Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 56

Thread: The value of an amnesty clause and contract roll backs from our perspective

  1. #21
    Raptors Republic All-Star Soft Euro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Utrecht, The Netherlands (Yes, that's Europe!)
    Posts
    1,920
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Apollo wrote: View Post
    You need to elaborate on who and why or that's pretty much worthless. Also put forth who you feel will be let go.
    Quote Apollo wrote: View Post
    Not if you think big picture. Dolan is swimming in money. It's nothing for him to drop $14M on a player. The Knicks are at $60M right now. If the cap is $58M this season and they had an under the table agreement with Billups that if they cut him and he signed on at the vet minimum they would then have $11M to spend in free agency to make the team better what do you think he's going to say? He gets $15M instead of $14M and he gets a better team. I don't know, tough call..
    I generalized because of what Matt and Tim later said (and was very short because I posted using my phone and typing takes way more time, for me at least); teams probably can't re-sign players they cut and for most teams there won't be any point in cutting the players because it either doesn't give them significant capspace anyway (Orlando and Arenas I assume and probably Portland and Roy as well) or it won't really make sense to spend much more because they won't be competing anyway and don't need the extra capspace that badly (Washington and Lewis e.g.).
    Last edited by Soft Euro; Thu Oct 6th, 2011 at 07:55 PM.

  2. #22
    Raptors Republic All-Star Soft Euro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Utrecht, The Netherlands (Yes, that's Europe!)
    Posts
    1,920
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Tim W. wrote: View Post
    Richard Jefferson is overpaid, but with the Spurs needing as much talent as possible to remain a contender, would getting rid of Jefferson make sense? Who do you replace him with?
    Jefferson is overpaid, I agree. But last year he opted out of his final year, worth about $ 15 mln. I think everyone was really surprised and thought he really wanted to get out of there, but he resigned and they pay him about $ 10 mln a year. I assume this was agreed upon before he opted out because it seems about 2-4 mln over his marketvalue. There is no way they would cut him now, as he played much better this year than his awful first year with the spurs, after which they re-signed him.

  3. #23
    Raptors Republic All-Star Soft Euro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Utrecht, The Netherlands (Yes, that's Europe!)
    Posts
    1,920
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Tim W. wrote: View Post
    And while Deng is overpaid, Chicago certainly won't want to lose him, especially when there's no guarantee they can replace him with similar talent with them still over the cap.
    I'm not even sure Deng is overpaid; he's very important for Chicago's defense and can score as well.

  4. #24
    Raptors Republic Superstar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,942
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Soft Euro wrote: View Post
    I'm not even sure Deng is overpaid; he's very important for Chicago's defense and can score as well.
    Deng is paid like an All-Star, but isn't. I'd definitely say he's overpaid. That said, I think he's a good player and I think he's very important to CHicago's success.
    Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
    Follow me on Twitter.

  5. #25
    Raptors Republic Superstar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,942
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Soft Euro wrote: View Post
    Jefferson is overpaid, I agree. But last year he opted out of his final year, worth about $ 15 mln. I think everyone was really surprised and thought he really wanted to get out of there, but he resigned and they pay him about $ 10 mln a year. I assume this was agreed upon before he opted out because it seems about 2-4 mln over his marketvalue. There is no way they would cut him now, as he played much better this year than his awful first year with the spurs, after which they re-signed him.
    Jefferson has gotten better the longer he's been with the team. The more he understands the system and plays with his teammates, the more valuable he'll be. I think he's very talented and the Spurs success is dependent, in part, to him truly finding a role with the team and playing well.
    Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
    Follow me on Twitter.

  6. #26
    Raptors Republic Starter RapthoseLeafs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Northern Ontario
    Posts
    620
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Tim W. wrote: View Post
    You guys really think the NBA will allow players to be cut and then re-signed? I don't. At all. That would be WAY too much of advantage for contenders and would mean that there would be absolutely no downside to cutting a player. That's simply ridiculous.
    While I agree it doesn't sound plausible, the alleged Amnesty already differs from the previous one. Hence, those who reference the previous 2005 program as a some kind of model, and rely on it as a guide, are discounting what the "new" program is rumoured to be - a provision that provides not only luxury-tax relief (as 2005 only did), but salary-cap relief as well.

