Marvin's injury - offseason implications?

[evildallas]

I know it is early to speculate, but what's the Internet for if not speculation. Marvin is a restricted free agent this summer. If he's out for the rest of the season what does that mean for his long term prospects? Does it mean that the Hawks will get to sign him at a perceived discount? Does it mean that he's a lock to play for the Qualifying Offer? Or does it mean that he's played his last in Atlanta?

It hard to answer all questions without being sure of the full extent of the injury and it's likelihood of becoming a recurring problem. If he misses the rest of the season, it most likely destroys the market for his services and his trade value as well. If he thinks he'll recover fully, it is probably in his best interest to take the 1 year QO and prove it for a bigger payoff in 2010. If he and his agent are worried about recurrence then his best bet might be to take what he can get and lock it in long term just in case. I expect public assurances that he'll be good as new regardless of what the truth may be.

I feel for Marvin as this is about as bad as timing can get for an injury from a player perspective. He could miss a stretch run and playoff appearance and he has the least amount of guaranteed money left on his deal.

[killbuckner]

Tough to say of course since we really don't know what kind of injury he has. Off the top of my head I'd think it makes him even more of a lock to take the QO than he was before just because I really can't imagine what long term contract they could agree on. And of course I have been saying for quite a while I thought he was going to end up taking the QO even if he had stayed healthy.

And once again it does raise the issue of whether the Hawks woudl be better off renouncing the QO to take that option off of the table for him. Its the question of whether you would rather deal with Marvin's UFA this offseason when he is coming off of injury and there are almost no teams with caproom that are in the market for a FA or next offseason when there are tons of teams with caproom. I think at this point it goes even stronger towards not extending the QO to marvin.

[Retrovision]

so wheres the whole marvin williams is out indefinetly WHAT THE F**K thread?
this hit me like a ton of bricks man. The guy was just starting to play well, we have no chance to advance in the playoffs without him!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ATL DirtyBird]

http://www.peachtreehoops.com/2009/3/10 ... iams-issue

[LL Cool Scott]

I guess the positive is, Marvin's market value drops because of this, making it cheaper to resign if he doesn't take the QO.

For the rest of the season, it hurts, but it's not like we're contending for a championship. We'll get to see a lot more of Acie Law as he should probably step into that 8th man spot. We'll get to see what kind of talent this kid really does or doesn't have.

[raleigh]

I think Marvin's agent, like most agents, will encourage him to take a decent long-term option over the QO. The Bucks' GM was quoted in a meeting with season-ticket holders as saying he expects a lot of vet FA's like Bibby to have to take the mid-level. Cuban has been saying for some time that this summer will be a tough one for FA's.

Marvin's back injury only makes it MORE likely he'll re-sign.

[tontoz]

I think Marvin's agent, like most agents, will encourage him to take a decent long-term option over the QO. The Bucks' GM was quoted in a meeting with season-ticket holders as saying he expects a lot of vet FA's like Bibby to have to take the mid-level. Cuban has been saying for some time that this summer will be a tough one for FA's.

Marvin's back injury only makes it MORE likely he'll re-sign.

That is what i think.

Mar 10, 2009 6:00 AM EST
Agents for potential 2010 free agents are starting to consider urging their clients to sign contract extensions this summer rather than taking a chance in free agency, Sam Smith writes on his blog on bulls.com.

The reason? The faltering economy. And the chance of change with the Collective Bargaining Agreement being re-opened.

"I'd think every prudent representative would be sitting down his guys and explaining there could be a lockout, a new CBA (collective bargaining agreement), and there's always the injury component," said former agent and Chicago based attorney George Andrews. "That maybe it's time to lock in security now. I don't see the CBA going up in any shape or form. You are unlikely to get more years than you can now and there's a pretty good chance the maximum salary would go down in a new CBA. You might even (with an extension this summer) get some language so you'd get paid if there is a lockout, something of a tradeoff for extending now. And from a team standpoint, you could tie up your best guy and he would not be any more difficult to trade if you wanted to go that way."

"If you can get the current (contract) rates and increases allowed, and then maybe you get a trade kicker, which might not be in a new CBA," offers Andrews. "The way things were going everyone thought the cap would be in the $60 million (range). Now maybe it's in the mid or low 50's. It will make it harder for teams to get cap room and sign (a second) guy because you won't (being under the salary cap) have your mid level exception. You'd be cannibalizing your team (to sign a big free agent)."

"And then if you are (as a player) going somewhere, you have to ask yourself, 'Is it better there than it is here?'" Andrews said. "You might be able to retool after a year or two, but how does that help a guy's legacy to go somewhere and not be able to compete. The next step for someone like LeBron for more endorsements is to win a championship. Then he'd be even more valuable. How would going somewhere and being mediocre for two years while you try to build around him help?"

"From a security standpoint and everything else, it makes a lot of sense to extend now," said Andrews. "You don't know what will happen if there's a new CBA. It wouldn't shock me to see Billy Hunter enter into something next season as he sees how bad things can get, maybe make a new deal before things bottom out. And his concern has to be not five or six guys, but the players as a whole. Who knows? Maybe the owners will want to get rid of the mid level and he can get a jump on that by giving them relief a year earlier and save some things.

"The maximum is correlated to the cap," Andrews noted. "And the cap is going down. Stern already has said that. How in the world would you expect to get more money with the cap going down, the numbers of years (likely) curtailed? Nobody could have anticipated this."

