pacers33granger wrote: Chinook wrote:
It's not a bad contract, but it's not a good one either. I can't see anyone giving up much value for him and the sheer size of the deal makes it super tough to salary match without SA taking back some bad money.
It's a good one. Aldridge was the 36th-highest-paid player last year. This year, he'll be no higher than 35th. The next year, he's already down to 25th (actually 26th, but Millsap will probably be paid). Then after that, his contract is only partially guaranteed. He was by many measures at top-10 or at least top-15 performer last year. In a world where stars about to enter cross the $40-Million barrier in annual salary, a consistent All-Star who averages $24 Million for two years is not a bad contract.
Who takes that contract on and gives assets to do so? Citing his spot on the highest paid player list doesn't support a single thing (nor do I understand him being "down to 25th" as a better thing..). It really has zero bearing on his value that guys like Whiteside are overpaid.
I don't know who takes him. I do know that folks here constantly underrate him. He was supposedly bad value last year because his deal was expiring, but now that it's not, it's bad value because his contract is not expiring. It's ludicrous. Aldridge on his deal may be too costly to take without a team having to give back contracts, and those contracts will have value that will affect how much they will be willing to give up in terms of picks or prospects. And some teams may not see a need in LMA's services for other reasons. It doesn't make him overpaid, though.
But yes, what LMA makes in relation to his peers totally determines if he's paid fairly. If there are a lot of other players who aren't as good making more, and if everyone better than him is either making more already or soon will, then he's not overpaid.