    In the 2005 scenario, Large salaried teams (or typical Contenders as stats do prove), benefited greatly from the program. The same will happen with this version.

    Allowing teams to resign their players - as free agents - has a certain logic to it.
    • It minimizes the flood of free agents (whether by dubious means or not) - and the tendency for these F/A's to double dip in a significant way.

    • It will bring some of the Big Spending teams on-board with a new CBA (or more likely to accept other detrimental issues).

    • Flooding the F/A market with "available" players, might also run counter to what the players union would like to see happen - and its' impact on salaries. Returning players to their respective teams (again, dubious or not) could ease this concern. Of course some players could move to strong Contenders (like Miami), and further imbalance the situation. That could be corrected with some kind of rule limit.


    Granted, there are some holes to my points, but not knowing what is being given up in a new CBA, and what is not, doesn't allow us to know what trade-offs are getting made to get this deal done.

    Small market teams might feel it's a option they can stomach, in order to keep the troops in line. For the players union, it will appease any discontent that an Amnesty program might have, in shuffling players off a team they'd prefer to remain with.
    .
    Last edited by RapthoseLeafs; Thu Oct 6th, 2011 at 07:34 PM.

  7. #27
    Raptors Republic All-Star slaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    2,095
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Apollo wrote: View Post
    Also, if you don't like my list by all means please bring something to the table beyond just criticism. I'd love to see what scenarios you all think could play out. It's a lot harder to put your own neck out, I know.
    There are only two things we know with any certainty about what will happen after the end of the lockout: teams will immediately start spending money like it grows on trees, will hand out awful free agent contracts to terrible players and will look for any loophole they can find to spend even more money. Then, 6 years from now, the owners will tell us they are losing money cause salaries are too high.

    As for your list, I don't really see anything wrong with the list per se. It's just that personally I think dumping guys like that is bad asset management (TimW and SoftEuro have discussed various specifics at length). Now, you may be right and the new FA system and contracts might create some inefficiencies that smart teams can exploit by using the amnesty clause. I just can't see what those inefficiencies are at the moment.

  8. #28
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    11,994
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    It shouldn't matter if the team making the cut wishes to resign the player. The amnesty clause is designed to cut the teams a break while not at the expense of the player. Putting extra restrictions on it such as not permitting the team to resign the player is ridiculous in my opinion. It's a one time opportunity and it's limited to one player per team. If the team is over the cap then they can only use the vet minimum to re-sign the player... Or the MLE. If that player is willing to come back for the vet minimum then who cares? It's their choice, let them do it. Every team has the same opportunity to dump a contract and it's up to management to make the most out of it. If that includes bringing back the player then so be it, why make it more complicated than it needs to be? Like RapthoseLeafs and I've said, it's already a different beast from what we heard, so to assume it's going to follow the logic of the last clause when it's already moving away from it doesn't sound like a great assumption to me. Ultimately its the owners who decide if the teams should be allowed to resign the player and so I don't see why they're going to block it this time around when they've already been setting their sights on more freedom regarding the clause to begin with. What I'm interested in is how they handle player options in this clause.

    Quote slaw wrote: View Post
    There are only two things we know with any certainty about what will happen after the end of the lockout: teams will immediately start spending money like it grows on trees, will hand out awful free agent contracts to terrible players and will look for any loophole they can find to spend even more money. Then, 6 years from now, the owners will tell us they are losing money cause salaries are too high.
    Max contracts are getting clipped, the MLE is being basically cut in half, the BAE will be abolished and the length on contracts will be clipped at 3, maybe 4 years. I know you're very cynical of the business side of it be please try to at least consider the positives of a change or at least try and frame you pessimistic view within the new landscape that seems to be coming...

