Bad Business

[NewWolvesOrder]

Signing Luke Ridnour to that 4/16 deal was a terrible desicion by Kahn. Dude is a backup plain & simple. He's probably our only bad contract at this moment. Telfair is arguably better player if healthy and I bet we can resign him next summer for peanuts if we want. If a deal for big money player arises on the horizon I'd insist on Luke being included. As everybody noticed our PG play is pathetic, we don't have a starting quality point guard. It's still unclear if Flynn is a starter in this league. I hope that Rubio dude pans out for us.

[revprodeji]

This is the first time I have heard his contract seen as a negative.

Luke is recovering from injury, but I think he is playing pretty well. He is also a vet that will help Jonny and possibly Ricky next year.

Nobody would have said Telfair was a better player this summer.

Luke has a crazy high EFG and a positive PER (15.7 to 14.7). He is a back-up, but a very good back up.

[shangrila]

No objections for now, although I'll wait until the end of the season before I get on the trade Ridnour bandwagon. That's how long we gave Sessions and Ridnour deserves the same.

[NewWolvesOrder]

This is the first time I have heard his contract seen as a negative.

Luke is recovering from injury, but I think he is playing pretty well. He is also a vet that will help Jonny and possibly Ricky next year.

Nobody would have said Telfair was a better player this summer.

Luke has a crazy high EFG and a positive PER (15.7 to 14.7). He is a back-up, but a very good back up.

No. Luke is trigger happy guard that doesn't break down defenses off the dribble, gets sloppy with the ball, is not much of a defender. Committing so much money to a backup PG with no upside is a stupid thing to do for a rebuilding team. A team like lakers can afford to pay guys like Blake or Ridnour 16 mil contract but for us it's dumb.

[NewWolvesOrder]

No objections for now, although I'll wait until the end of the season before I get on the trade Ridnour bandwagon. That's how long we gave Sessions and Ridnour deserves the same.

Sessions had upside, he just didn't fit the playing style. Ridnour has no upside what so ever.

[shrink]

This is the first time I have heard his contract seen as a negative.

While most people were rah-rah about the contract, it wasn't everyone.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=1035187

[Gobble]

Super late to be asking this question, but did anyone ever say what happened on the Ridnour last shot against the Spurs. Did Rambis design a play to let Ridnour isolate, or did he just do that on his own? Not that I could really decided which would be worse I guess...

[Klomp]

This is the first time I have heard his contract seen as a negative.

Luke is recovering from injury, but I think he is playing pretty well. He is also a vet that will help Jonny and possibly Ricky next year.

Nobody would have said Telfair was a better player this summer.

Luke has a crazy high EFG and a positive PER (15.7 to 14.7). He is a back-up, but a very good back up.

rev hits the nail on the head once again.

A good chunk of the reason Ridnour was brought in was to be a vet mentor to Jonny Flynn and (eventually) Ricky Rubio, much like he did for Brandon Jennings last year. Unfortunately, neither of them have seen the court yet, so he has been asked to fill in as starting PG.

Personally, I'd rather have Luke as a mentor to my young pups than Stephon Marbury's cousin.

[Steve_Holiday]

eh...yeah, he's not great, and neither is his contract. I don't see this as something to stress over.

Hopefully Jonny comes back and solves some of our backcourt issues, and Ridnour won't need to be a discussion topic.

[Krapinsky]

Seems like you're just drawing at straws coming up with new things to complain about here. Ridnour, while slightly underwhelming so far, is hardly a liability at $4M/year. I think when he's leading a second unit with Webster, Tolliver, and Pekovic everyone will appreciate him more.

That said, I wouldn't mind trading him in the right deal.

[shrink]

I agree with Turnover on Ridnour's contract.

I don't like the idea of using up $4 mil of our payroll to a guy with no upside, and no chance to improve outside of a role as a backup. I've never been a fan of paying a player to act as a coach. I think $4 mil is too much for the numbers Ridnour put up for his entire career before last season. While I understand Ridnour's a better fit here than Sessions, but Sessions was worth more in an open economy because he still has the chance for upside. I'm especially concerned about the length of the deal -- 4 years for our young team when we need to have flexibility. I think that he's overpaid for an economy that has been flooded with PG's lately, and I don't expect we're going to be getting good offers from others to take him off our hands. It also ties our hands with Flynn, perhaps forcing us to trade him by next summer whether we get a good offer or not.

If Kahn wants to pay a 7' 1" center, who has a chance to start and has lots of upside, 3 years at $14.3, I say "Nice job! Worth the risk!" If he wants to give Ridnour 4 years at $16, I think that's a mistake.

[NewWolvesOrder]

I agree with Turnover on Ridnour's contract.

I don't like the idea of using up $4 mil of our payroll to a guy with no upside, and no chance to improve outside of a role as a backup. I've never been a fan of paying a player to act as a coach. I think $4 mil is too much for the numbers Ridnour put up for his entire career before last season. While I understand Ridnour's a better fit here than Sessions, but Sessions was worth more in an open economy because he still has the chance for upside. I'm especially concerned about the length of the deal -- 4 years for our young team when we need to have flexibility. I think that he's overpaid for an economy that has been flooded with PG's lately, and I don't expect we're going to be getting good offers from others to take him off our hands. It also ties our hands with Flynn, perhaps forcing us to trade him by next summer whether we get a good offer or not.

