RealGM

I'm not sure signing him at 5 years 40 million is the best idea... i know we all love his game because he goes all out, is a leader, and competes on defense. and losing him makes the king trade look even worse. but i dont think you compound mistakes just to make them look a bit better.

- 30 years old, 13 seasons.
- last 4 seasons: 76, 48, 23, 56 games respectively
- 6 times in his career 55 games or less

im just not sure you give a guy with resume, who relies alot on his athletic ability, a 5 year deal at 8+ million per. Unless you are going to trade him this year... otherwise, i think by year 3 that contract starts looking terrible.

Is giving antwan jamison a 1 or 2 year deal not a better option? or maybe throwing similar money at nic batum and hoping portlant doesnt match?

id rather overpay jamison on a short deal or batum a younger guy over giving wallace 5 years

1) Portland will match whatever it takes to keep Batum. That option is a pipe dream.

2) I would not offer Crash a 5-year deal either, unless there was a TO/PO after year 3 (my overall preference.

But Wallace will probably want at least 4 years locked in, and he will use Caron Butler and Shawn Marion as market vale, at least. Keep in mind, he already turned down a 3-year, $31mil extension from us, and his agent won't settle for less at this point. Bottom line, we're going to have to overpay to keep him, just as most UFAs get overpaid. He's arguably the 2nd-best SF available, and retaining him will help the franchise save face. Bite the bullet, 4 years, $39mil.

ecuhus1981 wrote:2) I would not offer Crash a 5-year deal either, unless there was a TO/PO after year 3 (my overall preference.

But Wallace will probably want at least 4 years locked in, and he will use Caron Butler and Shawn Marion as market vale, at least. Keep in mind, he already turned down a 3-year, $31mil extension from us, and his agent won't settle for less at this point. Bottom line, we're going to have to overpay to keep him, just as most UFAs get overpaid. He's arguably the 2nd-best SF available, and retaining him will help the franchise save face. Bite the bullet, 4 years, $39mil.

thats idiotic though.... you dont overpay someone on a long contract to "save face"

i dont care if wallace is the #1 SF on the market. the guy has durability issues and has a ton of miles on him. its irresponsible to give him 4-5 years in my opinion. if he wont take a 3 year deal, let him walk and let someone else give him that contract

There's something to say about "sunk cost", but I think King still believes that Wallace can play awhile. He's still only turning 30. I don't expect him to completely fall off until his 33. He won't be elite athleticism wise, but he'll hold his own till 32 IMO. The durability is an issue, but hopefully splitting minutes with Green will help his longevity.

Finally, sure letting him go will look horrible on King's decision to trade for him especially given the kind of pick he gave up. And yes, we don't want to tie up too much money on him for too long. But if we don't bring him back, who do we spend the money on?

And please don't say Jamison.

I don't worry as much about the years or total amount. The time to improve our team is now. This is likely the last offseason in a long while that we'll have cap space. Once DWill, Lopez & Wallace are all re-signed, and a team is built around them, we're an over the cap team. In terms of putting the best possible team on the floor, does it really matter if Wallace's deal is 3, 4 or 5 years? The key is to maximize our cap space now. A 5 year, $40mil deal could start as low as $6.9mil in year1.

I'm sure Wallace's camp is fighting for the 5 year, $40mil deal. King is probably offering fewer years at that salary or more years at a lower salary. My guess is that they end up only partially guaranteeing the final year if they go for 5/$40mil. King may offer 5/$35 fully guaranteed or 5/$40 with about $32mil guaranteed.

SpeedyG wrote:There's something to say about "sunk cost", but I think King still believes that Wallace can play awhile. He's still only turning 30. I don't expect him to completely fall off until his 33. He won't be elite athleticism wise, but he'll hold his own till 32 IMO. The durability is an issue, but hopefully splitting minutes with Green will help his longevity.

i think he has something left in the tank as well, but if he isnt on the court, does it matter? even if its just 15-20 games a season, thats big on a team without a ton of depth or talent. and lets say he does tear it up and play at a near all-star level until he is 32 and then breaks down. now you have 2 years at probably 10+ million on his contract to deal with

Finally, sure letting him go will look horrible on King's decision to trade for him especially given the kind of pick he gave up. And yes, we don't want to tie up too much money on him for too long. But if we don't bring him back, who do we spend the money on?

And please don't say Jamison.

How is jamison at 1 year not better then wallace for 5?

TheNetsFan wrote:I don't worry as much about the years or total amount. The time to improve our team is now. This is likely the last offseason in a long while that we'll have cap space. Once DWill, Lopez & Wallace are all re-signed, and a team is built around them, we're an over the cap team. In terms of putting the best possible team on the floor, does it really matter if Wallace's deal is 3, 4 or 5 years? The key is to maximize our cap space now. A 5 year, $40mil deal could start as low as $6.9mil in year1.

.

well here is the thing, if you DONT sign wallace, and just sign dwill and lopez, then we arent over the cap.

Couldn't you get Mayo for around 10-12 mil instead?