    Quote slaw wrote: View Post
    As for your list, I don't really see anything wrong with the list per se. It's just that personally I think dumping guys like that is bad asset management (TimW and SoftEuro have discussed various specifics at length). Now, you may be right and the new FA system and contracts might create some inefficiencies that smart teams can exploit by using the amnesty clause. I just can't see what those inefficiencies are at the moment.
    It was well publicized last time around that the only reason that some big names weren't ditched is because the amnesty clause was designed solely to give tax relief. This time its designed to give cap relief. Here's one such article from 2005 to give you a feel for the view back then and why. This amnesty clause is different and so it's only natural to possibly take a different approach and that approach is probably the one that people thought would be taken last time around before it was understood that the only relief would be to top over spenders:

    Marc Stein "Houston, Finley gone; other big names staying put" ESPN.com, 2005.

  9. #29
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    686
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I don't think Bargnani will be in the guillotine for multiple reasons. First off he's super talented, young and seven foot
    I don't think he will be either, but its more because BC has shown a complete unwillingness to give up on him. 'Talent' is obviously a very subjective statement.... there is no shortage of 'talent' in the NBA. Whats important is how one can apply/use that talent. He hasn't shown to be able to use it effectively or efficiently.

    He has value to this team and other teams
    Furthermore I feel his market value is higher than his Raptors fan value. He's an asset, one of the biggest on the team,
    take this for what you will:

    http://khandorssportsblog.com/wordpr...e-open-market/

    hardly a glowing endorsement of his 'value'

    (yes I know the source, and yes I realize these are just fans but I don't think Andrea's value is nearly as high as people want to believe)

    Imagine this. Bargnani is not a Raptor. Who would you be willing to trade on this team for Andrea?


    Maybe Casey can get through to him.
    Maybe. Like Sam did? Or Jay?

    He's never had a defensive specialist of this level working with him night and day...
    that ofcourse assumes Bargnani would work night and day.

    "I guess I'm just lazy" - Andrea Bargnani


    I'm as skeptical as the next fan but it seems like we're heading towards finding out for sure
    Now heard that 3-4 years running... so why not 5. And then we should find out the following year with JV right? And with a different SF the year after that....

    Not to mention based on what Casey and Colangelo have said over the summer they're going to give Bargnani a good run at PF.
    perfect. So lets give either Ed or Amir less minutes... and one none at all. Or move them to C because thats going to work so well.

    He could be on his last chance depending on who you talk to but one last chance is long enough to keep him off the chopping block at the leastHe could be on his last chance depending on who you talk to but one last chance is long enough to keep him off the chopping block at the least
    always one more chance...

    its like gamblers syndrome with him

  10. #30
    Raptors Republic Superstar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,942
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote RapthoseLeafs wrote: View Post
    While I agree it doesn't sound plausible, the alleged Amnesty already differs from the previous one. Hence, those who reference the previous 2005 program as a some kind of model, and rely on it as a guide, are discounting what the "new" program is rumoured to be - a provision that provides not only luxury-tax relief (as 2005 only did), but salary-cap relief as well.

    In the 2005 scenario, Large salaried teams (or typical Contenders as stats do prove), benefited greatly from the program. The same will happen with this version.

    Allowing teams to resign their players - as free agents - has a certain logic to it.
    • It minimizes the flood of free agents (whether by dubious means or not) - and the tendency for these F/A's to double dip in a significant way.

    • It will bring some of the Big Spending teams on-board with a new CBA (or more likely to accept other detrimental issues).

    • Flooding the F/A market with "available" players, might also run counter to what the players union would like to see happen - and its' impact on salaries. Returning players to their respective teams (again, dubious or not) could ease this concern. Of course some players could move to strong Contenders (like Miami), and further imbalance the situation. That could be corrected with some kind of rule limit.


    Granted, there are some holes to my points, but not knowing what is being given up in a new CBA, and what is not, doesn't allow us to know what trade-offs are getting made to get this deal done.

