Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Everything Gary Trent Jr.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TrueTorontoFan wrote: View Post

    You were upset with the GTJ signing because of the number or because of the options? Look I have no problem with player options but ideally you have player options that are on contracts that are longer than 2 years.
    At the time, and for a long time I didn't like the number, but I especially didn't like the option. We lost flexibility with that signing at the time of the signing. I still am unsure if Gary is better than Norm.. yet we made that trade. The benefit is Gary's a lot younger, but that only works if he sticks around. And if that requires over paying him to keep him then I'm not sure it would have been worth that flip. Yet we only get to test waters for like 2.5 seasons.. With half of that being in that terrible Tampa season.

    But now I've learned to accept it. We needed Gary's lower number (which I thought was high, but it is what it is) so we could duck the tax last year. In order to get him at that lower starting salary we needed to give him his option and that screwed us a bit with flexibility for future planning. He and his agent wanted a short deal so they could come back with a higher AAV when the cap rose. He's gambling on himself. And I think it will pay off.

    I don't think management wants to give out player options. Chris didn't get one. Khem didn't get one. Thad got a team option. Baynes had a team option and we cut him. Porter got a player option though. It's part of the process of negotiations and leverage. Ideally no player should get a player option, but this is reality.

    Comment


    • planetmars wrote: View Post

      At the time, and for a long time I didn't like the number, but I especially didn't like the option. We lost flexibility with that signing at the time of the signing. I still am unsure if Gary is better than Norm.. yet we made that trade. The benefit is Gary's a lot younger, but that only works if he sticks around. And if that requires over paying him to keep him then I'm not sure it would have been worth that flip. Yet we only get to test waters for like 2.5 seasons.. With half of that being in that terrible Tampa season.

      But now I've learned to accept it. We needed Gary's lower number (which I thought was high, but it is what it is) so we could duck the tax last year. In order to get him at that lower starting salary we needed to give him his option and that screwed us a bit with flexibility for future planning. He and his agent wanted a short deal so they could come back with a higher AAV when the cap rose. He's gambling on himself. And I think it will pay off.

      I don't think management wants to give out player options. Chris didn't get one. Khem didn't get one. Thad got a team option. Baynes had a team option and we cut him. Porter got a player option though. It's part of the process of negotiations and leverage. Ideally no player should get a player option, but this is reality.
      I mean I understand why incoming free agents get one like OPJ soo fair point but I think my issue is.. you have bird rights and can presumably offer greater raises

      Comment


      • TrueTorontoFan wrote: View Post

        I mean I understand why incoming free agents get one like OPJ soo fair point but I think my issue is.. you have bird rights and can presumably offer greater raises
        With full bird rights a player can get 8% raises on a maximum 5 year deal.. with non bird rights, 5% raises on a maximum 4 year deal. So Gary can get more from the Raptors than any other team. But the starting salary is typically based on the current salary cap. Gary and his agent knew at the time of the signing that the cap will go up, and it did. So he'll opt out and will want a bigger/longer contract from the Raptors. And if they don't get it, will try somewhere else. He and his agent fought for the player option so they could opt out early if they wanted to. Raptors obliged to likely keep the AAV low. At least that's my guess. I mean they could have negotiated longer and harder, but then another team could of swooped in and given him the deal he wanted, and then we would have forced to match or walk away.. but possibly sour the relationship in the process even if we matched. We probably didn't want to nickel and dime him.

        Comment


        • TrueTorontoFan wrote: View Post
          I never called you silly just for the sake of it .... and you are using a faulty analogy ... again you are being snide for the sake of it .... and I have no problems standing my ground on this

          If you honestly think it is the same thing then I have no problems explaining why its not. Also the player option thing how often did we give player options when masai was specifically the GM vs now with Bobby as the GM... I specifically said slight differences in approach are plausible... but you want to now exaggerate how much of a difference that can be.
          Hmm. You know Bobby took over as GM in 2017, right?

          And I don't really feel a lot like doing your homework for you considering when I do and pull up a one to one perfect comparison with a recent history contract you blow it off as completely irrelevant, but let's just say that the Raptors hand out a lot of contracts of all sorts, with plenty of player options included, both in the pre-2017 era and the more recent Bobby-as-GM era.
          twitter.com/dhackett1565

          Comment


          • DanH wrote: View Post

            Hmm. You know Bobby took over as GM in 2017, right?