Do you expect free agents from the 2010

[killbuckner]

I'm dying to hear what you guys think that Marvin would accept this offseason

[raleigh]

I'm dying to hear what you think he'll be offered in 2010 if he takes the QO and then gets injured.

[killbuckner]

I think he'd get 7.3 million dollars next season and would get more in 2010 than he would this offseason even in that situation. For some reason you think that he would get more this offseason while injured as a restricted free agent where there is only one bidder than he would next offseason as an unrestricted FA with more teams in the running for his services even if he were injured again. That 7.3 million dollar QO gives him a ton of leverage. Of course him staying healthy would be even more money in his pocket.

The only leverage Marvin has at all is that QO. But at 7.3 million dollars its a lot of leverage

[killbuckner]

Anyway- without that QO I think the odds are very high he would end up resigning with the hawks and it would be for a reasonable number. Thats why I have said they should consider either not offering it or pulling it after they have had some time to negotiate

[evildallas]

I'm evil (as the name says), so I would offer the 1 year QO or a 5yr 40M based on an expectation of full recovery. If Marvin balks at the offer he is free to solicit offers. If the medical prognosis comes back sketchy, I pull the offer altogether or never extend it. Of course I make these statements without an understanding of the club's exact financial situation. If team finances are really choppy (which they may be) then I become real conservative with the offers.

Something to contribute to the negotiations this summer and next is the looming specter of lockout. If a major reset in salary levels comes out of the lockout process then most players will be hopeful that they locked in a deal before the system changes.

[raleigh]

The only leverage Marvin has at all is that QO. But at 7.3 million dollars its a lot of leverage

I don't agree because I've always believed it to be comparable to his worth on the open market.

I would offer him ever so slightly above the QO for the first season of a four -or- five-year deal. That, in essence, takes away the leverage of the QO and forces Marvin to either look for a better deal in one of the toughest FA markets in years -or- risk long-term financial flexibility in the face of a deepening economic recession and a looming lockout.

4 yrs., $34M. If he balks and you really want to re-sign him, you offer 5 yrs., $45M. There simply aren't enough teams with the financial flexibility, cap flexibility, and need at forward to offer him more. In light of the NBA's financial difficulties, I think $8 - $9/year is a good deal for Marvin. It's significantly above the MLE, and it is relatively close to the type of money that wings like Howard and Prince received in their extensions.

[raleigh]

For some reason you think that he would get more this offseason while injured as a restricted free agent where there is only one bidder than he would next offseason as an unrestricted FA with more teams in the running for his services even if he were injured again.

Well, first of all, we don't know if he's even out for the year yet. Sekou is just selling papers at this point.

But my problem with your logic is that you've not adjusted it at all despite some fairly dramatic economic events threatening to alter the financial landscape of the NBA. Yes, there will be a number of teams with cap space in 2010, but if 1.) teams continue to lose money, and consequently, 2.) the cap continues to decline, you will see that number of teams dropping dramatically. And that's not even taking the possible lockout into consideration. (Teams aren't going to want to give out long-term guaranteed contracts if they expect a lockout is going to happen in less than 12 months).

What I also think you're overlooking is that Marvin would be turning down some $30+ million in hope that he can get more down the road. But with the issues mentioned above, why would that be a reasonable hope? As the article that tontoz shared points out, agents are encouraging guys to get their money while they can. Marvin is in a good situation in Atlanta with a starting spot and a team on the rise, so with a decent offer, I think he's smart enough to take it and run.

[killbuckner]

When you read an article by SAM SMITH talking about whehter max contract guys like Lebron and Wade should extend and try to apply it to Marvin then I think you are going to come to ridiculous conclusions.

Here is the crux- why would the Hawks offer Marvin less next offseason than they would this offseason? Next offseason he is an unrestricted free agent and many more teams will have above the MLE to spend even if the cap does go down. In a lockout players with guaranteed contracts don't get paid- I don't really understand the rationale behind that. If the maximum length of a deal is reduced that doesn't apply because a 1 year shorter deal would still run the same length of time.

Right now Marvin is injured, restricted, and has no other teams chasing him. I am just baffled that you think the Hawks will be inclined to pay him as much this offseason as they would next offseason.

If you want to pay him more next season than the QO I can absolutely see why he would sign. But given the way that Sund has treated RFA's so far I think the odds are very low that he will offer Marvin a deal that he will accept.

[evildallas]

If Marvin's long term health becomes a big question mark (to the extent that investment is too risky), does making an offer to Ron Artest become a possibility? I realize that such a move requires cap hold maneuvering (renouncing several players), but I can construct a couple ways to do such a thing within cap rules and still fill out the roster. I'm more asking if Ron Artest would be a player that the team would consider making a run at or does he have enough character red flags to be off the board?

[LL Cool Scott]

I'm pretty biased, because Ron Ron is my favorite player. But yes - he's a dominant player on both ends of the floor. He's what Josh Smith could/should become. That being said, the Rockets won't let him go. He's too good.

[evildallas]

I'm pretty biased, because Ron Ron is my favorite player. But yes - he's a dominant player on both ends of the floor. He's what Josh Smith could/should become. That being said, the Rockets won't let him go. He's too good.

Unrestricted free agent. Depends on the offer and the financials of the team. Houston will be over the cap (63M) before resigning Von Wafer or Ron Artest. They've been reluctant to exceed the luxury tax threshold in the past. I know they want to resign Artest, but they could have a tough decision if he draws a good-sized offer.

[Rod700]

UPDATE ON MARV:

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archi ... d_surgery/