    Small market teams might feel it's a option they can stomach, in order to keep the troops in line. For the players union, it will appease any discontent that an Amnesty program might have, in shuffling players off a team they'd prefer to remain with.
    .
    That doesn't make sense. Just because the original teams CAN re-sign players they cut, doesn't mean those players won't become free agents and have the ability to sign elsewhere, flooding the free agency market. The players would still have the option to sign with the highest bidder. All allowing players to re-sign would do would be to reward the haves even more. And quite frankly, DO teams like Orlando, Miami, Dallas and other rich teams need any more help? I can't see that going over with the rest of the owners. Not at all.
    Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
    Follow me on Twitter.

  11. #31
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    11,994
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    I don't think he will be either, but its more because BC has shown a complete unwillingness to give up on him. 'Talent' is obviously a very subjective statement.... there is no shortage of 'talent' in the NBA. Whats important is how one can apply/use that talent. He hasn't shown to be able to use it effectively or efficiently.
    They certainly do all have talent, he just happens to have more of it than the average NBA player.

    Quote GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    Imagine this. Bargnani is not a Raptor. Who would you be willing to trade on this team for Andrea?
    Depends on the team. I've always said the he needs to play with an effective, above average traditional center. You pair him next to that and a solid SF and you can best take advantage of what he does best. I've always said that team is not the Raptors but do you know what GT? He's here for at least another season so you might as well get used to it. I'm not the guy making the call, I'm the guy trying to change his view to an optimistic outlook because I know this is the hand we're dealt as fans and it's a pointless waste of time to continue on with this generic boring one sided debate. It is what it is, time to live with it for now.

    For all we know Colangelo might envision Bargnani excelling next to Big Val and if that's the case Amir or Ed is more likely out. It didn't reassure me this off-season that Casey talked about every big man and forward seemingly besides Ed Davis.

  12. #32
    Raptors Republic Superstar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,942
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Apollo wrote: View Post
    It shouldn't matter if the team making the cut wishes to resign the player. The amnesty clause is designed to cut the teams a break while not at the expense of the player. Putting extra restrictions on it such as not permitting the team to resign the player is ridiculous in my opinion. It's a one time opportunity and it's limited to one player per team. If the team is over the cap then they can only use the vet minimum to re-sign the player... Or the MLE. If that player is willing to come back for the vet minimum then who cares? It's their choice, let them do it. Every team has the same opportunity to dump a contract and it's up to management to make the most out of it. If that includes bringing back the player then so be it, why make it more complicated than it needs to be? Like RapthoseLeafs and I've said, it's already a different beast from what we heard, so to assume it's going to follow the logic of the last clause when it's already moving away from it doesn't sound like a great assumption to me. Ultimately its the owners who decide if the teams should be allowed to resign the player and so I don't see why they're going to block it this time around when they've already been setting their sights on more freedom regarding the clause to begin with. What I'm interested in is how they handle player options in this clause.

    Max contracts are getting clipped, the MLE is being basically cut in half, the BAE will be abolished and the length on contracts will be clipped at 3, maybe 4 years. I know you're very cynical of the business side of it be please try to at least consider the positives of a change or at least try and frame you pessimistic view within the new landscape that seems to be coming...

    It was well publicized last time around that the only reason that some big names weren't ditched is because the amnesty clause was designed solely to give tax relief. This time its designed to give cap relief. Here's one such article from 2005 to give you a feel for the view back then and why. This amnesty clause is totally different and so it's only natural to take a different approach and that approach is probably the on that people though would be taken last time around before it was understood that the only relief would be to top over spenders:

    Marc Stein "Houston, Finley gone; other big names staying put" ESPN.com, 2005.
    As I said before, a scenario where the teams could cut a player and not have their salary count against the salary cap AND re-sign him with no penalties, only benefits a few of the better, more financially secure teams. Most of the smaller market teams would HATE this, because it helps the teams that need the least help. Let's face it, if Boston cut just about any of their players, they'd probably just re-sign for the minimum if they could. Boston is a "have" team and a contender. Players want to go there.

    The same would not be said of many of the other teams.

    I just can't see it going over very well with the majority of the teams.
    Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
    Follow me on Twitter.

