Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 74

Thread: Can we put to rest this nonsense about Landry Fields being overpaid?

  1. #41
    Raptors Republic Starter Quirk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote RaptorReuben wrote: View Post
    Landry Fields IS overpaid, but reason being he was a restricted free agent, elaborating on the point Matt made, it's the nature of free agency. ESPECIALLY being he was a restricted one.
    Again someone arguing that market price is overpaying.

    #facepalm.

  2. #42
    Raptors Republic Starter Quirk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Puffer wrote: View Post
    Hey Quirk. Is this the first time since the old Alt-Rap days that i have agreed with you?
    to;cr

    (too old, can't remember)

  3. #43
    Raptors Republic All-Star Fully's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,111
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Quirk wrote: View Post
    Again someone arguing that market price is overpaying.

    #facepalm.
    I'm not sure he's arguing that necessarily. The nature of restricted free agency isn't a secret - most teams knowingly tack on an extra 15-20% of what they would expect the player to get on the open market to the offer sheet as a deterrent for their original team to match. Whether you buy into the theory that Fields was signed to kneecap the Knicks chances of landing Nash or not, it was pretty clear that the Raptors were adamant that New York didn't match the deal. I think a reasonable deduction to take from that is that they paid more for Fields than what he would have received otherwise. I'm not sure why the Fields supporters are getting so defensive. No one is saying (except for NoBan) that it's a terrible deal or that it's a tragic misuse of assets - I just thought it was somewhat common knowledge that the Raps willingly overspent for him.

    The other thing I wanted to say is that advanced metrics aren't meant to be used as the sole basis of determining a player's value anymore than regular stats, the 'eye' test, or a single playoff series are. They should all be part of a bigger formula.

    His advanced numbers are favourable but I think they are more of an indicator that he will be able to earn his salary in Casey's system in the future as opposed to him playing at that level over the past few seasons. Fields lost his shot at various times last year and appeared to struggle with confidence post-Melo. If we get three seasons of that player then it's a bad deal. Am I crazy or hasn't Colangelo basically said that they were convinced Fields would blossom under a new system? Once again I'm reading between the lines and deducting my own conclusions but doesn't that infer that they are overpaying Fields based on his potential?
    Last edited by Fully; Wed Oct 3rd, 2012 at 09:02 AM.

  4. #44
    Raptors Republic All-Star ebrian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Markham
    Posts
    1,535
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    That's bang on.

    I'd also like to add -- I think the argument that Fields' price can only be judged by how else Toronto could have spent the money is dangerous. Basically what they're saying is that the money paid to a player like Fields is justified because there was no one else of that caliber so we might as well give him this amount of money. Using this logic is how many GMs hogtie their franchises into cap-killing oblivion. This logic leads to guys like Joe Johnson or Eric Gordon becoming max players.

    Again I'm not saying Landry is excessively overpaid. It's a very manageable contract. But using the logic that Landry Fields' contract is "market price" based on not having an alternative, will run an NBA franchise straight into the ground. This is how meddling players like Tyrus Thomas, Kris Humphries, Corey Maggette, Charlie Villanueva, Richard Jefferson, Hedo Turkoglu, Marcus Thornton have/had their hideous contracts. Heck these types of contracts could be the real reason the Amnesty clause exists. They had to create a provision in the CBA to erase stupid errors caused by GMs who didn't understand the concept of market value.

    Tying yourself down to 3-5 year contract can kill you. There will be other players. In some cases even a franchise player is just not worth overpaying. I guess in that case it's more debatable based on fit, age, etc, etc.. Is Joe Johnson worth his contract? I sure don't think so. But Atlanta thought he was and they paid what they felt was "market price". They overpaid him big time. I still think Landry Fields is a Raptor because of a screwup. Maybe *hopefully* that works out for us.

    The Brooklyn Nets are a great example of a team that have ridiculous contracts for both franchise (Joe Johnson) players and role (Kris Humphries) players. They have an $85M payroll (3rd in the league?) and they probably won't reach the conference finals. This time next year they'll have an $88M payroll and won't be able to make many (if any) changes to improve their roster.
    your pal,
    ebrian

  5. #45
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    11,989
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote tkfu wrote: View Post
    It seems to be the go-to blurb for most media articles that start talking about Landry: "despite his outsized contract offer...", "...who was overpaid by the Toronto Raptors this summer...", "...will have to elevate his game to match his contract." These are all quotes from recent mainstream media articles about the raps.

