RealGM

THE 2009 LIST

1. 2. 3. 4. 4.
6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

1. Eddy Curry
2. Peja Stojakovic
3. DeSagana Diop
T-4. Beno Udrih
T-4. Baron Davis
6. Gilbert Arenas
7. Elton Brand
8. Rashard Lewis
9. Luke Walton
10. Corey Maggette


feel free to comment on the results, the voting process, etc.

I still don't see how Rashard should be on here. I know, he is wildly overpaid, but he does the damn thing and does it well, proving himself as a reliable 2nd option on a true contender.
Someone like Varejo should have snuck their way on there in place of him, IMHO.

i also don't agree with lewis being on there. the magic are getting exactly what they wanted and are title contenders because of it.

i don't agree with varejao as a replacement, simply because he just got his contract so no reason to think the cavs value him negatively.

next in line was kirilenko, so i would go with him.

dcash4 wrote:next in line was kirilenko, so i would go with him.

K-Mart and Z-bo each get paid about as much as AK-47 does, and Kirilenko is a much better player than either of them. Kirilenko falls into the same category as Lewis, except that he has fewer years left on his contract than Lewis does.

I'm impeaching the credibility of voting Eddy Curry as the #1 negative asset. The Kings would instantly swap Beno Udrih for Eddy Curry for instance, same will apply for other albatross long-term contracts.

Ray Allen Iverson wrote:I'm impeaching the credibility of voting Eddy Curry as the #1 negative asset. The Kings would instantly swap Beno Udrih for Eddy Curry for instance, same will apply for other albatross long-term contracts.

Well said RAI, Currt & Stojakovic being ont the list with just 2yrs left on their deals.

Everyone values players differently, but in my view, Rashard Lewis should have been higher on this list.

That's not to say Lewis isn't an excellent player, but when he's called "wildly overpriced," you need to come up with a way to quantify that, and not look the other way because he's so talented. If Lewis was $50 mil a year, everyone would have to admit he's #1 right? So how bad is his contract?

Comparable players at his position are getting contracts for $9-$10 mil in the open market. But let's say he's worth $12, so we don't bicker.

2009-10 $18,010,791 cost - $12,000,000 production = $6,010,791 OVERPAY
2010-11 $19,573,711 cost - $12,000,000 production = $7,573,711 OVERPAY
2011-12 $21,136,631 cost - $12,000,000 production = $9,136,631 OVERPAY
2012-13 $22,699,551 cost - $12,000,000 production = $10,699,551 OVERPAY

$33.4 MIL OVERPAID in 4 years

This is a huge number for several reasons:
1. it reduces the options ORL has to add to its team
2. the number is actually greater, because of lux doubling
3. even if ORL wanted to spend over the lux, they could get more production from a $12 mil replacement, and an $8 mil guy at the current market.
4. a 3-4 year contract carries injury risk, since ORL could miss out on the $12 mil production.

I know the last year is a little funky, but Eddy Curry doesn't put that big a dent in NYK, and neither does the rest of the Top 5.

Rashard Lewis is over-paid, but he's definitely not a negative asset. Negative assets aren't #2 options on a Finals team, even if they are getting $5+mil more a year than they should.

Lewis + Maggette have virtually = numbers but Lewis costs twice as much...so if Maggette makes the list, Lewis does too. Peja + Curry are a lot of $$$$$ and for guys too one dimensional + injured to justify 1/3 of the $. AK is Lewis $...if not as long. He no longer deserves his rep for D as he too often is in a daze and not doing squat on D. Playing good D 2/3 of the time...and no D 1/3 of the time is not much plus. His rebounds,scoring are 2nd string stuff. Jaric + Jeffries are no longer very long deals but how much is a no upside 3rd stringer worth? Baron had been 20 pt/9 asst but landed on a disfunctional team that does thing different from what Baron does well. Still...his "bad season" had numbers about even with Derrick Rose.

I agree Shard should not be on this list! Our team and our fans do not think he is a negative asset! lets redo this and call it top ten that suck and are getting paid big bucks!

Sometimes you have to look beyond the numbers, old rem. You honestly think the Magic would be just as good with Maggette as they are with Lewis? Totally different skillsets and totally different styles of play.