            And I don't really feel a lot like doing your homework for you considering when I do and pull up a one to one perfect comparison with a recent history contract you blow it off as completely irrelevant, but let's just say that the Raptors hand out a lot of contracts of all sorts, with plenty of player options included, both in the pre-2017 era and the more recent Bobby-as-GM era.

            you can't help but condescend at times right? I never said it was irrelevant I said that you saying gtj out of the league was irrelevant and purposefully asinine. come on man. Usually you are better this time I do not believe you are entering this in good faith or even paying attention to what I am saying.
            Last edited by TrueTorontoFan; Wed Jul 27, 2022, 10:28 PM.

            Comment


            • planetmars wrote: View Post

              With full bird rights a player can get 8% raises on a maximum 5 year deal.. with non bird rights, 5% raises on a maximum 4 year deal. So Gary can get more from the Raptors than any other team. But the starting salary is typically based on the current salary cap. Gary and his agent knew at the time of the signing that the cap will go up, and it did. So he'll opt out and will want a bigger/longer contract from the Raptors. And if they don't get it, will try somewhere else. He and his agent fought for the player option so they could opt out early if they wanted to. Raptors obliged to likely keep the AAV low. At least that's my guess. I mean they could have negotiated longer and harder, but then another team could of swooped in and given him the deal he wanted, and then we would have forced to match or walk away.. but possibly sour the relationship in the process even if we matched. We probably didn't want to nickel and dime him.
              Yeah I got that sense maybe I just would rather play a bit more hard ball but that is just me. But I understand

              Comment


              • So just to cap this off

                This is what I said before you tried to go off on me.


                I will bold the key things



                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.


                Your initial response to me included the following:

                what evidence do you have that they could have locked Gary up for only a couple million more per year
                I never suggested any sort of evidence or that I knew more than you or vice versa I said PERHAPS for a reason before you went off on me and acted like you had all authority in those negotiations. You had no more information than I did. I stated my opinion on the matter which I am allowed to have ... I am also allowed to not like something.

                I can throw it right back at you. What evidence do you have that an extra year would have equated to a max contract at that time that is a big jump...



                Regarding Fred you could say that perhaps they had a bigger sample of what he produce as an on-court product do so the gamble was different at least it is possible.. I don't think that is unfair as a plausible scenario.

                Comment


                • TrueTorontoFan wrote: View Post
                  So just to cap this off

                  This is what I said before you tried to go off on me.


                  I will bold the key things







                  Your initial response to me included the following:



                  I never suggested any sort of evidence or that I knew more than you or vice versa I said PERHAPS for a reason before you went off on me and acted like you had all authority in those negotiations. You had no more information than I did. I stated my opinion on the matter which I am allowed to have ... I am also allowed to not like something.

                  I can throw it right back at you. What evidence do you have that an extra year would have equated to a max contract at that time that is a big jump...



                  Regarding Fred you could say that perhaps they had a bigger sample of what he produce as an on-court product do so the gamble was different at least it is possible.. I don't think that is unfair as a plausible scenario.
                  OK so the place we land is a) we don't know for sure exactly what it would have cost for the extra year, and b) the only evidence we have (very strong evidence I would say, with the exact same management team dealing with the exact same player contract/free agency situation) points to the price likely being far higher than his current contract, not just a small amount more.

                  You can say perhaps all you like, but what's the point? Unless you are trying to say something you actually believe, what is your reasoning behind making the point in the first place? The universe is vast and unknowable?

                  It seems to me the argument being made is that our top notch management team screwed up by not paying pennies more to get better long term control. It also seems to me that it's a weird assumption to make that said top notch management team just completely flubbed an obvious play considering their track record, along with the fact that there is a much more plausible explanation at hand.

                  But yeah, perhaps! I guess we can just say anything as long as we say perhaps, and no one can say what we posited doesn't make much sense, because perhaps it does!
                  twitter.com/dhackett1565

                  Comment


                  • TrueTorontoFan wrote: View Post

                    Yeah I got that sense maybe I just would rather play a bit more hard ball but that is just me. But I understand
                    Hmm, hard ball huh? So... you thinking you'd prefer he'd have taken the QO? Wouldn't have to worry about paying him this year at least.
                    twitter.com/dhackett1565

