Free Agent SF - Aminu? Ariza?

[yabadabayolo]

People here keep saying let's not sign Ariza because this was his contract year. The same should go for Lowry then.

true but ariza has been known to play very well during contract years and passable in the others. The Lowry debacle is still in the air, who knows if he will excel or drop after this year. The thing is, we cant play well without lowry but we have shown we can without ariza. If lowry leaves we suck but if ariza comes, theres a slight chance we might be better

[imanshumpert]

It doesn't have anything to do with it being a contract year, I just don't want us to kill our cap situation by giving Ariza a multi-year deal for like 7-8M per year. It doesn't make us a title contender, it just makes us a little bit stronger but doesn't really move the needle, and Ariza is 30 by the end of next season.

Zero interest in such a move. Let's focus on making moves with the future in mind and maximizing our asset base not crippling it with bad signings.

People need to be patient and relax. We do not need to go out and overpay Ariza (because that's likely what it's going to take to get him after the season he had) right now.

[DanH]

Stop looking for quick fixes...

There is no one move/player that is going to be "the answer". Chill, accumulate cheap, flexible assets, don't make boneheaded, short-sighted signings like trading away 1st round picks for Barnes or signing Trevor Ariza to a huge multi-year deal.

It's funny how most fans probably would've done the exact same shit (or worse) that Colangelo did with this team for the past 6 years if they were the GM.

Well, the two examples there are very different. I agree that Ariza is the sort of deal BC would make (he literally made that move before Ariza backed out several years ago) - but trading a late round pick for Barnes is totally different. He's still on a rookie scale deal and would be controllable, likely at a decent cost, for some time yet and he has potential through the roof.

[mcHAPPY]

People here keep saying let's not sign Ariza because this was his contract year. The same should go for Lowry then.

Fear the contract year indeed.

The difference between Ariza and Lowry is history.

Ariza has already shown he shows up for a contract year only to dick off for the next 4.

[ezz_bee]

Fear the contract year indeed.

The difference between Ariza and Lowry is history.

Ariza has already shown he shows up for a contract year only to dick off for the next 4.

I'm not sure how much I agree with this. I haven't followed his career, but when you look at his stats, there seems to be a correlation between USG% and production. If his USG% is >17% his ORtg doesn't look good (with the exception of this last season) if it is <17% his ORtg is quite good. Could say more about situations he's put in, rather than whether it's a contract year. The rest of his stats seem pretty normalized.

Not saying we should or shouldn't sign Ariza... just that I don't buy into the contract year boosted performance argument, or the post-contract performance drop-off. To me it's the logical equivalent to the argument that it only rains when I want to spend the whole day outside, or the argument that the "random" option on my music player plays the songs I like more often than ones I don't like. Essentially, that we pay more attention to the extreme minority cases then the vast majority of normal cases.

For instance, when you are spending the whole day outside you are more likely to think about rain when it's raining, than when it's not raining. When your listening to music on shuffle, you'll tune out songs unless they are really good or really bad. Since it's your music to begin with number of terrible songs will likely be quite minimal. Therefore, the only songs likely to grab your attention are the ones you really like, which can lead people into believing their music players somehow know their preferences (which is not the case unless there are advanced algorithms--like the ones employed by internet radio stations--at work).

I've never seen any research that backs up an inflated contract year performance, or a deflated contract year performance, but because of obvious economic motivation, the theory persists. The problem is there's a wealth of scholarly work on economic incentives in the workplace and there's such variance on the why, when, and how they work, that increased economic motivation never translates directly into increased output. It just isn't that simple.

Making the assumption that increased output in a contract year is due to economic incentive, and that likewise, a decrease in output is due to economic disincentives are assumptions not supported by any empirical evidence. There's also a lot of other motivations at work (especially social) and a lot of other factors. Even IF you can find a clear cut case where a player has a good contract year and a drop off or regression in year one, can it really be attributed to the economic motivation? Determining cause and effect in such a complex environment is difficult.

For instance, what if Rudy Gay had been traded in the summer as opposed to December, and Lowry played his post-Christmas levels all year, and we didn't have the articles about his talk with Ujiri or the impact of fatherhood? There would probably be a lot more players using the "contact year" argument. Since there seemed to be a dramatic difference between Gay and post-Gay that his performance is due more to personnel/scheme than contact year.