Negative assets would mean they're hurting the team. I find it hard to believe that Rashard Lewis, as the #2 player on a NBA Finals team, is hurting the team. Now he's more of a #3 player due to Vince Carter. If he was playing for the Wolves and they were still only winning 24 games, I could see it then, but not when he's playing in the Finals.

I would have to agree about Shard, yes he is overpaid, but I do not think he is a negative contract.

But all in all this was first list I was involved in and it was fun

john2jer wrote:Negative assets would mean they're hurting the team. I find it hard to believe that Rashard Lewis, as the #2 player on a NBA Finals team, is hurting the team. Now he's more of a #3 player due to Vince Carter. If he was playing for the Wolves and they were still only winning 24 games, I could see it then, but not when he's playing in the Finals.

This is the trade forum, so the way I see it negative assets are measured by how hard it is to get rid of them in a trade. The magic aren't necessarily looking to trade Rashard Lewis, but if they were they would have a pretty hard time finding a team willing to take on his massive contract. That makes him a negative asset.

trk wrote:

john2jer wrote:Negative assets would mean they're hurting the team. I find it hard to believe that Rashard Lewis, as the #2 player on a NBA Finals team, is hurting the team. Now he's more of a #3 player due to Vince Carter. If he was playing for the Wolves and they were still only winning 24 games, I could see it then, but not when he's playing in the Finals.

This is the trade forum, so the way I see it negative assets are measured by how hard it is to get rid of them in a trade. The magic aren't necessarily looking to trade Rashard Lewis, but if they were they would have a pretty hard time finding a team willing to take on his massive contract. That makes him a negative asset.

And you think teams would be willing to give up more to get AK47, Gadz, Redd, or Jaric? Seems pretty crazy to me.

I didn't follow the voting process, but any list of 'negative assets' that doesn't include Andrew Bogut and his awful contract is a screwed up list.

Oh, and does Donald Sterling count as an asset?

john2jer wrote:

trk wrote:

john2jer wrote:Negative assets would mean they're hurting the team. I find it hard to believe that Rashard Lewis, as the #2 player on a NBA Finals team, is hurting the team. Now he's more of a #3 player due to Vince Carter. If he was playing for the Wolves and they were still only winning 24 games, I could see it then, but not when he's playing in the Finals.

This is the trade forum, so the way I see it negative assets are measured by how hard it is to get rid of them in a trade. The magic aren't necessarily looking to trade Rashard Lewis, but if they were they would have a pretty hard time finding a team willing to take on his massive contract. That makes him a negative asset.

And you think teams would be willing to give up more to get AK47, Gadz, Redd, or Jaric? Seems pretty crazy to me.

I dunno...I think there are quite a few teams that would rather pay $14.7M for two years of Jaric than $81M for four years of Lewis. Not all of them, but quite a few.

This is the issue with these polls..."value" is never objective. Orlando LIKES having Lewis. Utah LIKES having Kirilenko. Their value to their current teams may be a lot less negative than to others. Some teams would rather pay extra for production. Other teams are happier not overpaying guys no matter how good they are. It's all good

IDK that Utah LIKES having AK47 at his current contract, I think they would trade him in a heartbeat for a cheaper option at a similar talent level, where as Orlando would only trade Lewis for a literal handful of specific players, cheaper or not.

vincecarter4pres wrote:IDK that Utah LIKES having AK47 at his current contract, I think they would trade him in a heartbeat for a cheaper option at a similar talent level, where as Orlando would only trade Lewis for a literal handful of specific players, cheaper or not.

I suspect most teams would consider trading most players for cheaper options at similar talent levels.

And, maybe. Every time they've had a chance to trade him away (e.g. to Phoenix for Marion), it's the Jazz who have declined. Not saying I always agree with it, just letting you know how they think.

But the Jazz never had the option to trade Kirilenko after Boozer stayed on and launched them into luxury tax stratosphere, right?

shrink wrote:But the Jazz never had the option to trade Kirilenko after Boozer stayed on and launched them into luxury tax stratosphere, right?

KOC may not always be the brightest crayon in the box, but he knows how to read a calendar He knew what the consequences would be...and as we've discussed before, the Jazz have had numerous chances to sacrifice talent for savings and so far haven't done so.

I don't doubt that the Jazz would like to save money, or even that AK's value to the team has slipped since its peak. I just don't think they're rushing out to trade him for anything at all as long as it saves them money, unlike some players on this list. That's all.