                    Comment


                    • DanH wrote: View Post

                      Hmm, hard ball huh? So... you thinking you'd prefer he'd have taken the QO? Wouldn't have to worry about paying him this year at least.
                      not to that extent but sure let's take the extreme negotiations are just that at the end of the day. I am not sure if you have ever had to negotiate pay or hired someone or been in that position or not. There are also good faith and bad faith negotiations. I never said that.. I just said that is what I preferred they did it isn't out of the realm of possibility but we ultimately don't know what the number would have been. I understand why bobby has done these things I just think as we get closer to setting up our team's core that we attempt to lock up guys for longer than 2 guaranteed years. It makes it easier for several things. I understood the reasoning behind why they did the gamble but at the time I felt like I didn't want the player option ... also I pointed out Blake Murphy was also surprised at the player option as well. I was not surprised at the number.


                      you thinking you'd prefer he'd have taken the QO?.... is that what I said? or are you just running with this because you woke up on the wrong side yesterday/today ? It is ok to read into things incorrectly.

                      You are again using slippery slope to make your point but that is again a faulty analogy. Sometimes it applies and is fair to apply it this time it isn't.

                      Not sure why you felt it was appropriate to try to chastise me for having an opinion that is different than your own yesterday but have the tiniest bit more respect especially when I have largely been respectful towards you throughout the years.
                      Last edited by TrueTorontoFan; Thu Jul 28, 2022, 08:50 AM.

                      Comment


                      • TrueTorontoFan wrote: View Post

                        not to that extent but sure let's take the extreme negotiations are just that at the end of the day. I am not sure if you have ever had to negotiate pay or hired someone or been in that position or not. There are also good faith and bad faith negotiations. I never said that.. I just said that is what I preferred they did it isn't out of the realm of possibility but we ultimately don't know what the number would have been. I understand why bobby has done these things I just think as we get closer to setting up our team's core that we attempt to lock up guys for longer than 2 guaranteed years. It makes it easier for several things. I understood the reasoning behind why they did the gamble but at the time I felt like I didn't want the player option ... also I pointed out Blake Murphy was also surprised at the player option as well. I was not surprised at the number.


                        you thinking you'd prefer he'd have taken the QO?.... is that what I said? or are you just running with this because you woke up on the wrong side yesterday/today ? It is ok to read into things incorrectly.

                        You are again using slippery slope to make your point but that is again a faulty analogy. Sometimes it applies and is fair to apply it this time it isn't.

                        Not sure why you felt it was appropriate to try to chastise me for having an opinion that is different than your own yesterday but have the tiniest bit more respect especially when I have largely been respectful towards you throughout the years.
                        I'm saying I think the Raptors probably signed him to the best deal they could, no?

                        If you were not surprised at the number, but were surprised at the PO, it just means you were wrong about the value (which is fine, I was too). If the PO wasn't there, the number would have been significantly different. That's true of basically all deals with player options. There's no being upset about the PO but being fine with the number, they go hand in hand.

                        When did I chastise you? I pointed out that your suggestion was not very well thought out, and only holds water if you ignore the recent history of players in a similar negotiation position and also assume the worst of our extremely capable front office. Which, I mean, I guess that's your prerogative. Just don't expect no one will point out those things. Or get upset when people do.
                        twitter.com/dhackett1565

                        Comment


                        • DanH wrote: View Post

                          I'm saying I think the Raptors probably signed him to the best deal they could, no?

                          If you were not surprised at the number, but were surprised at the PO, it just means you were wrong about the value (which is fine, I was too). If the PO wasn't there, the number would have been significantly different. That's true of basically all deals with player options. There's no being upset about the PO but being fine with the number, they go hand in hand.

                          When did I chastise you? I pointed out that your suggestion was not very well thought out, and only holds water if you ignore the recent history of players in a similar negotiation position and also assume the worst of our extremely capable front office. Which, I mean, I guess that's your prerogative. Just don't expect no one will point out those things. Or get upset when people do.
                          For the sake of peace, I won't do what I have done to others where I go back and quote every single thing. But you did chastise me and you were snide yesterday. Multiple times. Suggesting that I was effectively stupid multiple times, then used faulty analogies to hammer home your point.. which is actually wrong from a logic and reasoning standpoint and doesn't actually validate your point.. but is also bad faith and suggesting that I am dumb to cast doubt and try and invalidate my argument or my opinion. I can be wrong or an opinion can be incorrect but don't do that.


                          You did it multiple times. If you didn't realize it that is fine if you feel like it go back read some of the things you said and reflect if you don't that is also fine. but you did.