    The thing is, the premise is flawed. Landry Fields didn't get a big contract. It pays him 6.25 million per year(flat, no increases) for three years. For 2009-2010 (the last NBA season I could find the data for) the mid-level exception, which is based on the league's calculation of the average NBA salary, was just north of 5.85 million. Even if growth is only 3% per year for the next 3 years, a very conservative estimate, by the time we hit the third year of his contract he'll have a below average NBA salary.

    Now, if you want to argue that Landry Fields is a drastically below-average NBA player and that's why you think he's overpaid, that's fine. (I'm gonna respectfully disagree with you on that one, but everyone's got a right to their opinions.) But what I see way too much of is, "Yeah, he's pretty good, but we're paying him way too much." If he's pretty good, or even at the level of 'mediocre starter', we're paying him almost exactly the right amount. Over the course of the deal, we'll be paying an average salary to a player who is a little above average right now, and certainly has the potential to be better than that (if he bounces back to something more like his rookie numbers.)
    He's "overpaid" because of the $8.5M in the last year. That wouldn't be present if this deal wasn't partially about taking the Knicks out of the Nash sweepstakes. This is what is getting to people.

  6. #46
    Raptors Republic Starter Quirk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Apollo wrote: View Post
    He's "overpaid" because of the $8.5M in the last year. That wouldn't be present if this deal wasn't partially about taking the Knicks out of the Nash sweepstakes. This is what is getting to people.
    So, you believe that if not for the pursuit of Nash we could have had Fields, or somebody else at least as good, for a lower price? Because that's what you would need to believe say he we overpaid.

    In any case, AFAIK, the cap hit is average yearly salary, so the per-year number is not relevant.

  7. #47
    Raptors Republic Starter Quirk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote ebrian wrote: View Post
    I'd also like to add -- I think the argument that Fields' price can only be judged by how else Toronto could have spent the money is dangerous.
    Ah yes, basic high school level economics, what a dangerous thing.


    Quote ebrian wrote: View Post
    Basically what they're saying is that the money paid to a player like Fields is justified because there was no one else of that caliber so we might as well give him this amount of money.
    No, it's saying that we could not get a similar or better player at a better price, thus this is the current price available. Which also happens to be near the league average. And since we need players to play basketball, we need to acquire them at the prices available.


    Quote ebrian wrote: View Post
    Using this logic is how many GMs hogtie their franchises into cap-killing oblivion. This logic leads to guys like Joe Johnson or Eric Gordon becoming max players.
    Teams need to make choices, yet giving a young, yet proven, player a league average contract is never as risky as handing out a max contract.


    Again I'm not saying Landry is excessively overpaid. It's a very manageable contract.
    What you are saying is that you do not have a clear idea what the word overpaid means.


    But using the logic that Landry Fields' contract is "market price" based on not having an alternative, will run an NBA franchise straight into the ground.
    I see, so instead of signing professional basketball players at the available price, they should what, not sign basketball players, and perhaps get the accountants to suit up? At their salary, they would be a great value!!

    Flawless logic, ebrian, flawless!

    Let's not run this franchise into the ground by acquiring pros, they're overpaid, why pay millions when we can go down to the unemployment office and hire the 15 tallest guys in the waiting area for nearly minimum wage!

    As proven by examples where certain teams have made bad choices, and certain players have not worked out, we can not possible justify paying professional players, they way too expensive and risky! Let's get cheap guys, at least we know they will suck! Certainty is priceless!

    As I said, the only person in this thread who has made a coherent argument for Fields being overpaid is NoBan, who believes that Fields is a poor player (I don't agree, but he is at least logically coherent). The rest of you need to go visit your high school and ask your old teacher to go over supply and demand with you again.