PetroNet wrote:

TheNetsFan wrote:I don't worry as much about the years or total amount. The time to improve our team is now. This is likely the last offseason in a long while that we'll have cap space. Once DWill, Lopez & Wallace are all re-signed, and a team is built around them, we're an over the cap team. In terms of putting the best possible team on the floor, does it really matter if Wallace's deal is 3, 4 or 5 years? The key is to maximize our cap space now. A 5 year, $40mil deal could start as low as $6.9mil in year1.

.

well here is the thing, if you DONT sign wallace, and just sign dwill and lopez, then we arent over the cap.

If you don't sign Wallace, you're not going to throw that money elsewhere instead? Does anybody really expect King to load up on 1 year deals again? The money will be spent this year, and it will be committed for multiple years. We just have to do whatever is needed to maximize the talent that we use that money for.

TheNetsFan wrote:

PetroNet wrote:

TheNetsFan wrote:I don't worry as much about the years or total amount. The time to improve our team is now. This is likely the last offseason in a long while that we'll have cap space. Once DWill, Lopez & Wallace are all re-signed, and a team is built around them, we're an over the cap team. In terms of putting the best possible team on the floor, does it really matter if Wallace's deal is 3, 4 or 5 years? The key is to maximize our cap space now. A 5 year, $40mil deal could start as low as $6.9mil in year1.

.

well here is the thing, if you DONT sign wallace, and just sign dwill and lopez, then we arent over the cap.

If you don't sign Wallace, you're not going to throw that money elsewhere instead? Does anybody really expect King to load up on 1 year deals again? The money will be spent this year, and it will be committed for multiple years. We just have to do whatever is needed to maximize the talent that we use that money for.

i could absolutely see us load up on 1 year deals again. especially if howard isnt dealt.

commiting money in multi year contracts to players who arent very good and/or are injury prone with a ton of miles isnt really maximizing talent in my opinion... its painting yourself into a corner where you are a 6-8 seed with no cap flixibility for years to come.

Not re-signing him would be pretty idiotic... Re-signing him to a 5 year deal would also be pretty idiotic.

There's a middle ground with Wallace, hopefully King can find it (I would personally go with 3 years and a partially guaranteed 4th year max).

I think Wallace still has at least 2-3 very solid years left in him. Everyone talks about his athleticism but his defensive positioning and toughness is just as big a part of his success, and that won't leave so quickly.

Add to the fact that he hardly played the first 3 years of his career, and I think there's no reason he should break down earlier than normal. Hopefully players have learned from Nash, Hill, KG, and Ray Allen and seen how taking care of your body can prolong your career.

Ideally Crash gets a 3 year deal. With the stretch exception I'd be fine going to 4. Anything longer than that would be worrisome for almost any player.

I'd predict something in the 4 year 38MM range.

Netaman wrote:I think Wallace still has at least 2-3 very solid years left in him. Everyone talks about his athleticism but his defensive positioning and toughness is just as big a part of his success, and that won't leave so quickly.

Add to the fact that he hardly played the first 3 years of his career, and I think there's no reason he should break down earlier than normal. Hopefully players have learned from Nash, Hill, KG, and Ray Allen and seen how taking care of your body can prolong your career.

Ideally Crash gets a 3 year deal. With the stretch exception I'd be fine going to 4. Anything longer than that would be worrisome for almost any player.

I'd predict something in the 4 year 38MM range.

i dont think you can compare allen and kg to wallace.... those guys stayed healthy for their careers while wallace has been very injury prone

id be fine with a 3 year deal with an ungauranteed or option for a 4th. but 5 is just crazy

3 yrs/27m with a player option 4th year at 10m... anymore money or years and i'd welcome wallace to entertain other options.

PetroNet wrote:

SpeedyG wrote:There's something to say about "sunk cost", but I think King still believes that Wallace can play awhile. He's still only turning 30. I don't expect him to completely fall off until his 33. He won't be elite athleticism wise, but he'll hold his own till 32 IMO. The durability is an issue, but hopefully splitting minutes with Green will help his longevity.

i think he has something left in the tank as well, but if he isnt on the court, does it matter? even if its just 15-20 games a season, thats big on a team without a ton of depth or talent. and lets say he does tear it up and play at a near all-star level until he is 32 and then breaks down. now you have 2 years at probably 10+ million on his contract to deal with

Finally, sure letting him go will look horrible on King's decision to trade for him especially given the kind of pick he gave up. And yes, we don't want to tie up too much money on him for too long. But if we don't bring him back, who do we spend the money on?

And please don't say Jamison.

How is jamison at 1 year not better then wallace for 5?

Long term, anyone for 1 year is better than Wallace at 5. But competitively? Which is I'm assuming why Deron is coming back to Brooklyn? No, the team will need to win.