  13. #33
    Raptors Republic Starter RapthoseLeafs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Northern Ontario
    Posts
    620
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Tim W. wrote: View Post
    That doesn't make sense. Just because the original teams CAN re-sign players they cut, doesn't mean those players won't become free agents and have the ability to sign elsewhere, flooding the free agency market. The players would still have the option to sign with the highest bidder. All allowing players to re-sign would do would be to reward the haves even more. And quite frankly, DO teams like Orlando, Miami, Dallas and other rich teams need any more help? I can't see that going over with the rest of the owners. Not at all.
    To clarify my post, when I said by "dubious means or not", I meant that a team could have a prearranged deal to release a player, and then resign him for the Vet minimum. Some teams might be reluctant to pull the plug on a player - not wishing to alienate fans - and that in turn, could affect a wealthy team's perspective on the proposed luxury tax in these CBA talks. Some teams will also have trouble agreeing to a restrictive policy that was inherent with the 2005 program. The less objections, the greater chance we see a season. Or at least a relatively decent season.

    In the case of the Raptors, they could work a deal with Jose, that would be beneficial to the team, and to Jose. For Calderon, he gets an opportunity to stay longer with a team I'm assuming he'd like to remain with (while we find a top level PG - and for which Jose can segue into a mentor's role). And for Toronto, they maintain some semblance of veteran-ship - on a youthful team - while acquiring greater flexibility, and a very sweet cap scenario. And if it doesn't work, Raptors can repay Jose with a trade to a Contender.
    .

    Hell ... the more I think about it, the more I think this favours teams like Toronto. Raptors could see this positive scenario - relatively speaking - while richer teams who tend to be over the cap, or have minimal room to maneuver, will more or less see only luxury tax relief. For a few teams that we talked about, it may bring more - effectively bolstering the chance of this program becoming reality.

    As to whether a smaller market team would agree to this, my perspective was partly based on the allegedly enhanced luxury tax system - a system which would favour the cheaper teams, to the disadvantage of higher spending teams - all relative to the current CBA's set-up. Getting the richer teams on board for an enhanced luxury tax could be difficult. This might ease the pain.
    .

    In the end, this is like what Apollo said - a ONE TIME deal. And it could be a WIN WIN situation for many teams. And for some players - they'll actually make more. Which considering the across the board proposed reductions in pay, this scenario might ease that pain - and contribute to actually getting this CBA done.
    .
    Last edited by RapthoseLeafs; Thu Oct 6th, 2011 at 09:33 PM.

  14. #34
    Raptors Republic Superstar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,942
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I think it might benefit the Raptors, as well as a few other teams. This I agree with. As I said, the haves. Toronto, for all their inability to put a winning team on the floor, is a have. They are profitable and have a lot of money at their disposal. The problem is that it won't benefit the majority of teams, who don't have a lot of money, wouldn't be able to attract back the player, or any other player, for little money, and probably don't want to see teams that are better than them get an advantage. WHat you have to realize is that if it benefit some teams, there are teams that it won't benefit, and those teams will, by comparison, be hurt by it.
    Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
    Follow me on Twitter.

  15. #35
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    686
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Apollo wrote: View Post
    Depends on the team. I've always said the he needs to play with an effective, above average traditional center. You pair him next to that and a solid SF and you can best take advantage of what he does best. I've always said that team is not the Raptors but do you know what GT? He's here for at least another season so you might as well get used to it. I'm not the guy making the call, I'm the guy trying to change his view to an optimistic outlook because I know this is the hand we're dealt as fans and it's a pointless waste of time to continue on with this generic boring one sided debate. It is what it is, time to live with it for now.

    For all we know Colangelo might envision Bargnani excelling next to Big Val and if that's the case Amir or Ed is more likely out. It didn't reassure me this off-season that Casey talked about every big man and forward seemingly besides Ed Davis.
    But who on this team currently, or future assets, would you be willing to give up for Bargnani? If we are going to talk about him having value... whats that value? If we aren't willing to give up anything from this team worth mentioning, why would we expect another team to?

