sit on the verge of the biggest cap boom in the recent history of the NBA, with DD having an opt out in that season (and a fairly large cap hold because of his overpayment on his rookie extension). That 5M in extra cap room can make a big difference. As can potentially the extra 14M in room under the tax if he angles for a max deal (and who expects him not to?). The best part is that ALL of this was foreseeable. And according to you we cannot criticize this situation.
I replied to another poster along the same lines, but we applaud Masai because Lowry is on a reasonable deal. Was the DD deal reasonable at the time of its signing? Look at the media response to the two deals - DD was vastly overpaid based on his current production. Lowry, it could be argued, is slightly underpaid based on his current production. Putting in player options with veterans who are already producing at what you expect is their peak is not an issue (also note the timing of the player option - he is locked into his reasonable deal past the cap boom). If they opt out it will likely be for more term, not more salary. Putting player options into a deal that is predicated on the expectation that a player will outperform their current performance (significantly) is a fool's game, as the player is likely to opt out for more term AND money. If the team is taking the risk of overpaying in the early years of the deal, the player should be taking the risk of being underpaid at the end of it. The player option removes the risk for the player, and doubles the risk for the team (if the player sucks, they are on the hook for the final year of overpayment, if he is awesome, he opts out either to leave entirely or to re-sign for significantly more, hurting the team's cap situation significantly).Further, Lowry's contract provides a perfect example of the double standard we set for BC vs Masai. Lowry has a year-four option but we all laud Masai for getting him back on a reasonable deal.
BC messed up a lot of things but it's the height of absurdity to shit on him for this.
And I hope you guys realize, if we had signed DD for a little more money to get rid of the player option (say 11M per year?).
DD's 2016 cap hit would decrease by a whopping 3M (like < 4% of the projected cap). So it's not like he's the one holding up the fairy-tale Durant signing that isn't going to happen.
And b) if a) is correct, any Durant move will be via sign and trade, which means our limit is the tax apron, and if we keep our team together and add a borderline all-star talent next summer to help attract KD, then we will be right up against the apron if DD makes his projected 11M - and we won't be able to go over the apron to give him his 23M, so we lose him for nothing in that scenario (or lose basically all of our depth to make room for him).
Say we denounce Vasquez and JJ's cap holds. That puts us at roughly 82M committed, so still over a project cap of ~80M ish after the new TV deal. Durant (9 years exp by that time) and DeRozan would both have the same max of about 24M. So we would have to send out roughly that much in order to even complete a S&T for KD. How on earth would we achieve that while maintaining any semblance of depth?Kyle Lowry $12,000,000
Paul Millsap (eg) $10,450,000 (second year of a 10M contract)
Role player from 2015: $6,871,849 (expiring)
Patrick Patterson $6,418,605 (expiring)
Room MLE from 2015: $2,940,630 (unguaranteed)
Lucas (BeBe) Nogueira $1,921,320
Bruno Caboclo $1,589,640
2015 1st rounder (assumed 20th): $1,577,280
2016 1st rounder (assumed 20th): $1,562,280 (cap hold is lower)
2016 1st rounder (NYK/DEN assumed 10th): $2,568,600 (cap hold is lower)
Vet min from 2015 $980,431 (unguaranteed)
DeMar DeRozan $14,250,000
Jonas Valanciunas $11,651,205
Greivis Vasquez $10,102,410
Terrence Ross $8,884,793
James Johnson $4,854,524
Total committed salary including cap holds: 97.0M
EDIT: If ~80M is the cap (44.74% of BRI - projected benefits/# of teams), the tax level is set by 53.51% of BRI - projected benefits/# of teams.
So the tax threshold should be somewhere around (80M * 53.51/44.74) so 96M ish. Putting the apron at 100M or so. So if we somehow WERE able to S&T for KD by sending out the same $$$ contracts, we'd still be at a cap hit of 82M. Bump DD's hit from 14 to 24M on a new deal, and that's 92M. So below the tax level and below the apron so no problem.
Last edited by imanshumpert; Fri Jul 18th, 2014 at 10:50 AM.