If Kahn wants to pay a 7' 1" center, who has a chance to start and has lots of upside, 3 years at $14.3, I say "Nice job! Worth the risk!" If he wants to give Ridnour 4 years at $16, I think that's a mistake.

That's a damn good post!

[shrink]

I was curious how many teams paid their back-up PG more than we do.

Sometimes its tough to nail down a specific line-up, with combo guards etc, but it looks to me that there are only about 6 teams in the NBA:

$9.0 Kirk Hinrich ... obviously a bad contract. CHI had to give up a 1st to move him.
$8.5 TJ Ford ... again, bad contract
$6.4 Beno Udrih .. if you consider Tyreke a PG, otherwise he's a starter
$5.0 Lou Williams .. overpaid - inconsistent
$4.6 Jarrett Jack .. now sitting behind Chris Paul
$4.2 Nate Robinson .. BOS needs somebody to back up Rondo

Now I don't think the size of Ridnour's contract is excessively bad, but I certainly think he's overpaid for the current market. However, its length that really makes me worry on a team like ours.

[revprodeji]

Shrink does not really focus on basketball, but just the books. Of course he is going to side with any deal that gives him more crap room.

Someone with experience in basketball will know that "paying a player to act as a coach" is essential for developing young talent. It gives credibility to what the coach is doing and is a transition for the youngin to the coach. They can watch the game and discuss the insight involved.

The length is interesting. I will agree with that. Maybe the idea is to put him as a 3rd string coach/mentor late in his career. Maybe it was needed to finish the deal?

Regardless, if we were unsure about Rubio, and even more unsure about Flynn, then we had to bring some stability in with Ridnour. His defense is suspect right now, but he has been at least average for his career so I will give benefit to him in this transition.

[NewWolvesOrder]

Paying 3rd string pg/mentor 4 mil per year??!

[shrink]

Shrink does not really focus on basketball, but just the books. Of course he is going to side with any deal that gives him more crap room. :)

Someone with experience in basketball will know that "paying a player to act as a coach" is essential for developing young talent.

I think this is a myth. Let's examine it. Who was essential to develop Chris Paul? Who was essential to develop Deron Williams?

And I'm pretty sure they weren't given $4 year, $16 mil deals.

The length is interesting. I will agree with that. Maybe the idea is to put him as a 3rd string coach/mentor late in his career. Maybe it was needed to finish the deal?

I think we'll never know, but I would have a very difficult time believing this. He already has one of the biggest, per-year contracts for a back-up PG in the NBA, that I really doubt that they needed to lock him in for four years to get him to sign. Players with comparable skill and a much higher ceiling signed for less.

Now, I'll agree that it provides stability, but I still believe that a coaching staff and organization should provide stability. Jerry Sloan and the Jazz don't need to sign individual back-up players for leadership roles. If we do, that may be an indication of other problems in the organization.

[Steve_Holiday]

I've never been a fan of paying a player to act as a coach.

It isn't like this is a $10m/yr deal for Mark Madsen. It's a modest deal for a productive back-up who can potentially mentor 1 or 2 of our young point guards, if necessary. Though he hasn't been outstanding this year, what would you rather see? Telfair, Gaines and Ellington splitting all of our minutes until Flynn gets back?

If Kahn wants to pay a 7' 1" center, who has a chance to start and has lots of upside, 3 years at $14.3, I say "Nice job! Worth the risk!"

I think Ridnour (and players like him) - if he isn't included in a trade this year or next - will end up providing a lot more on and off the court for this team than having an entire bench of Ryan Hollinses.

I'm with Krapinsky on this. At the end of the day, what's the big deal here?

[cpfsf]

Shrink does not really focus on basketball, but just the books. Of course he is going to side with any deal that gives him more crap room.

Someone with experience in basketball will know that "paying a player to act as a coach" is essential for developing young talent.

I think this is a myth. Let's examine it. Who was essential to develop Chris Paul? Who was essential to develop Deron Williams?

And I'm pretty sure they weren't given $4 year, $16 mil deals.

The length is interesting. I will agree with that. Maybe the idea is to put him as a 3rd string coach/mentor late in his career. Maybe it was needed to finish the deal?

I think we'll never know, but I would have a very difficult time believing this. He already has one of the biggest, per-year contracts for a back-up PG in the NBA, that I really doubt that they needed to lock him in for four years to get him to sign. Players with comparable skill and a much higher ceiling signed for less.

Now, I'll agree that it provides stability, but I still believe that a coaching staff and organization should provide stability. Jerry Sloan and the Jazz don't need to sign individual back-up players for leadership roles. If we do, that may be an indication of other problems in the organization.

The coaches are the ones who make the guys watch the tapes, they are the ones who can tell you what your doing wrong, and they are the ones who work with you to improve your game. Did I mention coaches don't waste cap space?

[Foye]

So far he hasn't impressed me that much but I'll give him more time considering he was injured lately.

[shangrila]

I think the idea of a veteran at the point, to limit turnovers and show leadership, was a good idea in the offseason. However, so far he hasn't provided that and until he does he'll be overpaid in my mind.