    It's a glorious triumph for the human capacity for cognitive dissonance that that you can believe at the same time that a) Fields is a good player and a good fit for this team, b) we could not have acquired Fields (or another player at least as good) for a lower price and c) Fields is overpaid.

    Logic demands that all three of these things can not be correct, so pick two.

  8. #48
    Raptors Republic All-Star Craiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,119
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Quirk wrote: View Post
    No, it's saying that we could not get a similar or better player at a better price, thus this is the current price available. Which also happens to be near the league average. And since we need players to play basketball, we need to acquire them at the prices available.
    So you refer to my points as 'banal' yet use this logic? That Fields price is whatever he was paid.

    This staement has nothing to do with whether Fields is 'overpaid' or not. This is 'the market price is whatever I paid for a product or service'. In fact one could argue, using that logic, since Fields was the only Fields available (one product) and Toronto paid more than anyone would (no one matched or exceeded that offer) on face value Toronto did in fact overpay based on market demand for Fields as they payed more than anyone else was willing to.

    The reality is the idea of 'overpaying' is paying more than someone/something is actually providing. One must find that level of value before one can even begin to ask IF he is overpayed, underpayed or fairly paid.

    It's a glorious triumph for the human capacity for cognitive dissonance that that you can believe at the same time that a) Fields is a good player and a good fit for this team, b) we could not have acquired Fields (or another player at least as good) for a lower price and c) Fields is overpaid.

    Logic demands that all three of these things can not be correct, so pick two.
    I love this statement simply because of the irony.

    Logic actually says any combination of those points can be true or false as they aren't mutually exclusive.

    There is no reason Fields can't be a 'good fit or player', while not being obtainable at a lower price and still be overpayed (or the exact opposite). None what so ever.

    Lets simplify this. I love Apples and Apples cost $.50 on average. I bought the only apple in the store for $10.

    Neither my love of apples, or the lack of other apples has any impact what so ever on whether I overpaid for that apple or not. The price I paid does not necessarily = fair value (or good value or bad value). It ONLY equals the price I paid. Thats it.

    That is very much 'basic highschool economics'.

    What you are arguing is Fields is worth whatever he was paid. And that is, without a doubt, the best value Fields himself could get. But thats not whats being asked. Whats being asked is, is the cost to the team worth the production returned? ie. is he overpayed. One can't figure out whether the buyer overpayed or not only looking at the cost. Its found by looking at the cost/production vs the cost/production of anything (everything) else (which includes 'buying' nothing).
    Last edited by Craiger; Thu Oct 4th, 2012 at 09:57 AM.

  9. #49
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    11,989
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Quirk wrote: View Post
    So, you believe that if not for the pursuit of Nash we could have had Fields, or somebody else at least as good, for a lower price? Because that's what you would need to believe say he we overpaid.

    In any case, AFAIK, the cap hit is average yearly salary, so the per-year number is not relevant.
    Yes, yes I do.

  10. #50
    Raptors Republic Starter Quirk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Craiger wrote: View Post
    So you refer to my points as 'banal' yet use this logic? That Fields price is whatever he was paid.
    You've chosen to ignore "we could not get a similar or better player at a better price" and instead claim that I'm arguing "whatever he was paid" which is false since "a similar or better player" can not be understood to mean that "Fields is the Only Fields Available."


    I love this statement simply because of the irony.
    Imagined irony is the most delicious.


    Logic actually says any combination of those points can be true or false as they aren't mutually exclusive.

    There is no reason Fields can't be a 'good fit or player', while not being obtainable at a lower price and still be overpayed (or the exact opposite). None what so ever.
    Umm, as mentioned, if the above is true, I have no idea on what you mean by "overpaid." Since your concept of value seems entirely metaphysical. If he's a good fit, and neither him nor any similar or better player can be acquired for a better price, then no he can not be overpaid. If you believe the team overpaid then you must believe that either he is a poor player or a bad fit (i.e. NoBan) , or that a similar or better player could have been obtained at a better price (i.e. Apollo). If you believe all three you are making no since. Sorry.


    Lets simplify this. I love Apples and Apples cost $.50 on average. I bought the only apple in the store for $10.

    Neither my love of apples, or the lack of other apples has any impact what so ever on whether I overpaid for that apple or not. The price I paid does not necessarily = fair value (or good value or bad value). It ONLY equals the price I paid. Thats it.

    That is very much 'basic highschool economics'.
    If you asked your high school teacher he would have asked you why your only choice was a purchasing a $10 apple?

    How did that come to be?

    If, as you've said "the average price is $.50" why could you not either have gone to a different shop or simple abstained from buying an apple?

    And why does the shop owner think that he can get $10 for an apple that is selling for $0.50 on average? Is he crazy? Or has supply dropped so much the average has gone up from it's former amount?

    And why did you buy it? Are you crazy? Or do you really need it and have no other option, in which case you have not overpaid, rather the price was determined by the relative supply and demand, or else you would not have paid it.

    Why has no other apple supplier noticed this and jumped to share in these super profits being created by apples selling for $10?

    As usual with bizarre examples, they provide little insight, and prove nothing.


    One can't figure out whether the buyer overpayed or not only looking at the cost. Its found by looking at the cost/production vs the cost/production of anything (everything) else (which includes 'buying' nothing).
    NBA players are not commodities, as they are not fungible and have no price of production, they are people not products, so prices of production, which is the correct basis of commodity value (as market price will always gravitate towards that), does not apply, the economics works more like real estate or collectibles, in which the majority of the price is economic rent, and the most valuable items, i.e. Picasso's "Guernica" do not lose their value when new works come on the market, like for instance, ebrian's latest masterpiece, "Winking Terrier with Ice Cream Cone in Water Colour."

    A collector with limited means may choose between "Guernica" and "Nude Descending a Staircase" if both where available, but the presence of "Winking Terrier" would not affect his choice.

    Same with Basketball Players, their can be no objective basis of value for non-fungible prices, the only basis is relative and subjective.

    The cognitive dissonance is demonstrated clearly, by some of the posters who, admitting that Fields could not have been acquired for less because he either would not have signed or NY would have matched, are never-the-less happy that BC "overpaid." That they can be _happy_ he "overpaid" is clearly dissonant. If you don't see it, I doubt anymore explanation of price mechanics would help, as the basis of value being employed is clearly coming from some kind of metaphysical ideal, so I'll leave it at that.


    Best,

  11. #51
    Raptors Republic Starter Quirk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Apollo wrote: View Post
    Yes, yes I do.
    In that case, you argument is at least logically consistent. Do you have some ideas of what better option may have been on the table?

  12. #52
    Raptors Republic All-Star Craiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,119
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Quirk wrote: View Post
    You've chosen to ignore "we could not get a similar or better player at a better price" and instead claim that I'm arguing "whatever he was paid" which is false since "a similar or better player" can not be understood to mean that "Fields is the Only Fields Available."




    Imagined irony is the most delicious.




    Umm, as mentioned, if the above is true, I have no idea on what you mean by "overpaid." Since your concept of value seems entirely metaphysical. If he's a good fit, and neither him nor any similar or better player can be acquired for a better price, then no he can not be overpaid. If you believe the team overpaid then you must believe that either he is a poor player or a bad fit (i.e. NoBan) , or that a similar or better player could have been obtained at a better price (i.e. Apollo). If you believe all three you are making no since. Sorry.




    If you asked your high school teacher he would have asked you why your only choice was a purchasing a $10 apple?

    How did that come to be?

    If, as you've said "the average price is $.50" why could you not either have gone to a different shop or simple abstained from buying an apple?

    And why does the shop owner think that he can get $10 for an apple that is selling for $0.50 on average? Is he crazy? Or has supply dropped so much the average has gone up from it's former amount?

    And why did you buy it? Are you crazy? Or do you really need it and have no other option, in which case you have not overpaid, rather the price was determined by the relative supply and demand, or else you would not have paid it.

    Why has no other apple supplier noticed this and jumped to share in these super profits being created by apples selling for $10?

    As usual with bizarre examples, they provide little insight, and prove nothing.




    NBA players are not commodities, as they are not fungible and have no price of production, they are people not products, so prices of production, which is the correct basis of commodity value (as market price will always gravitate towards that), does not apply, the economics works more like real estate or collectibles, in which the majority of the price is economic rent, and the most valuable items, i.e. Picasso's "Guernica" do not lose their value when new works come on the market, like for instance, ebrian's latest masterpiece, "Winking Terrier with Ice Cream Cone in Water Colour."

    A collector with limited means may choose between "Guernica" and "Nude Descending a Staircase" if both where available, but the presence of "Winking Terrier" would not affect his choice.

    Same with Basketball Players, their can be no objective basis of value for non-fungible prices, the only basis is relative and subjective.

    The cognitive dissonance is demonstrated clearly, by some of the posters who, admitting that Fields could not have been acquired for less because he either would not have signed or NY would have matched, are never-the-less happy that BC "overpaid." That they can be _happy_ he "overpaid" is clearly dissonant. If you don't see it, I doubt anymore explanation of price mechanics would help, as the basis of value being employed is clearly coming from some kind of metaphysical ideal, so I'll leave it at that.


    Best,
    Without breaking down everything (because at points you are simple doing nothing other avoiding and others simply trying to patonize) you are talking about something ENTIRELY different than whether the 'Raptors' overpaid or not.

    Hence what I said. You are not arguing whether 'overpayed' or not. You are, in the simplest terms, arguing the Raptors payed the price they payed and that price was good (at the time they payed it), because that was the price. (and again I'll point out, even in the simplest terms, if we use this logic the Raptors overpaid NO MATTER WHAT because they paid more than anyone else was willing to) At best what you are arguing only applies if the Raptors had to buy something. Which was never the case. They wanted to buy something (hence my apple example and statement that doing nothing is and was always an option).


    slightly unrelated note - since when is labour (ie. the service Fields is payed for) no longer a commodity? I'm not sure which philosophical economic world you may be living in.

    Anyways I'm done with this nonesense. You are attempting to make it a more complex theoritical interpretation than it needs to be. And without trying to be a total dick, its getting stupid.
    Last edited by Craiger; Thu Oct 4th, 2012 at 12:48 PM.

  13. #53
    Super Moderator ReubenJRD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, BC.
    Posts
    4,052
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Quirk wrote: View Post
    Again someone arguing that market price is overpaying.

    #facepalm.
    If you're trying to attract a player, who is coming to a team THAT DOESN'T have winning in it's resume, how else would you attract them?

    "Oh, the team is on the rise."
    "The team has a great coach."
    "We have potential."

    All that BS that players say, it's not true. They want the money, and they want to win. Unless guys who are coming from teams who weren't using them to their full potential, or weren't happy before i.e Fields in NY, Lowry in Houston (Via trade though). Lowry even said himself, he couldn't see himself in Toronto, until being 'attracted' by Alvin Williams.

    It's just how it is. It's the nature of overpaying, I doubt BC would've signed Fields with that money, but being the current situation, it was all about Nash. Fields can't turn down 6.5$ million, none the less he was being disregarded in New York...

  14. #54
    Raptors Republic All-Star ebrian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Markham
    Posts
    1,535
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    You know someone's reached a desperation point when they resort to personal attacks, and that's kind of what got me over here to this thread to begin with. Something about me being fat or something, followed by this latest barrage of terrier nonsense. Did anyone else understand that one? But Quirk, behind all the condescension and insults, we all know you're just a fun, lovable guy. <3

    I will say this though -- there are a few players at Fields' level that don't even have a guaranteed contract, so good on him for scoring such a huge contract for what he's accomplished in his short career. Between his girlfriend and this contract, you can't say this guy is not living the american dream.

  15. #55
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    793
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Craiger wrote: View Post
    Without breaking down everything (because at points you are simple doing nothing other avoiding and others simply trying to patonize) you are talking about something ENTIRELY different than whether the 'Raptors' overpaid or not.

    Hence what I said. You are not arguing whether 'overpayed' or not. You are, in the simplest terms, arguing the Raptors payed the price they payed and that price was good (at the time they payed it), because that was the price. (and again I'll point out, even in the simplest terms, if we use this logic the Raptors overpaid NO MATTER WHAT because they paid more than anyone else was willing to) At best what you are arguing only applies if the Raptors had to buy something. Which was never the case. They wanted to buy something (hence my apple example and statement that doing nothing is and was always an option).


    slightly unrelated note - since when is labour (ie. the service Fields is payed for) no longer a commodity? I'm not sure which philosophical economic world you may be living in.

    Anyways I'm done with this nonesense. You are attempting to make it a more complex theoritical interpretation than it needs to be. And without trying to be a total dick, its getting stupid.
    +1

    I believe the Raptors would have been better served by simply waiting, even a year or two if needed, for a better player to become available - or, if lucky, for one of their players to show tremendous improvement - than to invest so heavily into a player who has yet to demonstrate he is nothing more than a weak starter-quality player / 6th or 7th man.

  16. #56
    Raptors Republic Starter Quirk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Craiger wrote: View Post
    Without breaking down everything (because at points you are simple doing nothing other avoiding and others simply trying to patonize)
    Have I mentioned that I don't know anything about basketball?

    Whatever I do know is from people like you in forums like this one. I'm trying to be occasionally funny, occasionally succinct, and If I do lampoon, I'm trying to lampoon the point, not the person. Sorry if it comes across differently occasionally. I've read many of your contributions here in this forum, and found many of them interesting and informative, so don't take it personally when I say your arguments about "overpaying" are such a amazing stretch of reasoning that if they where an artificial fabric, DuPont would be submitting them for a patent.

    If I've avoided any point, feel free to repeat it. As far as I can see, I haven't.

    you are talking about something ENTIRELY different than whether the 'Raptors' overpaid or not.
    Right. I'm talking about whether the raptors overpaid or not, that's entirely different than whether the raptors overpaid or not. Wait. What?


    Hence what I said. You are not arguing whether 'overpayed' or not. You are, in the simplest terms, arguing the Raptors payed the price they payed and that price was good (at the time they payed it), because that was the price. (and again I'll point out, even in the simplest terms, if we use this logic the Raptors overpaid NO MATTER WHAT because they paid more than anyone else was willing to) At best what you are arguing only applies if the Raptors had to buy something. Which was never the case. They wanted to buy something (hence my apple example and statement that doing nothing is and was always an option).
    So, every single person who ever won an auction has overpaid? They paid more than anyone else would. Yet, that's how market mechanisms work. That is what determines price. There is no "ideal" price, rather the price is exactly the amount you need to pay to acquire a given asset given demand competition. Supply/Demand.

    Yes, commodities can be said to have a "real" value because they are fungible and so their supply can be increased to meet demand, by-and-large an apple is an apple and a light bulb is a light bulb. The reason they have a "real value" is because more can be produced, thus when demand push prices up, more supply is attracted into the market, thus driving prices back down gravitating towards the price or production. Likewise, if price falls below prices of production, firms go out of business, and supply falls, driving price up. I assume you remember all this from high school, it's pretty basic.

    The same can not be said for NBA players. Since no matter how many people know how to play basketball, there will always be a limited amount of the best players, since value comes not from playing, but from winning. In other words being better than other players. Unlike apples and light bulbs, all NBA players are not more or less alike, and high salaries doesn't automatically attract more supply of elite players. Their "value" is not based on any "prices of production," like commodities are, but on their scarcity, as mentioned, like real estate or collectibles.

    Also, I fully agree that doing nothing was an option, and it would a logical argument that the raptors should have simply kept the money (not that I would agree with this). However this does not mean that they overpaid. It only means that they perhaps made the wrong choice. However, unless you simply love the magic of compound interest and would prefer to see the Raptors buy treasuries instead of employ basketball players, saying that they should not have signed Fields implies you have a basketball reason for believing this, which is likely to be the same as what I listed as logical reason "a)" Fields is a poor player or bad fit for the team. I don't agree with that, but if you do, then it is logical to also believe that the raptors misspent their money.

    Again, if the raptors wanted Fields, then the price they paid was the only one they could have paid because if they offered less, he would either not have signed or NY would have matched. Thus, the only way the team "overpaid" is if there was another similar or better player available to them for a better price. Again, which there may have been, and thus there is a logical argument to make there. Again, I don't agree with this, but that is because I'm convinced by the advanced stats crowd that Fields is a very productive player, they, and in turn, I, could be wrong about that. We'll see what the results are.


    slightly unrelated note - since when is labour (ie. the service Fields is payed for) no longer a commodity? I'm not sure which philosophical economic world you may be living in.
    In some theoretical models "abstract simple labour power" is a commodity. However, the NBA is not on the market for simple labour. Otherwise, they could, as mentioned, head down the unemployment office and hire the 15 tallest guys in the room.

    Best,

  17. #57
    Raptors Republic Starter Quirk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote ebrian wrote: View Post
    You know someone's reached a desperation point when they resort to personal attacks, and that's kind of what got me over here to this thread to begin with. Something about me being fat or something, followed by this latest barrage of terrier nonsense. Did anyone else understand that one? But Quirk, behind all the condescension and insults, we all know you're just a fun, lovable guy. <3
    What? ebrian, so far all I've done is promote your potential as a basketball player and an artist, and mentioned you in same breath as Landry Fields and Pablo Picasso and you call that a personal insult!! Why I never! I'm very offended!! You brute!

  18. #58
    Super Moderator CalgaryRapsFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    4,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I think the main argument going on right now is all semantics. I think there is some confusion between "overpaying" and a perceived "opportunity cost".

    Here's the way I view the signing... I ask myself these 2 questions:


    1. Based on past performance, future expected performance, salary of similar players (take age, experience, character into account) and fit with the Raptors, is Landry Fields worth approx. $6M per season?

    I would say NO, he's not. A more realistic deal should have been 3-years/$12M ($4M per season). And yes, I understand that this type of deal would likely have resulted in Fields not becoming a Raptor. On salary alone, Fields is a little overpaid, but certainly not substantially overpaid.


    2. Is the opportunity cost of signing Fields to a 3-year/~$18M contract enough to label it a 'bad' deal?

    No, I don't think so. I didn't see many free agents on the market this offseason that fit the description of what the Raptors were looking for - a young wing player with potential, who's a strong character guy (ie: good teammate, coachable, with high BBIQ) and would fit well on this young, building Raptors team. Nor did I see a long line of free agents that fit this description lining up to sign with the Raptors, despite how some fans may have felt about a particular free agent. I didn't see any better way that the $6M going to Fields could have been spent this season. Plus, if we all agree that Fields @ $4M per season is good value, than the only lost opportunity is the additional $2M that he's getting paid. I certainly don't see how that $2M could have made this team a better team this season.

    Another argument is how the $2M worth of overpayment will handicap the team in the future (ie: year 2 and/or 3 of Fields' contract), by preventing the team from acquiring a superior talent via free agency or trade. To this, I point out that the Raptors are hardly in a restrictive place, salary cap-wise. The Raptors have 9 players under contract next year for a combined $43.92M, plus DeRozan (QO), Davis and Acy (team options). Calderon ($10.6M), Anderson ($0.89M) and likely whoever the 15th man is, are all expiring. Most of the players under contract beyond this season are all highly tradeable assets. The bottom line is that if the Raptors want to target another player in the next two years, via free agency or trade, the Fields contract alone will NOT prevent them from doing so. With a team salary cap hovering around $60M, a $6M contact - only $2M of which is considered to be 'overpaying' - is nothing to worry about.


    Is Fields overpaid? Yes.

    Did overpaying Fields by $2M per season hurt the team this offseason? No.

    Is the entire contract and/or the amount by which Fields is overpaid enough to cause concern? No.

    Could Fields' play over the next 3 seaons result in the $6M annual salary being perceived as good value? Yes.
    Last edited by CalgaryRapsFan; Thu Oct 4th, 2012 at 03:49 PM.

  19. #59
    Raptors Republic Superstar Puffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,616
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Very nicely summed up Calgary.

    Good point about the opportunity cost.

  20. #60
    Raptors Republic All-Star wallz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New Brunswick
    Posts
    2,244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I just hope he has a solid year.. prove those haters wrong. The key to him having a successful year is probably gonna fall on whether he finds his shooting stroke again, particularly from 3pt range. I hope he does!

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 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
  •