G__Deane wrote:
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Everything Gary Trent Jr.
Collapse
X
-
-
TrueTorontoFan wrote: View Post
yes but it would be a shorter contract for the organization.
Comment
-
Kagemusha wrote: View Post
Why would the other team trade for the lesser player?
The main reason is some team may look at him and say... oh he is younger and he fits what we want and like that.
Comment
-
DanH wrote: View Post
I'm not sure I understand. What benefit is there to Gary to signing up to less salary than he thinks he can make for the entire term when he thinks he can get a big raise halfway through?
From a player standpoint he had never gotten remotely close to a big contract at that point in time so sometimes having more guaranteed years literally ONE MORE YEAR is advantageous. I think Bobby wanted more flexibility in case we needed to pivot and in case the team didn't work out this past year but I could be wrong... but yeah. Sometimes consistency is very important and key. like how nice would it be to have otto porter on two years with 3rd year option. rather than just a 1+1?
Why have give Svi a player option. Look sometimes player options make sense not always.Last edited by TrueTorontoFan; Wed Jul 27, 2022, 11:41 AM.
Comment
-
TrueTorontoFan wrote: View Post
look im not giving you the exact numbers here that is your job. my point was perhaps they should have signed him to 3 years straight up... and no I dont think that would have mean a max.. it may have meant a higher dollar value..... or 3 years with a player option.. Is it really that hard to imagine that being the case? I am not saying I misunderstand why the decision was made... what I am saying is I disagree with the decision to give deals that are that short because you really only have two years and by the second year you are already thinking oh snap I have to resign a guy. and you can't offer extensions.... it allows for financial flexibility on one end and yet doesn't on the other.. and to be fair with GTJ coming off his rookie contract what are you really THAT certain he would have gotten the max? I heard nothing of the sort. The dollar amount that was given was around what was suggested he was worth maybe even a bit more at the time.
From a player standpoint he had never gotten remotely close to a big contract at that point in time so sometimes having more guaranteed years literally ONE MORE YEAR is advantageous. I think Bobby wanted more flexibility in case we needed to pivot and in case the team didn't work out this past year but I could be wrong... but yeah. Sometimes consistency is very important and key. like how nice would it be to have otto porter on two years with 3rd year option. rather than just a 1+1?
Why have give Svi a player option. Look sometimes player options make sense not always.
Otto is a completely different scenario. I'd bet they are hoping he declines the player option because they could use the flexibility to re-sign Fred and Gary. Certainly they wouldn't have wanted to give him three years and have him on the books when OG and Pascal and Precious need raises. They may even be able to keep him at the time by re-signing him but they'll have a much better idea then how well the finances work than they do now.
Comment
-
Oh, and they gave Svi a player option so that he would sign with us, instead of another team. I would think that is obvious.
Comment
-
DanH wrote: View Post
So, what evidence do you have that they could have locked Gary up for only a couple million more per year? You know why I find it hard to believe that was on the table? Because they'd have definitely done that if it was on the table! They did pretty much the same thing with Fred when he hit RFA (he didn't get the player option but Gary was never going to pick that up so it's essentially just a two year deal). You see the raise Fred go after his two year deal? You think Fred trades that opportunity in for a few million bucks a year? He'd be silly to. Gary is making the same bet. It's pretty straightforward. The price for term would have been significant. Yes, even for ONE MORE YEAR.
Otto is a completely different scenario. I'd bet they are hoping he declines the player option because they could use the flexibility to re-sign Fred and Gary. Certainly they wouldn't have wanted to give him three years and have him on the books when OG and Pascal and Precious need raises. They may even be able to keep him at the time by re-signing him but they'll have a much better idea then how well the finances work than they do now.
The price tag for one more year may not be what we think it was.. let's say it was 20 million flat for Gary... that is more than a few million unless you are really rounding up that much. it turns out to be a few more million per year.
Comment
-
I was upset by the Gary signing as well.. but learned to live with it. Remember Gary was an RFA.. Masai didn't want some other team to come up with a ridiculous offer, like a 4 year deal, $80M deal with no options and have to match that. So they took the best offer that Gary and his agent came up with which lowered term (a priority for Masai) but also gave Gary an option (ie, power back to the player). They also were able to avoid the tax with that deal, which was also a priority.
The Svi option was dumb. But that's hindsight. He looked good in preseason. Was cutting, shooting 3's.. giving us a look we didn't have. And he just ended up sucking. That's just bad luck.
Comment
-
Dan you seem to totally ignore the possibility mgmt was being cautious with the contract and underestimated trents potential a bit. As good as they are they arent perfect - theres a chance they are kicking themselves for not offering more for longer term. Even masai and webster have regrets Im sure. Again maybe they dont regret but why act like its impossible?
- 1 like
Comment
-
TrueTorontoFan wrote: View Post
seems like you are in a mood of wanting to argue for the sake of it. You make it sound like you know what the negotiations with Gary were. You do not. Even Blake Murphy was surprised at the player option. Again Not sure what the negotiation was personally but I would have liked it if it was a 3 year deal straight up.
The price tag for one more year may not be what we think it was.. let's say it was 20 million flat for Gary... that is more than a few million unless you are really rounding up that much. it turns out to be a few more million per year.
I suspect they would have paid that few million to buy the term they wanted.
I was also surprised at the player option. But that doesn't mean I was assuming they could have easily opted out of it, it means Gary's asking price to avoid the option was higher than I expected.
Again, you seem perfectly happy to ignore the exact same scenario playing out with Fred. Gary's situation is not unique. We don't need to be in the room to understand the reasoning behind the deals that get made.
Comment
-
Yuri Gagarin wrote: View PostDan you seem to totally ignore the possibility mgmt was being cautious with the contract and underestimated trents potential a bit. As good as they are they arent perfect - theres a chance they are kicking themselves for not offering more for longer term. Even masai and webster have regrets Im sure. Again maybe they dont regret but why act like its impossible?
It's not impossible. There's just absolutely no reason to believe that's the case, and every reason to believe the opposite. Not impossible, just not really worth considering as a likely scenario.
Comment
-
DanH wrote: View Post
20 M flat would be... exactly a few million considering his current deal is 17M AAV?
I suspect they would have paid that few million to buy the term they wanted.
I was also surprised at the player option. But that doesn't mean I was assuming they could have easily opted out of it, it means Gary's asking price to avoid the option was higher than I expected.
Again, you seem perfectly happy to ignore the exact same scenario playing out with Fred. Gary's situation is not unique. We don't need to be in the room to understand the reasoning behind the deals that get made.
Comment
Comment