Team schemes/personnel are always going to have more impact on a player's performance than the economic motivation of a contact year (or the lack thereof in the first year of the new deal).

Sign or don't sign Ariza based on age, skills, and fit, not on shaky anecdotal evidence. We're better than that.



Rant over.

[mcHAPPY]

I'm not sure how much I agree with this. I haven't followed his career, but when you look at his stats, there seems to be a correlation between USG% and production. If his USG% is >17% his ORtg doesn't look good (with the exception of this last season) if it is <17% his ORtg is quite good. Could say more about situations he's put in, rather than whether it's a contract year. The rest of his stats seem pretty normalized.

Not saying we should or shouldn't sign Ariza... just that I don't buy into the contract year boosted performance argument, or the post-contract performance drop-off. To me it's the logical equivalent to the argument that it only rains when I want to spend the whole day outside, or the argument that the "random" option on my music player plays the songs I like more often than ones I don't like. Essentially, that we pay more attention to the extreme minority cases then the vast majority of normal cases.

For instance, when you are spending the whole day outside you are more likely to think about rain when it's raining, than when it's not raining. When your listening to music on shuffle, you'll tune out songs unless they are really good or really bad. Since it's your music to begin with number of terrible songs will likely be quite minimal. Therefore, the only songs likely to grab your attention are the ones you really like, which can lead people into believing their music players somehow know their preferences (which is not the case unless there are advanced algorithms--like the ones employed by internet radio stations--at work).

I've never seen any research that backs up an inflated contract year performance, or a deflated contract year performance, but because of obvious economic motivation, the theory persists. The problem is there's a wealth of scholarly work on economic incentives in the workplace and there's such variance on the why, when, and how they work, that increased economic motivation never translates directly into increased output. It just isn't that simple.

Making the assumption that increased output in a contract year is due to economic incentive, and that likewise, a decrease in output is due to economic disincentives are assumptions not supported by any empirical evidence. There's also a lot of other motivations at work (especially social) and a lot of other factors. Even IF you can find a clear cut case where a player has a good contract year and a drop off or regression in year one, can it really be attributed to the economic motivation? Determining cause and effect in such a complex environment is difficult.

For instance, what if Rudy Gay had been traded in the summer as opposed to December, and Lowry played his post-Christmas levels all year, and we didn't have the articles about his talk with Ujiri or the impact of fatherhood? There would probably be a lot more players using the "contact year" argument. Since there seemed to be a dramatic difference between Gay and post-Gay that his performance is due more to personnel/scheme than contact year.

Team schemes/personnel are always going to have more impact on a player's performance than the economic motivation of a contact year (or the lack thereof in the first year of the new deal).

Sign or don't sign Ariza based on age, skills, and fit, not on shaky anecdotal evidence. We're better than that.



Rant over.

Rant away.

Personally I think there are enough examples over the years to think guys do get up for contract years.

If you don't think the promise of a $30m contract has no impact on consistency or effort I think you're undervaluing the motivation of $30m plus.

[imanshumpert]

If you look at most psychological studies, it'll tell you that giving someone an extrinsic motivator for something that they already enjoy doing doesn't necessarily lead to increased performance. In fact sometimes it can decrease their performance. NBA players for the most part love the game of basketball, so I don't think the effect of a contract-year is as huge as people think it is.

I'd like to see some concrete studies/numbers that actually prove that players play significantly better in contract years before I start using that to discredit them.

I'm pretty sure if we use our brains, we can see that Ariza's improved play this year is likely due to being in a better situation, compared to the first 3 years of the contract he's currently on.

In Houston was mis-cast as a star player and used as a go-to-guy on offense (especially with K-Mart missing 60 games). He has a role player's skill-set, so that definitely hurt his production and efficiency.

In New Orleans, although he did play with CP3 the first year, he was basically their go-to-guy in terms of scoring from the wing spot. Again, Ariza is not that type of player. The next year the team was pretty terrible and he missed a chunk of games due to injury.

2012-13 in Washington, John Wall missed like half the season, Nene missed 20 games and Ariza missed almost 30. While he did play 25mpg, his minutes were inconsistent and he was in and out of the starting lineup due to the emergence of Bradley Beal.