    As for getting used to it... its been half a decade of it. I don't see why I should get used to it now. I'll get used to him being productive and active. I won't get used to him taking 18+ft jumpers and not rebounding. I'm not sure why anyone would want the fan base to.

  16. #36
    Raptors Republic Superstar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,942
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    But who on this team currently, or future assets, would you be willing to give up for Bargnani? If we are going to talk about him having value... whats that value? If we aren't willing to give up anything from this team worth mentioning, why would we expect another team to?

    As for getting used to it... its been half a decade of it. I don't see why I should get used to it now. I'll get used to him being productive and active. I won't get used to him taking 18+ft jumpers and not rebounding. I'm not sure why anyone would want the fan base to.
    The problem is that it's become obvious that he doesn't really have a place on the Raptors. And Raptor fans have grown tired of him. It doesn't mean other teams might not value him or see a place for him on their team. I wouldn't give up much for Jamal Crawford or Nick Young or Monta Ellis, but I'll bet they have some value around the league. EVeryone values players differently.
    Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
    Follow me on Twitter.

  17. #37
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    686
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Tim W. wrote: View Post
    I wouldn't give up much for Jamal Crawford or Nick Young or Monta Ellis, but I'll bet they have some value around the league. EVeryone values players differently.
    "some" value is significantly different than

    "market value is higher than his Raptors fan value. He's an asset, one of the biggest on the team"

    and even then, what is that "some value"? Is it a late first round draft pick and another bad contract? Is that more valuable than having the 10+ mil a year in cap space?

    In the list linked to above it was almost unanimous that Bargnani wasn't "the right fit" for each fan's team. They also consistently talk about how "bad" his contract is.


    making a play for Bargnani if Toronto were essentially giving him away and West/Landry both were to leave. Because of his long term salary and the uncertainty about the new CBA, however, I think the Hornets would explore every other avenue first. The best trade the Hornets can offer?Their TPE and perhaps a future first round pick and/or Quincy Pondexter for Bargnani.
    that is arguably one of the better offers made, from a Hornets fan.... and that is only IF both existing PFs decide to leave. Pretty much its "we'll take him off your hands if we have a giant hole to fill and think about giving you a guy with a cool name"


    Constructing a package around Blatche for Bargnani? Again, something highly unlikely. As much of a proponent I am of the Wizards “adding” by “subtracting” Blatche, I certainly don’t think they should do it for someone with a MUCH worse contact who is also fairly worse at defense.Sorry
    AB vs AB....

    I don’t think Bargnani is a player that fits what the Lakers want to do on either side of the ball........if the Lakers were to make a deal for him, I think they’d be willing to give up some combination of Artest, Blake, and Walton to get it done. ........ To me, he’d be a much better fit on a team like Orlando where he compliments Howard on both sides of the floor or when paired with a penetrating PG (like Rose or John Wall)
    we saw what the Wizards fan said, how about Orlando?:

    Bargnani is not the type of difference-maker that Orlando needs and is, therefore, of little value to their team.
    although I bet they'd move Hedo or Gilbert for him


    While all of us here agree that Bargnani is a great offensive weapon, we really don’t see him as a great fit for the Sixers........we would send you Brand, Speights and Brackins for AB, Calderon and Derozen. But I am not sure why the Raps would swing that deal.
    anything you guys like here?

    I don’t think the Pistons would give up much. Another player who doesn’t rebound or defend is the last thing they need, especially at his contract. I’d think the Pistons would trade some combination of Richard Hamilton, Charlie Villanueva, Jason Maxiell and maybe Ben Gordon.
    ...... great job Dumars.

    any deal would have to start with Frye but I don’t something like that would do much for Toronto (why get an inferior version of Bargs) or Phoenix (why get a more expensive version of Frye when you have so many other needs)
    so between Barg's two most comparable peers (Blatche and Frye), fans of both teams have said they have better value.