SpeedyG wrote:

PetroNet wrote:

SpeedyG wrote:There's something to say about "sunk cost", but I think King still believes that Wallace can play awhile. He's still only turning 30. I don't expect him to completely fall off until his 33. He won't be elite athleticism wise, but he'll hold his own till 32 IMO. The durability is an issue, but hopefully splitting minutes with Green will help his longevity.

i think he has something left in the tank as well, but if he isnt on the court, does it matter? even if its just 15-20 games a season, thats big on a team without a ton of depth or talent. and lets say he does tear it up and play at a near all-star level until he is 32 and then breaks down. now you have 2 years at probably 10+ million on his contract to deal with

Finally, sure letting him go will look horrible on King's decision to trade for him especially given the kind of pick he gave up. And yes, we don't want to tie up too much money on him for too long. But if we don't bring him back, who do we spend the money on?

And please don't say Jamison.

How is jamison at 1 year not better then wallace for 5?

Long term, anyone for 1 year is better than Wallace at 5. But competitively? Which is I'm assuming why Deron is coming back to Brooklyn? No, the team will need to win.

is gerald wallace over antwan jamison really going to drastically change how many games we win next year? it will be a struggle for the 7 or 8 seed regardless.

PetroNet wrote:

Netaman wrote:I think Wallace still has at least 2-3 very solid years left in him. Everyone talks about his athleticism but his defensive positioning and toughness is just as big a part of his success, and that won't leave so quickly.

Add to the fact that he hardly played the first 3 years of his career, and I think there's no reason he should break down earlier than normal. Hopefully players have learned from Nash, Hill, KG, and Ray Allen and seen how taking care of your body can prolong your career.

Ideally Crash gets a 3 year deal. With the stretch exception I'd be fine going to 4. Anything longer than that would be worrisome for almost any player.

I'd predict something in the 4 year 38MM range.

i dont think you can compare allen and kg to wallace.... those guys stayed healthy for their careers while wallace has been very injury prone



id be fine with a 3 year deal with an ungauranteed or option for a 4th. but 5 is just crazy

Since becoming a starter GW has never appeared in less than 55 games. In each of the last 3 he has missed less than 10 games/year. Saying he's prone to minor injuries is fair but let's put this in context, he's not Antonio McDyess.

Ray Allen has been a rock for the past few seasons but he had ankle issues in Seattle and at that point nobody would have bet on him still playing at a high level in 2012 and beyond.

Netaman wrote:

PetroNet wrote:

Netaman wrote:I think Wallace still has at least 2-3 very solid years left in him. Everyone talks about his athleticism but his defensive positioning and toughness is just as big a part of his success, and that won't leave so quickly.

Add to the fact that he hardly played the first 3 years of his career, and I think there's no reason he should break down earlier than normal. Hopefully players have learned from Nash, Hill, KG, and Ray Allen and seen how taking care of your body can prolong your career.

Ideally Crash gets a 3 year deal. With the stretch exception I'd be fine going to 4. Anything longer than that would be worrisome for almost any player.

I'd predict something in the 4 year 38MM range.

i dont think you can compare allen and kg to wallace.... those guys stayed healthy for their careers while wallace has been very injury prone



id be fine with a 3 year deal with an ungauranteed or option for a 4th. but 5 is just crazy

Since becoming a starter GW has never appeared in less than 55 games. In each of the last 3 he has missed less than 10 games/year. Saying he's prone to minor injuries is fair but let's put this in context, he's not Antonio McDyess.

Ray Allen has been a rock for the past few seasons but he had ankle issues in Seattle and at that point nobody would have bet on him still playing at a high level in 2012 and beyond.

im not trying to say he is mcdyess... but to invest 4-5 years at a high salary for a guy who is 30 and has at least some minor injuries every season just seems like a really bad decision.

if thats what it takes to keep dwill, fine, otherwise, pass, sign someone like jamison for a season, and see what happens in FA next year.

$40 million for 5 years is a steal so to speak.

Yes the 5th year can be ugly, but that deal only starts at $7.3 million.

Nothing suggests you won't get 3 top notch years out of him.

The 4th year he'll probably see a sizable decline and the 5th year he might be awful, but we'll see.

His decline is greatly exaggerated.

Last season when he got here he looked sluggish, slow and fading and yet from game 1 and during this stretch his defense was still top of the league elite.

Look at Marion.

Marion is a shell of himself as an overall player, but he's a guy who's game was almost entirely predicated on athleticism as well and he still plays great defense and is an OK contributor all around as long as he is leaned on very sparingly on offense.


Say the deals 8 a year flat, or even declining? Then it's a real win.

We weren't getting him for under 4 years anyway, so say it's a full front load where he gets around $10 this year, it would then dwindle down to $7.3 in the last season and you can Stretch Exception him if needed in the 2016 offseason, taking a cap hit of about $2.4 mill a year over 3 seasons.

Edit: My numbers are off, got to breakout the abacus and figure this out, it would actually be less then 7.3 in starting or ending, gimme a second...

$7,000,000
$7,525,000
$8,089,375
$8,696,078
$9,348,284

=

$40,658,737

Hmm, so we're talking $6.9 million starting or ending salary if this deal came to be true.

Yeah, that's a good deal either way.

And if the goal is to leave open 8 figure cap space in 2013, either a standard escalating or front loaded deal will work depending on the thoughts of if we're likely to have to stretch him in 2016.