This year, the Wizards were healthy for the most-part and we saw the emergence of John Wall. Nene and Bradley Beal assumed roles as the #2 and #3 options (in whichever order) and Ariza was firmly established in the starting lineup as a 3+D role player. SEVENTY-SIX PERCENT (76%) of Ariza's shots last season were assisted. He basically never had to do anything with the ball and because the Wizards had a lot of other offensive weapons he could truly play as a role player, and was very effective as a result.

I think it's funny how fans like to pretend that a player's situation/the team they're on has no effect on their play, but then everyone looks at the Spurs and Pop and goes "oh they have such a great system and really make players better". Where you play, how well your team plays together and how good your teammates are can have a significant impact on your production.

Now with all that being said I have no interest in signing Ariza lol, because it's likely going to cost 7-8M a season (especially since he currently makes 7.7M).

[imanshumpert]

Rant away.

Personally I think there are enough examples over the years to think guys do get up for contract years.

If you don't think the promise of a $30m contract has no impact on consistency or effort I think you're undervaluing the motivation of $30m plus.

Confirmation bias. How many examples are there of guys not getting up for contract years?

Got to look at the whole picture, wish I could find the stats somewhere.

EDIT: Lol I found someone's thesis on this issue, reading through it now. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi...ext=cmc_theses

[yabadabayolo]

EDIT: Lol I found someone's thesis on this issue, reading through it now. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi...ext=cmc_theses

Wow, just no words...I guess it was a pressing issue that he needed to discuss with his journal readers

[mcHAPPY]

If you look at most psychological studies, it'll tell you that giving someone an extrinsic motivator for something that they already enjoy doing doesn't necessarily lead to increased performance. In fact sometimes it can decrease their performance. NBA players for the most part love the game of basketball, so I don't think the effect of a contract-year is as huge as people think it is.

I'd like to see some concrete studies/numbers that actually prove that players play significantly better in contract years before I start using that to discredit them.

I'm pretty sure if we use our brains, we can see that Ariza's improved play this year is likely due to being in a better situation, compared to the first 3 years of the contract he's currently on.

In Houston was mis-cast as a star player and used as a go-to-guy on offense (especially with K-Mart missing 60 games). He has a role player's skill-set, so that definitely hurt his production and efficiency.

In New Orleans, although he did play with CP3 the first year, he was basically their go-to-guy in terms of scoring from the wing spot. Again, Ariza is not that type of player. The next year the team was pretty terrible and he missed a chunk of games due to injury.

2012-13 in Washington, John Wall missed like half the season, Nene missed 20 games and Ariza missed almost 30. While he did play 25mpg, his minutes were inconsistent and he was in and out of the starting lineup due to the emergence of Bradley Beal.

This year, the Wizards were healthy for the most-part and we saw the emergence of John Wall. Nene and Bradley Beal assumed roles as the #2 and #3 options (in whichever order) and Ariza was firmly established in the starting lineup as a 3+D role player. SEVENTY-SIX PERCENT (76%) of Ariza's shots last season were assisted. He basically never had to do anything with the ball and because the Wizards had a lot of other offensive weapons he could truly play as a role player, and was very effective as a result.

I think it's funny how fans like to pretend that a player's situation/the team they're on has no effect on their play, but then everyone looks at the Spurs and Pop and goes "oh they have such a great system and really make players better". Where you play, how well your team plays together and how good your teammates are can have a significant impact on your production.

Now with all that being said I have no interest in signing Ariza lol, because it's likely going to cost 7-8M a season (especially since he currently makes 7.7M).

Really? You don't think?

And every cop loves law enforcement?
Every teacher loves teaching?
Every assembly line worker loves manufacturing?
Every doctor loves medicine?
Every government worker loves helping citizens?

Nobody does a job to make ends meet?
NBA guys have the talent to get paid in one year what the majority don't make in a lifetime while being afforded first class perks such as travel and health care.... So they are going to turn that down if they don't love it.

I think that is some naive thinking.

There is a reason why derozans work ethic wows people.
There is a reason why Kobe and Jordan workouts are legendary.
If it was easy, everyone would do it.