    The only person who said the team would probably be interested:

    I would say the team would be extremely open minded in listening to Toronto and their request for Bargnani. The obvious candidates that the Bobcats would try to move are Stephen Jackson, Boris Diaw and DeSagna Diop because of the huge contracts they carry.......... The Bobcats do have two first round picks this year (9 and 19) and I believe they would be interested in moving the 19th pick.
    (there was also mention of DJ Augustine in there)

    So again a bad contract + a late pick.... maybe DJ Augustine?


    Unless I missed one, no one else even bothered to offer their junk for him.

    Again this doesn't mean Bargnani won't be traded, and clearly these guys are fans and not GMs... but we can see a consistent stream in here of "Thanks but no thanks. He can't defend or rebound and his contract is too big. If we do offer you something its our own bad contracts". I really don't buy that fans of other teams value Andrea much differently than Raps fans do. Even then most teams are going to need to make contracts work so the Raps will need to take $ back anyways for him.

    As I say once a month with Bargnani, I hope I'm wrong. I hope BC does want to move him, values him fairly and other teams are open to dealing for him. Realisticly I see him being a drain on this team for 3 more years and then his expiring contract being dumped.

    I see no point in, if he can't be moved by the time amnesty needs to be used, not taking advantage of a situation where his contract is off the books and creating more playing time for Amir and Ed. It is not worth the risk not to.

  18. #38
    Raptors Republic Starter jimmie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Ottawa
    Posts
    491
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    You're still talking about fan perception. Not GM perception. There's a dramatic difference. Not too many fans would trade for an expiring contract of a crappy player, either, because fans generally want to see dramatic and exciting moves. Coincidentally, probably why a lot of people liked the move to get O'Neal, or the move to get Turk.

    GMs consider players as assets. Fans consider them with a lot more emotional baggage. As an asset, Bargnani likely has considerable value around the league, and I doubt it would be difficult to move him, for varying returns depending on the suitor.

    Edit: I understand the frustrations with AB, but the constant talk of moving him for the primary reason that he's taking PT away from Ed Davis and Amir Johnson is just as shady as thinking AB will suddenly turn into Dirk Nowitzki under Casey's tutelage. Amir is what he is -- a great, great backup energy guy at the 4/5. He's not a guy who plays 40 minutes for a playoff team. And Ed Davis is still -- promising defensive work in year 1 aside -- very much an unknown. I'm not saying I'd give up on him quickly, but slotting him in right now as a key piece of this team long-term is naive.
    Last edited by jimmie; Fri Oct 7th, 2011 at 12:57 PM.
    Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.

  19. #39
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    686
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote jimmie wrote: View Post
    You're still talking about fan perception. Not GM perception. There's a dramatic difference. Not too many fans would trade for an expiring contract of a crappy player, either, because fans generally want to see dramatic and exciting moves. Coincidentally, probably why a lot of people liked the move to get O'Neal, or the move to get Turk.

    GMs consider players as assets. Fans consider them with a lot more emotional baggage. As an asset, Bargnani likely has considerable value around the league, and I doubt it would be difficult to move him, for varying returns depending on the suitor.
    But who here can speak as or for a GM? If I as a fan can't say "I don't think player X has value", then someone else can't reasonably say "I think player X has value".

    I'd also say that a lot of people view players as assets to. But assets aren't guaranteed to hold their value or be profitable.

    (I'd also mention there were alot of people who hated the move to get O'neal and Turk)

  20. #40
    Raptors Republic Starter jimmie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Ottawa
    Posts
    491
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Nobody here can speak as a GM. So I guess this is what we're left with -- opinion. Ugh, really... ;-)

    I guess I just give the 'AB has value' opinion a little more weight than those I see as more emotionally based (ie. "I've been frustrated by watching AB struggle year after year and be given excuses; I know he's not going to improve and I just want him gone..."). I've seen enough really, really bad contracts moved for decent return to know that there's almost always a buyer, someone who thinks they can derive additional value where the previous franchise could not.

    But in the end, it's all opinion. We don't know what Colangelo really thinks of AB (or of AJ and ED, for that matter) and we certainly have no idea what other GMs across the league think of Toronto's assets. We can guess, but we can't know.
    Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •