Monroe

[d-train]

I looked it up. The new CBA still allows teams to lockup a player for 7 years but the team has to make a maximum offer rather than a QO to do this. A QO allows teams 6 years. But, this can have limited value when the player is not a franchise or near max player. In Monroe's case, it’s a viable option to accept the QO and Monroe can be a RFA after 5 years. Thompson would never sign his QO because he will have better options.

[Shem]

This situation with Monroe happened with David Lee and when Lee accepted the Knicks qualifying offer, he became a UFA next season and got nice offer from Golden State.

Lee didn't accept a QO. He may have threatened to, but instead of a QO, NY gave him a 1 year deal for 7.5 million, presumably so they could avoid that 'trade-veto' provision of the QO in the CBA and possibly work out a trade during the season. They didn't, but right after the moratorium following that season, they did work out a trade with Golden State for Lee. Knicks got Kelenna Azubuike, Anthony Randolph, Ronny Turiaf, and two 2nds.

The whole point is that Monroe is going the same route Lee did. And Lee as a UFA choose the Warriors and the sign and trade was done because in the old CBA, a player could get more years in their contract.

Just keep in mind that I'm not like some of you when it comes to memorizing how the CBA works and stuff and how exactly things went over 4 years ago. So I went off the memory of what happened at the time which is that Lee was a RFA and had a hard time getting a deal done to leave the Knicks. But I am right about Monroe "basically" doing the same thing Lee did since Lee didn't get many bites during his RFA as he did his UFA.

Monroe is overrated generally, and overrated pretty significantly around this forum

I don't disagree with that as you won't find me going all nuts about getting him in any thread. However that doesn't change the fact that he'll find it easier next offseason to get a deal because of his unrestricted status.

[Shem]

You started by questioning my knowledge but you are exposing your lack of knowledge.

I'm about to show you how you're the one with a lack of knowledge here. Just wait and see. However, you will argue against with your personal opinion passing it on as a fact. Just wait and see.

Your Lee example shows a poor ability to interpret events. There was no disagreement between Lee and the Knicks on how much Lee should be paid. Lee was and is a max/near max player. The Knicks primary goal at the time was to position itself to acquire LeBron in free agency. The Knicks wanted the flexibility to get another solid max player (Bosh or Stoudamire) if that would help secure LeBron. Otherwise, Knicks wanted LeBron and to extend Lee a max offer as well. And, Lee wanted to stay in NY and play with LeBron. The amount the Knicks and Lee agreed to was the most Lee could be paid without effecting cap room to offer LeBron a deal and to keep Lee's rights as well.

Here is how you're wrong since you are basing on your own personal interpretation just like you still think the OKC Thunder are still the Sonics...

Lee's summerlong search for a sign-and-trade to secure a longer contract was also hampered by the Knicks' determination to avoid long-term deals, but the double-double specialist managed to secure a one-year salary well above his $2.6 million qualifying offer without missing camp time.

Source:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4501088

This just proves what I said to be correct as Lee was looking for a team, but his RFA was handicapping him.

And now it's your turn to reply because you're going to and use your own personal opinion as a fact like I said before.

[GreenRiddler]

I am admittedly torn. I don't think RoLo has done anything that would make me hesitate in giving him an extension. On the same hand, having a guy that can score like Monroe could be very beneficial for Portland.

If we're talking about Lopez at 10-12 million a year vs Monroe at 16 million a year, there's no way I'd consider Monroe. Whether or not that's an accurate projection of future salaries, I don't know

and if we're talking about which player is a better fit with the current rosters, again, I think an edge goes to Lopez

I'm not a big fan of high usage C's unless they are dominant in the paint. That's not a description that fits Monroe. it sure seems like teams that are contenders have at least two, if not more, players that score from outside-in. Guys who can put the ball on the floor and create from the perimeter and break down defenses off the dribble. If the Blazers are going to have a 3rd high salary player, I don't think they can afford to NOT invest in another shot creator rather then a low post player who can't protect the paint or the rim

Monroe ranked 186th in the league in TrueShooting percentage. That's pretty weak efficiency for a player that took 53% of his FGA inside. I'm not sure how much of a boost his scoring would give Portland. I do suspect his bad defense would make it difficult to make him a net positive on the floor

He was asked to play PF besides Drummond even though he was a center, also had no room to manuver with Smith at the SF. I think he 2nd year stats where he played full time at C say more about his offensisve capabilities.