Just like in every profession you're going to have people who do the minimum to get by, people who get turned/guaranteed contracts and stop caring even in the nba.

[imanshumpert]

Jesus Christ McHappy calm down.

[JimiCliff]

If you look at most psychological studies, it'll tell you that giving someone an extrinsic motivator for something that they already enjoy doing doesn't necessarily lead to increased performance. In fact sometimes it can decrease their performance. NBA players for the most part love the game of basketball, so I don't think the effect of a contract-year is as huge as people think it is.

I'd like to see some concrete studies/numbers that actually prove that players play significantly better in contract years before I start using that to discredit them.

I'm pretty sure if we use our brains, we can see that Ariza's improved play this year is likely due to being in a better situation, compared to the first 3 years of the contract he's currently on.

In Houston was mis-cast as a star player and used as a go-to-guy on offense (especially with K-Mart missing 60 games). He has a role player's skill-set, so that definitely hurt his production and efficiency.

In New Orleans, although he did play with CP3 the first year, he was basically their go-to-guy in terms of scoring from the wing spot. Again, Ariza is not that type of player. The next year the team was pretty terrible and he missed a chunk of games due to injury.

2012-13 in Washington, John Wall missed like half the season, Nene missed 20 games and Ariza missed almost 30. While he did play 25mpg, his minutes were inconsistent and he was in and out of the starting lineup due to the emergence of Bradley Beal.

This year, the Wizards were healthy for the most-part and we saw the emergence of John Wall. Nene and Bradley Beal assumed roles as the #2 and #3 options (in whichever order) and Ariza was firmly established in the starting lineup as a 3+D role player. SEVENTY-SIX PERCENT (76%) of Ariza's shots last season were assisted. He basically never had to do anything with the ball and because the Wizards had a lot of other offensive weapons he could truly play as a role player, and was very effective as a result.

I think it's funny how fans like to pretend that a player's situation/the team they're on has no effect on their play, but then everyone looks at the Spurs and Pop and goes "oh they have such a great system and really make players better". Where you play, how well your team plays together and how good your teammates are can have a significant impact on your production.

Now with all that being said I have no interest in signing Ariza lol, because it's likely going to cost 7-8M a season (especially since he currently makes 7.7M).

I've heard that many big men don't enjoy the sport; they only ever played because all the time everyone's like "Hey, you're reaaaaaalllllyyyy tall, play basketball".

[Fully]

Stop looking for quick fixes...

There is no one move/player that is going to be "the answer". Chill, accumulate cheap, flexible assets, don't make boneheaded, short-sighted signings like trading away 1st round picks for Barnes or signing Trevor Ariza to a huge multi-year deal.

It's funny how most fans probably would've done the exact same shit (or worse) that Colangelo did with this team for the past 6 years if they were the GM.

Trading the 20th pick for a 22-year-old Barnes on a rookie deal and signing Ariza to a 4-year/$30 million dollar contract or whatever do not deserve to be in the same category whatsoever.

[stretch]

The NBA is legendary for the "sign and retire" effect..

[Raptorsnz]

Really? You don't think?

And every cop loves law enforcement?
Every teacher loves teaching?
Every assembly line worker loves manufacturing?
Every doctor loves medicine?
Every government worker loves helping citizens?

Nobody does a job to make ends meet?
NBA guys have the talent to get paid in one year what the majority don't make in a lifetime while being afforded first class perks such as travel and health care.... So they are going to turn that down if they don't love it.

I think that is some naive thinking.

There is a reason why derozans work ethic wows people.
There is a reason why Kobe and Jordan workouts are legendary.
If it was easy, everyone would do it.

Just like in every profession you're going to have people who do the minimum to get by, people who get turned/guaranteed contracts and stop caring even in the nba.

We're not talking about the dregs of the NBA here; players like Ariza and Lowry are on the better end of the scale. And the NBA is far, far different to those other professions, teachers and cops aren't competing to be the very best in the world for the most part. Furthermore, considering how difficult and stressful it is, doctors do have a love for medicine, very few (if any) doctors would just be doing it for the money. NBA players have already put in 100s or 1000s of hours just getting into the NBA, they're not going to suddenly stop trying.

Contract year performance may be a thing but thinking that the majority of NBA players just play to get paid is very wrong in my opinion.