                          In terms of only holding water.. with regards to the Fred thing that is fine. as a point but to then go to the point of saying I assume the worst of our front office... again you are either purposefully being rude and always taking the extreme position to be a jerk because you are making a massive assumption as to where my mind is at because you are exaggerating what I am saying and extrapolating on it as if you are an arbiter of all that is front office negotiations. Yes, I will defend myself on that forever. Also there are times when I have pointed things out like when we discussed gobert offensively and I pointed out the numbers and you just ignored what I said to push your own narrative when I addressed every single point you made.


                          Now in terms of the difference in the number, it depends on what you truly feel means significantly different. That is really where this dispute lies. You feel like without a player option it would have been a max... I feel like it would have been a higher number but not a max. Unless you feel like his performance at that point in his career whether you include the raptors or not was worthy of a max contract and whether or not teams would have had the cap space and were willing to create the cap space to max him. I do not. I don't think that makes it a dumb thought.... I think if it was a 5 year deal or a 4 year deal maybe you might be correct in terms of the "max" number.

                          Norm sign a similar contract with a longer term. I am not fully comparing the two but Norm was arguably a more well-rounded player on both ends of the ball at that time and in his prime. Even factoring in age.. Norm signed a 5 year contract that was slightly less than I thought he would get but not too far off. GTJ I expected a 3 year contract period end of story... again is that so absurd as a thought? Really?!



                          Perhaps the raptors signed him to the best deal they could ... perhaps they signed him close to the best deal they could. There was a lot of moving pieces going on that off season. Like waiting for the dust to settle on the lowry deal for example.... I would have to go back to the timeline of that off season to double check we were supposed to get a pick AND precious out of the deal in response to us taking dragic but then miami held out on the pick.


                          Like I said you can call into question anyone and anything but there is no need to be rude or escalate. I have no problems responding if you do but I would prefer not to.
                          Last edited by TrueTorontoFan; Thu Jul 28, 2022, 10:07 AM.

                          Comment


                          • TrueTorontoFan wrote: View Post

                            For the sake of peace, I won't do what I have done to others where I go back and quote every single thing. But you did chastise me and you were snide yesterday. Multiple times. Suggesting that I was effectively stupid multiple times, then used faulty analogies to hammer home your point.. which is actually wrong from a logic and reasoning standpoint and doesn't actually validate your point.. but is also bad faith and suggesting that I am dumb to cast doubt and try and invalidate my argument or my opinion. I can be wrong or an opinion can be incorrect but don't do that.
                            If you'd like to point out where I called you stupid, please do so. I think the points you were making were silly and I said as much. I don't see an issue with that.

                            Now in terms of the difference in the number, it depends on what you truly feel means significantly different. That is really where this dispute lies. You feel like without a player option it would have been a max... I feel like it would have been a higher number but not a max. Unless you feel like his performance at that point in his career whether you include the raptors or not was worthy of a max contract and whether or not teams would have had the cap space and were willing to create the cap space to max him. I do not. I don't think that makes it a dumb thought.... I think if it was a 5 year deal or a 4 year deal maybe you might be correct in terms of the "max" number.

                            Norm sign a similar contract with a longer term. I am not fully comparing the two but Norm was arguably a more well-rounded player on both ends of the ball at that time and in his prime. Even factoring in age.. Norm signed a 5 year contract that was slightly less than I thought he would get but not too far off. GTJ I expected a 3 year contract period end of story... again is that so absurd as a thought? Really?!
                            You expected a 3 year term. Hey me too! I expected a longer term deal too, or a lower value than they got if it was a shorter term deal. The player option itself I couldn't care less about and I said as much at the time, it's just a two year deal, he's never picking up that option.

                            But the difference is that when I am confronted with a different reality than what I expected, my reaction is to consider why that difference was there, and not simply leap to "well, could have been exactly what I thought but they just decided to do worse I guess." The value being what it was on a short term deal means the overall ask from GTJ's side was much higher than I expected.

                            My point is that the extra years cost a lot. Like, compare him signing the QO (a few million bucks) to him signing a two year deal. It cost the team about 12M AAV to get the second year. The cost for more term will decrease as term increases. But let's say it costs 12M to double the term. Then an extra year would be 6M more than the price paid. So a 3+1 (PO) deal would be 23M AAV. A straight up 3 year deal with no PO insurance would be more. Is that a price you'd want him on the books for for these years? I still think that's probably a low estimate of the cost to get more term (control is valuable and injury insurance is less valuable as you progress in total salary earned) but even with a conservative approach like that, it's not an insignificant difference in price.

                            Perhaps the raptors signed him to the best deal they could ... perhaps they signed him close to the best deal they could. There was a lot of moving pieces going on that off season. Like waiting for the dust to settle on the lowry deal for example.... I would have to go back to the timeline of that off season to double check we were supposed to get a pick AND precious out of the deal in response to us taking dragic but then miami held out on the pick.
                            What does any of this have to do with the Trent negotiation? Unless he had an offer sheet out there, the timing is irrelevant, we were using Bird Rights to sign him. Heck, they signed him before Khem, if they really could have gone a few million more for Trent to buy term they would have done so and just signed Khem for less to stay below the tax, I doubt buying term for him was a higher priority than for Trent. Reality is Trent's third year must simply have been out of their budget regardless of any extra wiggle room they had, which means it was at LEAST the 6M more that I had estimated above.

                            You might be right that they could have squeezed him a little. I seriously doubt it's to the point that they get the third year (agents aren't dumb, they know how the game is played and what path is most valuable to their clients), but maybe his two years are cheaper, say 15M a pop instead of 17M. So now you are approaching UFA with this guy who you squeezed last time. What did you gain? Are you in a better position now than you would be if you did what the Raptors did?
                            twitter.com/dhackett1565

                            Comment


                            • "Why would we assume there was a) some other mystery reason that would drive them to prioritize things differently so naturally they would not have identical outcomes and b) there was also some outside mystery impact from the front office or whatever that coincidentally cancelled out the first mystery reason and ended them in the same location? When the alternative is so... obvious?"


                              "I wish we had that too! It's not silly at all to wish that!

                              It's very silly to assume that was a real potential outcome though."
                              - you yourself said you suspect x y z... so how is that any different than me


                              Then you went on to come up with the most outlandish nonsense to be condescending and snide on purpose



                              "also assume the worst of our extremely capable front office"
                              ~ insinuating something I didn't say which I already pointed out


                              "Hmm, hard ball huh? So... you thinking you'd prefer he'd have taken the QO? Wouldn't have to worry about paying him this year at least."
                              ~again purposefully saying something asinine when you should be moderately aware of what I was saying



                              It seems to me the argument being made is that our top notch management team screwed up by not paying pennies more to get better long term control. It also seems to me that it's a weird assumption to make that said top notch management team just completely flubbed an obvious play considering their track record, along with the fact that there is a much more plausible explanation at hand.

                              Don't assume because you assumed and you were flat out wrong with your assumption here.


                              It isn't you saying something is silly its the fact that you used the most ridiculous thing and tried to treat me like a child.

                              Comment


                              • TrueTorontoFan wrote: View Post
                                "Why would we assume there was a) some other mystery reason that would drive them to prioritize things differently so naturally they would not have identical outcomes and b) there was also some outside mystery impact from the front office or whatever that coincidentally cancelled out the first mystery reason and ended them in the same location? When the alternative is so... obvious?"

                                "I wish we had that too! It's not silly at all to wish that!

                                It's very silly to assume that was a real potential outcome though."
                                - you yourself said you suspect x y z... so how is that any different than me
                                So... I'm going to need you to point out where I'm talking about you and not about your assumptions/points/ideas?

                                Then you went on to come up with the most outlandish nonsense to be condescending and snide on purpose

                                "also assume the worst of our extremely capable front office"
                                ~ insinuating something I didn't say which I already pointed out

                                "Hmm, hard ball huh? So... you thinking you'd prefer he'd have taken the QO? Wouldn't have to worry about paying him this year at least."
                                ~again purposefully saying something asinine when you should be moderately aware of what I was saying
                                This is not something asinine. It is the literal leverage an RFA has in negotiations. They can take the QO, or find an offer sheet. Otherwise they are stuck. Hard ball negotiating means you are pushing the player closer to using their leverage by trying to maximize your own leverage. There is always a risk they actually use theirs!

                                Just because you think the points I am making are intended to make yours seem asinine, doesn't mean that was the intent. I was trying to tell you what your points were implying. Raptors could have gotten a better deal on Trent and didn't for no apparent reason? Well, I'd hardly call that assuming the best of our front office. Playing hard ball? Risking the QO take is exactly what that means. How is this coming across as an attack on you individually? I'm literally just responding to the points you are making by demonstrating their implications.

                                It isn't you saying something is silly its the fact that you used the most ridiculous thing and tried to treat me like a child.
                                I am treating you as an equal, expressing my honest opinion of your (in my honest opinion) ridiculous assertions in this thread.
                                twitter.com/dhackett1565

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X