[ebott]

Is Monroe any better/different than Zach Randolph? I haven't watched him play. He looks good in highlights, but so does Meyers Leonard. He sounds to me like a guy that puts up good numbers on a bad/mediocre team.

Zach is a max/near max player. Now he is an old man by basketball standards and his shelf life limits his market value. Zach is a better player than Monroe.

And Zach has never led a team anywhere. I expect a team that signs Monroe to a max/near max deal will have a similar fate.

[DaVoiceMaster]

Is Aldridge, Lopez & Monroe a bad 3-some up front? Yeah, it could end up costing $43 million for those 3 players alone. They could be a 3 headed monster that destroys teams with their size.

Add $12 million for Batum, $13 million for Lillard and $8 million for Matthews and you're looking at $76 million before you add anyone else off the bench.

Would Allen be willing to go into the luxury tax for a couple of seasons to see if he can bring a title to Portland? If not after 2-3 years, he can move one of the more expensive contracts to drop below the threshold again. What is it currently and what is it projected to be in 1, 2 & 3 years?

[Wizenheimer]

Is Aldridge, Lopez & Monroe a bad 3-some up front? Yeah, it could end up costing $43 million for those 3 players alone. They could be a 3 headed monster that destroys teams with their size.

that "destroy with size" idea doesn't seem to work in the NBA any more. For one thing, you can't play all 3 at the same time, and most other teams have multiple big men as well. For another thing, the NBA is filled with fast players and the defensive 3-second rule makes it hard to pack the paint on defense

Miami won 2 titles and played in 4 championship series with Bosh as their C. The Spurs won a championship with a big man rotation of Duncan, Splitter, and Diaw. It's not enough to have bigs, they have to also possess mobility. Lopez & Monroe are both pretty slow and paint-bound

Add $12 million for Batum, $13 million for Lillard and $8 million for Matthews and you're looking at $76 million before you add anyone else off the bench.

if you're figuring Lillard's rookie extension deal, if it's a 5 year deal, it will be around 18 million a year, not 13 million. Get with the times DVM...

a more accurate picture might be

Aldridge 22 million
Lillard 18 million
Monroe 17 million
Batum 15 million
Lopez 11 million
Matthews 8 million

91 million....

Would Allen be willing to go into the luxury tax for a couple of seasons to see if he can bring a title to Portland? If not after 2-3 years, he can move one of the more expensive contracts to drop below the threshold again. What is it currently and what is it projected to be in 1, 2 & 3 years?

if there was a decent chance at a championship, I'd imagine PA would be happy to pay some tax. Probably not more then 3 years of it though as he's explicitly said he won't pay the repeater tax

But I'd seriously question if Monroe was the key. Certainly not as a backup. Detroit drafted him after they had a 27 win season. In the next 4 years, they won 30, 25, 29, & 29 games. If Monroe couldn't push a lottery team to more wins, it's doubtful he could push a lower playoff team to a title. And yes, I know there are flaws to that

I'll say again that if Portland is going to pay for another major contract, it needs to be for a dynamic shot creator. A player capable of breaking down defenses from outside in. Not a player like Monroe

[Goldbum]

I really hope Monroe accepted that offer with hopes of being a Blazer next year. I truly think he would be great with Aldridge.

[Goldbum]

I really hope Monroe accepted that offer with hopes of being a Blazer next year. I truly think he would be great with Aldridge.

[DaVoiceMaster]

Wiz - $18 million is too damn high for any athlete. I don't care who they are. It's ridiculous that Kobe makes more money in ONE MONTH than I make in TWENTY YEARS!!!

[bob2]

a more accurate picture might be
Aldridge 22 million
Lillard 18 million
Monroe 17 million
Batum 15 million
Lopez 11 million
Matthews 8 million
91 million....

This won't happen.
If Portland signs Monroe, it's a pretty safe bet that Lopez will be gone.

[Wizenheimer]

a more accurate picture might be
Aldridge 22 million
Lillard 18 million
Monroe 17 million
Batum 15 million
Lopez 11 million
Matthews 8 million
91 million....

This won't happen.
If Portland signs Monroe, it's a pretty safe bet that Lopez will be gone.

I was replying to DVM's idea about a "3-headed monster" of Aldridge/Lopez/Monroe

even if Lopez was gone and replaced by Monroe, it would still be around 80 million for the starting unit. That would be 3 million above the current tax threshold with an entire bench of at least 8 players yet to be added

in other words, it's ain't happening. It's why I'm saying Monroe is being overrated...significantly. That's because adding Monroe would not only cost Lopez, it would also cost one of Matthews/Batum, and Monroe isn't anywhere close to good enough offensively to offset the loss of two of the current starters. Then, add in the fact that he's a bad defender...yikes!

now, you might justify it, to a degree, by saying the Blazers can't afford all of their current starters on new deals in 2016 (after Lillard's extension). Personally, I think that would probably be the case if they are all getting deals close to what I projected. That would be 70-75 million/year average for the starters. Unless the cap & tax levels jump up dramatically, I have a hard time seeing how Portland can pay that, at least for longer then a year or two

[DaVoiceMaster]

We'll find out just how much the starters wanna stay together over the next 2 years (Aldridge, Matthews & Lopez next summer and Lillard & Batum the following summer). If they wanna stay together, they're gonna have to take a little less (moreso with Aldridge, Lillard & Batum as they make the most money). If they're all about the money, than one or two of them may end up elsewhere. If they all want top dollar, then this team does not stay together. Could that be why Aldridge wants to wait until next summer so he gets that 5th year on his new contract to help make up for taking a little less money overall???

[Wizenheimer]

We'll find out just how much the starters wanna stay together over the next 2 years (Aldridge, Matthews & Lopez next summer and Lillard & Batum the following summer). If they wanna stay together, they're gonna have to take a little less (moreso with Aldridge, Lillard & Batum as they make the most money). If they're all about the money, than one or two of them may end up elsewhere. If they all want top dollar, then this team does not stay together. Could that be why Aldridge wants to wait until next summer so he gets that 5th year on his new contract to help make up for taking a little less money overall???

I just don't buy into NBA players, especially when they are younger like the Blazer players, giving 'home team' discounts. Maybe they could accept a little less because they can get 7.5% raises with their team, but I wouldn't expect that to be more then 200K/yr or so

if my projection of around 73 million a year for the starting unit is close, just how much of a discount would they have to give to make a big difference? Drop them down to 63 million?....that would be giving up 10 million a year. They would be dumb to do that. 2 million a year per player on average. Why should Matthews or Batum or Lopez make 8 million less over the next 4 years just to stay in a small market like portland that also doesn't offer the endorsement opportunities bigger markets offer. 8 million dollars is a lot. That could be like 2/3 or 3/4 of a year's salary for some of them. Would you work for free for 8-10 months just to remain in your current job when some other company was offering a better salary, starting immediately?

as far as Aldridge waiting a year. He's taking a small risk for a big reward. 5 guaranteed years is better then 3 guaranteed years. Also (and I may have this wrong), an extension would be based upon next year's salary and start from that. A new deal in a year would be based upon the max level deal for his years of service. There could be a 2 million/yr difference in base salary

[DaVoiceMaster]

I hear ya Wiz. I'm just wishful thinking!!! The discount players would have to be Aldridge, Lillard & Batum. Those are the 3 players that have said they want to stay together. Lopez and Matthews are the cheaper players and probably the players to be replaced if it all comes down to money. And if it comes down to one player, I would imagine it'll be Matthews who goes. Aldridge needs a big next to him so I think Lopez gets the nod, unless he has a stinky year this next season.

The Blazers will need 2-3 guys off the bench who can contribute and that means probably $4-$7 million per year each. The rest of the roster can be filled with cheap contracts. UNLESS they can get a bunch of vets signing at the end of their careers for the minimum to try and win a championship.

[Wizenheimer]

I hear ya Wiz. I'm just wishful thinking!!! The discount players would have to be Aldridge, Lillard & Batum. Those are the 3 players that have said they want to stay together. Lopez and Matthews are the cheaper players and probably the players to be replaced if it all comes down to money. And if it comes down to one player, I would imagine it'll be Matthews who goes. Aldridge needs a big next to him so I think Lopez gets the nod, unless he has a stinky year this next season.

The Blazers will need 2-3 guys off the bench who can contribute and that means probably $4-$7 million per year each. The rest of the roster can be filled with cheap contracts. UNLESS they can get a bunch of vets signing at the end of their careers for the minimum to try and win a championship.

yes, it could be Matthews as the odd man out, if the Blazers need to control payroll

however, I look at this off-season, when Chandler Parsons and Gordon Hayward got max deals that will pay them well in excess of 15 million a season...closer to 16 million. And they were only eligible for the 25% scale because of coming off rookie contracts

Batum will have finished his 8th season which means he'll be eligible for the 30% scale, just like Aldridge will be next summer. If at the time the cap is 68 million for example, Batum's max deal would be starting with a 1st season max of around 20 million. Nobody will pay him that (unless he goes wild in the next two seasons), but certainly, he could command a similar salary as Parsons and Hayward....easily 15-17 million a year. You know his agent will be shooting for a max deal and you know that same agent won't be doing any favors for the Blazers

so, my guess would be if the Blazers had to "let-a-player-walk" because of cap issues, it would be Batum

[DaVoiceMaster]

Aside from Lillard and Aldridge, do you let Lopez, Matthews and Batum go out and set their value, then decide whether you agree or not and either sign them or let them go? Perhaps a guy like Lopez gets more than he might have with you to start with, but maybe a guy like Matthews or even Batum gets less. These pay increases are just way too much. It's too bad they don't have a structured salary where you get such and such amount based on years in the league, then get additional pay based on incentives. I just don't know why any athlete gets $20+ million per year. Don't give me this crap about having to take care of their family for the rest of their life on what they make while they play because they're under 40 years old when they retire and can always get employment afterwards. The average person has to work well into their 60's. These guys can work past 40 as far as I'm concerned.

[Wizenheimer]

Aside from Lillard and Aldridge, do you let Lopez, Matthews and Batum go out and set their value, then decide whether you agree or not and either sign them or let them go? Perhaps a guy like Lopez gets more than he might have with you to start with, but maybe a guy like Matthews or even Batum gets less. These pay increases are just way too much. It's too bad they don't have a structured salary where you get such and such amount based on years in the league, then get additional pay based on incentives. I just don't know why any athlete gets $20+ million per year. Don't give me this crap about having to take care of their family for the rest of their life on what they make while they play because they're under 40 years old when they retire and can always get employment afterwards. The average person has to work well into their 60's. These guys can work past 40 as far as I'm concerned.

LOL...you tell em!

I was reading that Paul Allen lost value on his portfolio this season and Steve Ballmer gained and passed PA on Forbes list. To the point that the difference in their net worth is 2.8 billion

think about that. 2.8 billion. If you figured there were 100 regular posters in this forum and we were then to split that 2.8 billion amongst us, that would be 28 million for each of us. Actually, since the moderators couldn't take any money because of the TOS, it would actually be about 29 million for the remaining 96 of us. Sorry DVM...you just keep working. You can visit me on my yacht though and I'll even have beer in the fridge

[DaVoiceMaster]

Hey Hey Hey!!! I'm not paid so I'll take my share! I have 14 other account names on RealGM so I'll take my $392 million BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't be so greedy Wiz. You're still getting $28 million!!!

[DeBlazerRiddem]

As toward the discussion... is it potentially relevant that we will be resigning our core players to long-term deals right before the new TV deals are projected to make a significant impact on cap limits?

So what might look untenable at the current cap limits when players get fair-market deals, might be more manageable in the future when player deals start to look below market?


Is this perhaps the real genius behind the 2015 contract situation?